The Supreme Court ruled that in cases seeking the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity, the State must actively participate to prevent collusion and ensure that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. This active involvement goes beyond mere pro-forma compliance; it requires vigilant and zealous participation from the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General. The absence of such participation can lead to the case being remanded to the lower court for proper trial, as the protection of marriage as an inviolable social institution necessitates both the defense of genuine unions and the exposure of invalid ones. This decision emphasizes the importance of the State’s role in safeguarding the sanctity of marriage by ensuring that the proceedings are fair, thorough, and free from any attempts to deceive the court.

When Silence Isn’t Golden: The State’s Role in Upholding Marital Sanctity

In Florence Malcampo-Sin v. Philipp T. Sin, the Supreme Court addressed the critical role of the State in cases involving the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity, as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code. Florence and Philipp Sin were married on January 4, 1987. Years later, Florence filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, alleging psychological incapacity on Philipp’s part. The trial court dismissed her petition, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals due to insufficiency of evidence. The Supreme Court, however, focused on a procedural lapse: the inadequate participation of the State in the proceedings. The central legal question revolved around the extent of the State’s duty to intervene in such cases to prevent collusion and ensure the veracity of the evidence presented.

The Court emphasized that the State’s role is not merely perfunctory. It stems from the constitutional mandate to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution. Article 48 of the Family Code explicitly states:

“In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed (underscoring ours).

“In the cases referred to in the preceeding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.”

The Court noted that while Fiscal Jose Danilo C. Jabson filed a manifestation stating he found no collusion, he did not actively participate in the trial. The Supreme Court found this insufficient, asserting that the State’s role demands vigilant and zealous participation, not mere pro-forma compliance. This interpretation underscores that the protection of marriage involves both defending genuine unions and exposing invalid ones.

Building on this principle, the Court cited Republic v. Court of Appeals, which detailed the procedural requirements in these cases. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. Crucially, no decision should be rendered unless the Solicitor General issues a certification stating their agreement or opposition to the petition, along with their reasons. This certification serves a function akin to the defensor vinculi, ensuring a thorough examination of the case from the State’s perspective.

In Republic of the Philippines v. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of allowing the investigating prosecutor an opportunity to present controverting evidence before judgment. The Court underscored the necessity of the State’s active participation to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.

The absence of active participation by the State, both at the trial and appellate levels, was a critical factor in the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court stated that it would not rule on the factual disputes, leaving that to the trial court upon re-trial. It also provided guidance on the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, referencing Republic vs. Court of Appeals. These guidelines include:

• The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate the nullity of the marriage. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the marriage’s validity.
• The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision.
• The incapacity must exist at the time of the marriage celebration.
• The incapacity must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
• The illness must be grave enough to disable the party from assuming essential marital obligations.
• The essential marital obligations, as defined in Articles 68-71 and 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code, must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence, and included in the decision.
• Interpretations from the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church should be given great respect, though not controlling.

These guidelines emphasize the stringent requirements for proving psychological incapacity and the importance of expert testimony. They reflect the Court’s intent to uphold the sanctity of marriage while providing a legal avenue for those genuinely incapable of fulfilling marital obligations.

FAQs

What is the main issue in this case?	The main issue is the extent of the State’s duty to participate in cases seeking the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity to prevent collusion and ensure the veracity of the evidence presented.
What is Article 36 of the Family Code?	Article 36 of the Family Code states that a marriage contracted by a party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
What does psychological incapacity mean?	Psychological incapacity refers to a mental condition that prevents a person from understanding or fulfilling the essential obligations of marriage. This condition must exist at the time of the marriage celebration and be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
What is the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in these cases?	The prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered by the Court to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to ensure that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
What is the significance of the Solicitor General’s certification?	The Solicitor General’s certification is crucial because it states their agreement or opposition to the petition, along with their reasons, ensuring a thorough examination of the case from the State’s perspective.
Why was the case remanded to the trial court?	The case was remanded to the trial court because the State did not actively participate in the proceedings, and the Supreme Court deemed this a critical procedural lapse.
What are the guidelines for proving psychological incapacity?	The guidelines require the plaintiff to prove the incapacity existed at the time of marriage, is permanent, and is grave enough to prevent the party from fulfilling marital obligations. Expert evidence, such as from psychiatrists or clinical psychologists, is typically required.
What is the concept of defensor vinculi?	The defensor vinculi is a term from Canon Law referring to an advocate for the bond of marriage, ensuring its validity is upheld unless proven otherwise. The Solicitor General’s role is considered equivalent to this function.

This case underscores the importance of the State’s active involvement in cases concerning the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. By emphasizing the need for vigilant participation from the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court seeks to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted with fairness and integrity. The decision serves as a reminder that the dissolution of marriage is a serious matter that requires careful scrutiny and the active participation of all stakeholders.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Florence Malcampo-Sin v. Philipp T. Sin, G.R. No. 137590, March 26, 2001