ANCHETA vs.

ANCHETA

G.R. No. 145370 March 4, 2004

Facts:

Petitioner and respondent got married on March 1959. They had eight children. On December
1992, respondent left the conjugal home and abandoned petitioner and their children. On January 1994,
petitioner filed a separate case for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and judicial separation of
property with a plea for support and pendent lite. On April 1994 the parties executed a compromise
agreement. Respondent wanting to marry again filed a declaration of nullity of his marriage with
petitioner on ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner was never served the summons because of
misrepresentation. She was declared in default and the marriage declared void and null. Petitioner now
seeks a new trial and nullification of the decision declaring the marriage void on ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not there is basis for a new trial.

Ruling:

Petitioner was never served the summons; the trial court never gained jurisdiction of her, hence
the decision null and void. Article 48 of the Family Code states that in cases of annulment or declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage the court shall order the appearance of the prosecuting attorney to avoid
collusion and in Rule 18 Section 6 of the Rules of Court, it is expressly stated that there can be no
defaults in actions for annulments of marriage or legal separation. The court just did the opposite as
mandated by the aforementioned provisions of law. Our Constitution is committed to the basic policy of
strengthening the family as a basic social institution. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage
is not a mere contract but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The motion for a
new trial is granted.
ABADILLA vs. TABILIRAN

A.M. No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995

Facts:

Petitioner is the assigned clerk of court at the sala of herein respondent Judge. Respondent
stands charged with gross immorality, deceitful conduct and corruption unbecoming of a Judge. It is
alleged that he has scandalously and publicly cohabited with Priscilla Baybayan during the existence of a
previous marriage, represented himself as single in the marriage contract with Priscilla. He also caused
the registration of his three illegitimate children as legitimate.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of the charges.

Ruling:

Respondent is guilty of gross immorality for having scandalously and openly cohabited with said
Priscilla Baybayan during the existence of his marriage with Teresita Tabiliran. It makes mockery of the
inviolability and sanctity of marriage as a basic social institution. It is not only a civil contract, but is a
new relation, an institution on the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently
every intendment of the law leans towards legalizing matrimony. Respondent Judge is dismissed from
service.