Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 116607 April 10, 1996

EMILIO R. TUASON, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA VICTORIA L. TUASON, respondents.

PUNO, J.:p
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul and set aside the

became manifest afterward and resulted in violent fights between

decision dated July 29, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.

husband and wife; that in one of their fights, petitioner inflicted physical

37925 denying petitioner's appeal from an order of the Regional Trial

injuries on private respondent which impelled her to file a criminal case

Court, Branch 149, Makati in Civil Case No. 3769.

for physical injuries against him; that petitioner used prohibited drugs,
was apprehended by the authorities and sentenced to a one-year

This case arose from the following facts:

In 1989, private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati a petition for annulment or
declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason. In her
complaint, private respondent alleged that she and petitioner were
married on June 3, 1972 and from this union, begot two children; that at
the time of the marriage, petitioner was already psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations which

suspended penalty and has not been rehabilitated; that petitioner was a
womanizer, and in 1984, he left the conjugal home and cohabited with
three women in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as
his wife; that after he left the conjugal dwelling, petitioner gave minimal
support to the family and even refused to pay for the tuition fees of their
children compelling private respondent to accept donations and dole-outs
from her family and friends; that petitioner likewise became a spendthrift
and abused his administration of the conjugal partnership by alienating

some of their assets and incurring large obligations with banks, credit

likewise submitted documentary evidence consisting of newspaper

card companies

and other financial institutions, without private

articles of her husband's relationship with other women, his apprehension

respondent's consent; that attempts at reconciliation were made but they

by the authorities for illegal possession of drugs; and copies of a prior a

all failed because of petitioner's refusal to reform. In addition to her

church annulment decree. 2 The parties' marriage was clerically annulled by

prayer for annulment of marriage, private respondent prayed for powers

the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimonial which was affirmed by the National

of administration to save the conjugal properties from further dissipation. 1

Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal in 1986. 3

Petitioner answered denying the imputations against him. As affirmative

During presentation of private respondent's evidence, petitioner, on April

defense, he claimed that he and private respondent were a normal

18, 1990, filed his Opposition to private respondent's petition for

married couple during the first ten years of their marriage and actually

appointment as administratrix of the conjugal partnership of gains.

begot two children during this period; that it was only in 1982 that they
began to have serious personal differences when his wife did not accord
the respect and dignity due him as a husband but treated him like
a persona non grata; that due to the "extreme animosities " between
them, he temporarily left the conjugal home for a "cooling-off period" in
1984; that it is private respondent who had been taking prohibited drugs
and had a serious affair with another man; that petitioner's work as owner
and operator of a radio and television station exposed him to malicious

After private respondent rested her case, the trial court scheduled the
reception of petitioner's evidence on May 11, 1990.
On May 8, 1990, two days before the scheduled hearing , a counsel for
petitioner moved for a postponement on the ground that the principal
counsel was out of the country and due to return on the first week of
June. 4 The court granted the motion and reset the hearing to June 8, 1990. 5

gossip linking him to various women in media and the entertainment

On June 8, 1990, petitioner failed to appear. On oral motion of private

world; and that since 1984, he experienced financial reverses in his

respondent, the court declared petitioner to have waived his right to

business and was compelled, with the knowledge of his wife, to dispose

present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision on the

of some of the conjugal shares in exclusive golf and country clubs.

basis of the evidence presented.

Petitioner petitioned the court to allow him to return to the conjugal home
and continue his administration of the conjugal partnership.

On June 29, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity
of private respondent's marriage to petitioner and awarding custody of

After the issues were joined, trial commenced on March 30, 1990. Private

the children to private respondent. The court ruled:

respondent presented four witnesses, namely, herself; Dr. Samuel Wiley,

a Canon Law expert and marriage counselor of both private respondent

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the marriage

and petitioner; Ms. Adelita Prieto, a close friend of the spouses, and Atty.

contracted by Ma. Victoria L. Tuason and Emilio R.

Jose F. Racela IV, private respondent's counsel. Private respondent

Tuason on June 3, 1972 is declared null and void ab

initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part

Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals the order of the trial court

of the defendant under Sec. 36 of the Family Code. Let

denying his petition for relief from judgment. On July 29, 1994, the Court

herein judgment of annulment be recorded in the registry

of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial

of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila where the marriage was

court. 10

contracted and in the registry of Makati, Metro Manila

where the marriage is annulled.

Hence this petition.

The custody of the two (2) legitimate children of the

The threshold issue is whether a petition for relief from judgment is

plaintiff and the defendant is hereby awarded to the

warranted under the circumstances of the case.

plaintiff.
The foregoing judgment is without prejudice to the
application of the other effects of annulment as provided
for under Arts . 50 and 51 of the Family Code of the

We rule in the negative.

A petition for relief from judgment is governed by Rule 38, Section 2 of
the Revised Rules of Court which provides:

Philippines. 6

Sec. 2. Petition to Court of First Instance for relief from

judgment or other proceeding thereof. When a

Counsel for petitioner received a copy of this decision on August 24,

judgment or order is entered, or any other proceeding is

1990. No appeal was taken from the decision.

taken, against a party in a Court of First Instance through

On September 24, 1990, private respondent filed a "Motion for

fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he

Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Adjudication to Plaintiff

may file a petition in such court and in the same cause

of the Conjugal Properties." 7 Petitioner opposed the motion on October 17,

praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set

1990. 8

aside.

