Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Malacampo-Sin Vs Sin

    Uploaded by

    Carmelita Rejano-Reyes
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage requires active participation by the State as mandated by Article 36 of the Family Code. In this case, while the fiscal filed a manifestation stating there was no collusion, the State did not actively participate in the trial court proceedings. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to ensure a proper trial with participation by the State as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Malacampo-Sin Vs Sin

    Uploaded by

    Carmelita Rejano-Reyes
    51 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage requires active participation by the State as mandated by Article 36 of the Family Code. In this case, while the fiscal filed a manifestation stating there was no collusion, the State did not actively participate in the trial court proceedings. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to ensure a proper trial with participation by the State as required.

    Original Description:

    67

    Original Title

    [67] Malacampo-sin vs Sin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage requires active participation by the State as mandated by Article 36 of the Family Code. In this case, while the fiscal filed a manifestation stating there was no collusion, the State did not actively participate in the trial court proceedings. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to ensure a proper trial with participation by the State as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    51 views1 page

    Malacampo-Sin Vs Sin

    Uploaded by

    Carmelita Rejano-Reyes
    The Supreme Court ruled that a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage requires active participation by the State as mandated by Article 36 of the Family Code. In this case, while the fiscal filed a manifestation stating there was no collusion, the State did not actively participate in the trial court proceedings. As such, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court to ensure a proper trial with participation by the State as required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [67]MalacampoSinvs.

    SinNODECLARATIONOFNULLITY
    G.R.No.137590
    March26,2001
    PARDO,J.:
    Facts: FlorenceandrespondentPhilippT.Sin(hereafterPhilipp),aPortugesecitizen,
    weremarried. FlorencefiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch158,PasigCity,a
    complaintfordeclarationofnullityofmarriageagainstPhilipp. Trialensuedandthe
    partiespresentedtheirrespectivedocumentaryandtestimonialevidence.Throughoutthe
    trial in the lower court, the State did not participate in the proceedings.While the
    Fiscalfiledwiththetrialcourtamanifestation,statingthathefoundnocollusionbetween
    theparties,hedidnotactivelyparticipatetherein.Otherthanenteringhisappearanceat
    certainhearingsofthecase,nothingmorewasheardfromhim.Neitherdidthepresiding
    Judgetakeanysteptoencouragethefiscaltocontributetotheproceedings.
    RTCdismissedthepetition
    CAAffirmeddecisionofRTC
    Issue:whetherornotArticle36shouldbeappliedwhenthereisnoparticipationfromthe
    SolicitorGeneral.
    Held:No. AdeclarationofnullityofmarriageunderArticle36oftheFamilyCode
    requirestheapplicationofproceduralandsubstantiveguidelines.Whilecompliancewith
    theserequirementsmostlydevolvesuponpetitioner,theStateislikewisemandatedto
    activelyinterveneintheprocedure.ShouldtherebenoncompliancebytheStatewithits
    statutoryduty,thereisaneedtoremandthecasetothelowercourtforpropertrial.

    You might also like