G.R. No.

L-23264 March 15, 1974

ROMULO TOLENTINO, petitioner,
vs.
HELEN VILLANUEVA and HONORABLE CORAZON
JULIANO AGRAVA, Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, respondents.

Facts:
Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage
to Helen Villanueva. However, despite the fact that Helen
was served with summons and copy of the complaint, Helen
failed to file a responsive pleading, for which reason Romulo
filed a motion to declare her in default and to set the date for
the presentation of his evidence.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila declared
Helen in default, but, pursuant to the provision of Articles 88
and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, referred the case
to the City Fiscal for investigation to determine whether
collusion exists between the parties.
Romulo submitted to the City Fiscal only a copy of his
complaint.
The fiscal issued a subpoena to Romulos counsel requiring
him to bring Romulo with him as well as copies of other
documents in connection with the annulment case
However, Romulos counsel informed the fiscal that he could
not comply with the subpoena for it will unnecessarily expose
his evidence.
In a motion, Romulo Tolentinos counsel prayed to set the
date for the reception of his evidence on the ground that the
City Fiscal had not submitted a report of his findings despite
the lapse of sixty (60) days when he submitted to the City
Fiscal a copy of the complaint.

Respondent Judge denied the aforesaid motion of Romulo

unless he submits himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal
to enable the latter to report whether or not there is collusion
between the parties.
Respondent Judge dismissed the complaint in view of the fact
that Romulo is not willing to submit himself for interrogation
by the City Fiscal pursuant to the provisions of Article 101 of
the New Civil Code.
Romulo filed a petition to annul said order and to compel the
respondent Judge to receive his evidence.

Issue:
WON the order of the respondent judge dismissing the
complaint due to the fact that the plaintiff is not willing to
submit himself for interrogation by the City Fiscal is valid.

Held:
YES, the order of the respondent judge is valid.
Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
expressly prohibit the rendition of a decision in suits for
annulment of marriage and legal separation based on a
stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment and direct
that in case of non-appearance of defendant, the court shall
order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not
collusion between the parties exists, and if none, said
prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State to prevent
fabrication of evidence for the plaintiff.
Institutions of marriage and of the family are sacred and
therefore are as much the concern of the State as of the
spouses. The State and the public have vital interest in the
maintenance and preservation of these social institutions
against desecration by collusion between the parties or by
fabricated evidence.

The prohibition against annulling a marriage based on the

stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment or by nonappearance of the defendant stresses the fact that marriage
is more than a mere contract between the parties; and for
this reason, when the defendant fails to appear, the law
enjoins the court to direct the prosecuting officer to intervene
for the State in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of
the marital bonds.