GR 137590; (March, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137590; March 26, 2001
Florence Malcampo-Sin, petitioner, vs. Philipp T. Sin, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Florence Malcampo-Sin filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Philipp T. Sin on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. After trial, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Florence elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.
The records revealed that while the prosecuting attorney filed a manifestation stating he found no collusion between the parties, he did not actively participate in the trial proceedings. Beyond entering his appearance, the fiscal did not present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or file any pleadings. The trial judge also did not encourage the fiscal’s active involvement.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s decision is valid despite the lack of active participation by the State, through the prosecuting attorney or fiscal, as mandated by Article 48 of the Family Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case for proper trial. The Court held that the State’s active participation in nullity cases is a mandatory requirement, not a mere formality. Article 48 of the Family Code explicitly orders the court to direct the prosecuting attorney or fiscal to appear on behalf of the State to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
The Court emphasized that the State’s duty to protect marriage as an inviolable institution requires vigilant and zealous participation. This duty encompasses not only defending a valid union but also exposing an invalid one. The fiscal’s pro-forma manifestation, without active examination of witnesses or evidence, constitutes non-compliance with this statutory duty. The protection of marriage cannot be presumed satisfied merely because the petition was dismissed; the integrity of the judicial process itself was compromised. Consequently, the trial was fatally flawed, necessitating a remand for a new trial where the State can properly discharge its role. The Court declined to rule on the factual merits, as this is for the trial court to determine upon re-trial.