G.R. No. 116607 - Tuason vs. Court of Appeals

Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason (private respondent) filed a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage to Emilio R. Tuason (petitioner) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 149, Makati in 1989.
They were married on June 3, 1972, with two children from the marriage.
Private respondent alleged at the time of the marriage petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations, which manifested later causing violent fights.
Petitioner allegedly inflicted physical injuries on private respondent, leading to a criminal case for physical injuries.
Petitioner was a drug user, apprehended, and sentenced to a one-year suspended penalty, with no rehabilitation.
He was also accused of womanizing, leaving the conjugal home in 1984 to cohabit with three different women, presented one publicly as his wife.
Petitioner allegedly gave minimal financial support, compelling private respondent to accept help from family and friends.
He was also accused of dissipation of conjugal assets and incurring obligations without private respondent’s consent.
Attempts at reconciliation failed due to petitioner’s refusal to reform.
Private respondent prayed for annulment and for powers of administration to protect conjugal property.

Denied all imputations made against him.
Claimed they were a normal married couple for the first ten years, and conflicts only arose in 1982 allegedly due to private respondent’s disrespect.
Petitioner took a “cooling-off” in 1984 after which he left the conjugal home temporarily.
Denied drug use and alleged private respondent was the one using prohibited drugs and having an extramarital affair.
Claimed his exposure in media led to gossip about his relationships with various women.
Acknowledged some financial difficulties and the disposition of some conjugal assets with private respondent’s knowledge.
Petitioned to return to the conjugal home and continue administering conjugal partnership.

Trial commenced on March 30, 1990.
Private respondent presented herself and three other witnesses, including a Canon Law expert; submitted documentary evidence (newspaper articles, drug apprehension records, prior church annulment decree).
Petitioner filed opposition to private respondent’s petition for appointment as administratrix on April 18, 1990.
Petitioner’s evidence reception scheduled May 11, 1990; motion for postponement filed May 8, 1990 due to principal counsel’s absence abroad.
Postponement granted; hearing reset to June 8, 1990.
Petitioner failed to appear on June 8, 1990; court declared waiver of right to present evidence, deemed case submitted on private respondent’s evidence alone.

On June 29, 1990, RTC declared marriage null and void from the beginning on the ground of psychological incapacity under Section 36, Family Code.
Custody of the two children awarded to private respondent.
Decision became final and executory as petitioner did not appeal within the reglementary period.
Private respondent filed motion for dissolution of conjugal partnership September 24, 1990.
Petitioner opposed the motion and filed petition for relief from judgment on October 17, 1990.
RTC denied the petition for relief on August 8, 1991; petitioner appealed.
Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s denial on July 29, 1994, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Whether the petition for relief from judgment was properly filed and meritorious under Rule 38, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether petitioner’s claim of denial of due process for failure to present evidence and for judgment rendered after his non-appearance is justified.
Whether the failure to involve the prosecuting attorney (fiscal) during annulment proceedings contravenes the requirements of the Family Code and affects the validity of the judgment.
Whether the trial court’s factual findings that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated are manifestly erroneous or without basis to annul the marriage.