Also on the same day, October 17, 1990, petitioner, through new counsel,

Under the rules, a final and executory judgment or order of the Regional

filed with the trial court a petition for relief from judgment of the June 29,

Trial Court may be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or

1990 decision.

excusable negligence. In addition, the petitioner must assert facts

showing that he has a good, substantial and meritorious defense or

The trial court denied the petition on August 8, 1991. 9

cause of action. 11 If the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to hear
and determine the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted
therein. 12

In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioner's marriage to private

did not inform the court of this fact. This led the trial court to order the

respondent had already become final and executory when petitioner

case deemed submitted for decision on the basis of the evidence

failed to appeal during the reglementary period. Petitioner however

presented by the private respondent alone. To compound the negligence

claims that the decision of the trial court was null and void for violation of

of petitioner's counsel, the order of the trial court was never assailed via a

his right to due process. He contends he was denied due process when,

motion for reconsideration.

after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed
him to have waived his right to present evidence and rendered judgment

Clearly, petitioner cannot now claim that he was deprived of due process.

on the basis of the evidence for private respondent. Petitioner justifies his

He may have lost his right to present evidence but he was not denied his

absence at the hearings on the ground that he was then "confined for

day in court. As the record show, petitioner, through counsel, actively

medical and/or rehabilitation reason."

In his affidavit of merit before the

participated in the proceedings below. He filed his answer to the petition,

trial court, he attached a certification by Lt. Col. Plaridel F. Vidal, Director of

cross-examined private respondent's witnesses and even submitted his

the Narcotics Command, Drug Rehabilitation Center which states that on

opposition to private respondent's motion for dissolution of the conjugal

March 27, 1990 petitioner was admitted for treatment of drug dependency at

partnership of gains. 17

13

the Drug Rehabilitation Center at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig,

National

A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy; it is allowed

Police. 14 The records, however, show that the former counsel of petitioner

only in exception cases where there is no other available or adequate

did not inform the trial court of this confinement. And when the court rendered

remedy. When a party has another remedy available or adequate

its decision, the same counsel was out of the country for which reason the

remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may

decision became final and executory as no appeal was taken therefrom.

be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the

Metro

Manila

of

the

Philippine

Constabulary-Integrated

15

trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not
The failure of petitioner's counsel to notify him on time of the adverse

prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing

judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not

such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail himself of this

excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and

petition. 18 Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance

the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment

from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due

resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside

to his own negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be used to revive

a judgment valid and regular on its face.

the right to appeal which had been lost thru inexcusable negligence.

16

19

Similarly inexcusable was the failure of his former counsel to inform the

Petitioner also insists that he has a valid and meritorious defense. He

trial court of petitioner's confinement and medical treatment as the reason

cites the Family Code which provides that in actions for annulment of

for his non-appearance at the scheduled hearings. Petitioner has not

marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting officer should intervene for

given any reason why his former counsel, intentionally or unintentionally,

the state because the law "looks with disfavor upon the haphazard

declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting

declaration of annulment of marriages by default." He contends that when

attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose

he failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, the trial court should have

of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their

ordered the prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and inquire as to

evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the defendant spouse fails to

the reason for his non-appearance. 20

answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but
instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists
between the parties. 23The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the

Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code read as follows:

application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his

Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of

own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and

absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the

fabricated. 24 Our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the

prosecution attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on

family as a basic social institution.

behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion

that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state

between the parties and to take care that evidence is not

is vitally interested. The state can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid

fabricated or suppressed.

and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral

25

Our family law is based on the policy

fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no

members.

judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or

The facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of Articles

confession of judgment.

48 and 60 of the Family Code. For one, petitioner was not declared in
default by the trial court for failure to answer. Petitioner filed his answer to

xxx xxx xxx

the complaint and contested the cause of action alleged by private

Art. 60. No decree of legal separation shall be based

respondent. He actively participated in the proceedings below by filing

upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.

several pleadings and cross-examining the witnesses of private

respondent. It is crystal clear that every stage of the litigation was

In any case, the Court shall order the prosecuting

characterized by a no-holds barred contest and not by collusion.

attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent

collusion between the parties and to take care that the

The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage

evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

and legal separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists

21

between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not suppressed
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught
with the danger of collusion.

22

Hence, in all cases for annulment,

or fabricated. Petitioner's vehement opposition to the annulment

proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the

parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner that evidence was

linking him with various women. These facts, according to petitioner,

suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. Under these

should disprove the ground for annulment of his marriage to petitioner.

circumstances, we are convinced that the non-intervention of a

prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending

Suffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the existence or

parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court.

non-existence of petitioner's psychological incapacity at the time of the

marriage is final and binding on us.

26

Petitioner has not sufficiently shown

Petitioner also refutes the testimonies of private respondent's witnesses,

that the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the testimonies of

particularly Dr. Samuel Wiley and Ms. Adelita Prieto, as biased, incredible

private respondent's witnesses vis-a-vis petitioner's defenses are clearly and

and hearsay. Petitioner alleges that if he were able to present his

manifestly erroneous. 27

evidence, he could have testified that he was not psychologically

incapacitated at the time of the marriage as indicated by the fact that
during their first ten years, he and private respondent lived together with
their children as one normal and happy family, that he continued
supporting his family even after he left the conjugal dwelling and that his
work as owner and operator of a radio and television corporation places
him in the public eye and makes him a good subject for malicious gossip

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied and the decision dated July
29, 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 37925 is affirmed.
Regalado, Romero and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Torres, Jr., J., is on leave.