Emilio Tuason vs CA and Victoria Tuason G.R. No. 116607 10 April 1996 Nature: Petition for review on certiorari onente: Puno !acts:
On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuason !ue to t"e series series of p"#sic p"#sical al a$use a$use a%ainst a%ainst t"e respond respondent ent,, t"e petiti petitione oner&s r&s use of pro"i$ pro"i$ite ited d dru%s, dru%s, co"a$itatin% wit" t"ree women, leavin% t"e con'u%al "ome and %ivin% minimal c"ild support, a$use of con'u%al propert# use and incurrin% of $an( de$ts wit"out t"e respondent&s consent, respondent filed a petition for annulment or declaration of nullit# of t"eir marria%e in 19)9 $efore *T+ *T+ a(ati on t"e %round of ps#c"olo%ical incapacit# and pra#ed for powers of administration to save t"e con'u%al properties from furt"er dissipation Petitioner filed "is Opposition in -pril 199. and was t"ereafter sc"eduled to present "is evidence ev idence on 11 a# 199. +ounsel for petitioner moved for a postponement to ) June, "owever, petitioner failed to appear On 29 June 199., t"e trial court rendered 'ud%ment declarin% t"e nullit# of marria%e and awardin% t"e custod# of common c"ildren to respondent /o appeal was ta(en T"erea T"ereafte fter, r, on 20 eptem$ eptem$er er 199., 199., respon respondent dent filed filed otio otion n for !issol !issoluti ution on of +on'u% +on'u%al al Partne Partners" rs"ip ip of 3ains 3ains and -d'ud -d'udica icatio tion n to Plaint Plaintif ifff of t"e +on'u% +on'u%al al Proper Propertie ties4 s4 w"ic" w"ic" was opposed $# petitioner on 17 Octo$er On t"e same da#, petitioner filed a petitioner from relief of 'ud%ment of t"e 19 June 199. decision T"e trial court denied t"e petition on ) -u%ust 1991 w"ic" was affirmed $# t"e +- on Jul# 1990 5ence, t"is petition for review on certiorari "ssues: 1 6"et"er a petitioner for relief from 'ud%ment is warranted $ecause t"e decision of t"e +ourt is null and void for violation of petitioner&s ri%"t to due process
2 6"et"er in t"e a$sence of t"e petitioner in t"e "earin%, t"e court s"ould "ave ordered a prosecutin% officer to intervene under -rt 0) of t"e amil# +ode Rulin#: ection 2 of *ule 8) of t"e *evised *ules of +ourt provides a final and e:ecutor# 'ud%ment of t"e *T+ ma# $e set aside on t"e %round of fraud, accident, mista(e or e:cusa$le ne%li%ence wit" petitioner s"owin% meritorious cause of action ;n t"e case at $ar, t"e decision of nullit# "ad alread# $ecome final w"en petitioner t"rou%" "is counsel failed to appeal durin% t"e re%lementar# period despite petitioner eventuall# 'ustif#in% "is a$sence due to medical reasons urt"er, t"e failure of t"e counsel to inform petitioner of adverse 'ud%ment to ena$le "im to appeal is an ine:cusa$le ne%li%ence and not a %round for settin% aside a 'ud%ment valid and re%ular on its face imilarl# ine:cusa$le is t"e counsel&s failure failure to notif# t"e court cou rt of petitioner&s confinement Petitioner cannot claim "e was dep rived of due process $# t"e +ourt
Petitioner li(ewise insists "e "as a meritorious defense $# citin% t"e amil# +ode w"ic" provides t"at in actions for annulment of marria%e or le%al separation, t"e prosecutin% officer s"all intervene for t"e state 5e contends t"at w"en "e failed to appear at t"e "earin%, t"e trial court s"ould "ave ordered t"e prosecutin% officer to intervene for t"e state and in. provides t"at a prosecutin% officer s"all intervene if a defendant spouse fails to answer t"e complaint to prevent collision ;t cannot $e applied to t"e case at $ar $ecause t"e petitioner activel# participated in t"e proceedin%s $# filin% several pleadin%s and cross?e:amination of t"e witnesses $eld: T"e petition is denied
