Jocson v. Robles 22 SCRA 521; February 10,1968

JOCSON v. ROBLES

Topic: Voidable Marriages; Procedure in Annulment; No Confession of Judgment

Nature of the case:

Doctrine:

Civil Code

Art. 88. No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.

Art 101 (2) In case of non-appearance of the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.

Facts:

On February 4, 1963, Gloria G. Jocson commenced in the Juvenile 6 Domestic Relations Court an action for the annulment of marriage to Ricardo R. Robles,on the ground that it was bigamous. 

It was alleged in the amended complaint previous to his marriage to plaintiff on May 27, 1958, defendant Robles had contracted a first marriage with Josefina Fausto, who had instituted a criminal action for Bigamy against the same defendant in the CFI of Manila.

In his answer, defendant also assailed the validity of the marriage.  But he charged plaintiffs' parents with having compelled him by force, threat and intimidation, to contract that marriage with her notwithstanding their knowledge that he is a married man; and that said threat and intimidation allegedly persisted until January, 1963 when he was finally able to get away and live apart from the plaintiff.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, on the ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved in the case.  It was claimed that defendant's contention, that his consent to the marriage was secured by force and intimidation employed upon his person by the relatives of plaintiff, was allegedly supported by the joint affidavit of plaintiff's father and brother, dated October 28, 1963, attached to the motion. Plaintiff, on the other hand, submitted the case for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, the court ruling that before it can pass upon plaintiff's prayer for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to defendant, there is necessity for proof that when he contracted marriage with plaintiff, defendant Robles had a previous and subsisting valid marriage. 

The evidentiary requirement to establish these facts, according to the court, was not met in the motion for summary judgment.  Defendant's plea to have his marriage declared as having been brought about by force and intimidation, was also denied, the court finding indications of collusion between the parties in their attempt to secure the nullification of said marriage.  Reconsideration of this order, sought by defendant, was denied on January 18, 1964.  And, when both parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on March 9, 1964, the court directed the dismissal of the action.

Issue:

WON the joint affidavits of the plaintiff’s father and brother constitute a confession of judgment that would merit the annulment of marriage

Ruling:

On the merits, we are satisfied that the Court of Domestic Relations correctly denied the motion for summary judgment in view of the first paragraph of Articles 88 and 101 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, that expressly prohibit the rendition of a decree of annulment of a marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.  The affidavits annexed to the petition for summary judgment practically amount to these methods not countenanced by the Civil Code.

Dispositive:

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, this proceeding is hereby dismissed conformable to Section (a) of Revised Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.