December 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 161742 : December 08, 2010] DEMOSTHENES FLORES VS. MARISSA GO-FLORES:
[G.R. No. 161742 : December 08, 2010]
DEMOSTHENES FLORES VS. MARISSA GO-FLORES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 December 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 161742 (Demosthenes Flores vs. Marissa Go-Flores). - Petitioner Demosthenes C. Flores and Marissa Go-Flores got married in Catholic church rites in Cebu City on February 14, 1981. On March 31, 1997, respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu City. On August 22, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring, among others, the marriage of respondent and petitioner null and void. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however, limited the controversy on the division of properties acquired by spouses. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision[1] dated September 9, 2003 affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated December 16, 2003.[2] Hence, on March 8, 2004, the petitioner filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Court, in a Resolution dated October 4, 2004, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In compliance therewith, both parties filed their respective memoranda on January 5, 2005.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court noted that throughout the trial in the RTC, the state prosecutor did not participate in the proceedings. Article 48 of the Family Code mandates:
In Republic vs. Dagdag,[4] while the validity of the marriage was upheld, the decision of the trial court was declared "prematurely rendered" because the investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. This stresses the importance of the participation of the State.
WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 2003 and December 16, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 75667 are SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for re-trial.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 161742 (Demosthenes Flores vs. Marissa Go-Flores). - Petitioner Demosthenes C. Flores and Marissa Go-Flores got married in Catholic church rites in Cebu City on February 14, 1981. On March 31, 1997, respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu City. On August 22, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring, among others, the marriage of respondent and petitioner null and void. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however, limited the controversy on the division of properties acquired by spouses. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision[1] dated September 9, 2003 affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated December 16, 2003.[2] Hence, on March 8, 2004, the petitioner filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Court, in a Resolution dated October 4, 2004, gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In compliance therewith, both parties filed their respective memoranda on January 5, 2005.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court noted that throughout the trial in the RTC, the state prosecutor did not participate in the proceedings. Article 48 of the Family Code mandates:
Article 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order (he prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not a mere pro forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.[3]
In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.
In Republic vs. Dagdag,[4] while the validity of the marriage was upheld, the decision of the trial court was declared "prematurely rendered" because the investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. This stresses the importance of the participation of the State.
WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 2003 and December 16, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 75667 are SET ASIDE. Let the case be REMANDED to the trial court for re-trial.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Justices Mario L. Guari�a III and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., rollo, pp. 56-68.
[2] Rollo, p. 145.
[3] Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725, 740.
[4] G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001.
