STATE POLICY

Tuazon v. CA

Facts
• Private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed with the RTC a petition for
annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R.Tuason
• Private Respondent alleged that:
1. She and petitioner were married and from this union had two children
2. At the time of marriage, petitioner was already psychologically incapacitated to
comply with his essential marital obligations which manifested afterward and
resulted in violent fights
3. In one of their fights, petitioner inflicted physical injuries on private respondent
4. Petitioner used prohibited drugs, was apprehended, sentenced to one year
suspended penalty, was not rehabilitated
5. Petitioner was a womanizer, left the conjugal home and cohabited with three
women in succession
6. Petitioner gave minimal support to the family
7. Petitioner became a big spender and abused his administration if the conjugal
partnership
• Attempts of reconciliation were made but to no avail because petitioner refused to
reform
• Petitioner argued in defense that he only left the conjugal home to cool off from their
extreme fights, that it is the private respondent who had been taking prohibited drugs
and had a serious affair with another man, and that he was compelled to dispose some
of their conjugal shares because of financial reverses
• Petitioner failed to appear in the hearing, implying that he has waived his right to
present evidence. Case was submitted for decision.
• RTC decision: Declared the nullity of private respondent’s marriage to petitioner and
awarding custody of children to private respondent
• Petitioner filed with trial court a petition for relief from judgment and was denied.
• Petitioner appealed before CA and was denied.

ISSUE
Whether or not in the absence of petitioner in the hearing, the court should have ordered a
prosecuting officer to intervene.

RULING
Petitioner argued that when he failed to to appear at the scheduled hearings, the trial court
should have ordered the prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and inquire as to
the reason for his nonappearance. However in the case at bar, petitioner was not declared
default by the trial court for failure to answer. Non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney is does
not affect the validity of the proceedings.

In all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose
of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is
not fabricated or suppressed. (State Policy) Our Constitution is committed to the
policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. Our family law is
based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution
in which the state is vitally interested. The state can find no stronger anchor than on
good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social and moral
fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family members.