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

Petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to respondent Helen Villanueva, alleging his consent was vitiated by fraud as he discovered she was pregnant immediately after the wedding despite having no prior sexual relations. Villanueva left after the ceremony and her whereabouts were unknown until later discovered. After Villanueva was served but failed to answer, Tolentino moved to declare her in default. The respondent Judge granted the default but, invoking Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code, referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila to investigate possible collusion between the parties, directing a report within sixty days.
The Assistant City Fiscal issued a subpoena requiring Tolentino and his counsel to appear with documents. Tolentino’s counsel refused, stating it would unnecessarily expose his evidence. Tolentino later moved to set the case for hearing, arguing the Fiscal had not submitted a report within the period. The respondent Judge denied the motion unless Tolentino submitted to interrogation by the Fiscal. Upon his continued refusal, the court dismissed the complaint. Tolentino’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition to annul the dismissal order and compel the reception of his evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the annulment case for petitioner’s refusal to submit to interrogation by the City Fiscal pursuant to Article 101 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion and affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the unique public interest inherent in marriage annulment cases. Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code expressly prohibit rendering a judgment based on stipulation of facts, confession of judgment, or solely on the plaintiff’s evidence in case of the defendant’s non-appearance. Instead, the law mandates the court to order the prosecuting attorney to investigate for collusion and, if none exists, to intervene to prevent the fabrication of evidence.
This statutory prohibition underscores that marriage is not merely a private contract but a social institution in which the State has a vital and compelling interest. The requirement for fiscal intervention in default situations is a safeguard to preserve the integrity and sanctity of marriage against collusive or fraudulent actions by the parties. Petitioner’s refusal to cooperate with the City Fiscal’s investigation, which is a direct statutory duty imposed to ascertain the absence of collusion, constituted a failure to comply with a mandatory legal step. Consequently, the trial court was legally correct in dismissing the complaint for non-compliance, as it could not proceed to trial without fulfilling this prerequisite condition designed to protect a paramount state interest. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.