Macias v. Macias
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Judge Mariano Joaquin S. Macias, filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against respondent, Margie Corpus Macias, on the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court attempted to serve summons and complaint upon the respondent, but personal service was unsuccessful. Consequently, the court ordered service by publication in a local newspaper. Procedural History: Respondent, through counsel, filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of jurisdiction, failure to resort to barangay conciliation, and the cause of action being barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court denied this motion. Despite the respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration and the fact that she had not yet filed an answer, the trial court proceeded to hear the case ex parte and allowed the petitioner to present evidence. The respondent received notice of the hearing only after it had already occurred. The trial court then issued an order submitting the case for decision. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's orders denying her motion to dismiss and resetting the hearing. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, enjoining further proceedings and later nullifying the trial court's decision for denial of due process. The Petition: Petitioner seeks a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. He argues that the appellate court erred in finding that the trial court deprived the respondent of due process and in nullifying the trial court's hearings and decision. The petitioner contends that the trial court's actions were proper, while the Court of Appeals' ruling was erroneous.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court deprived respondent of due process by conducting ex parte hearings and rendering a decision without awaiting an answer, prosecutor intervention, or resolution of the motion to dismiss/reconsideration. Whether the proceedings and decision are void for grave abuse of discretion, warranting nullification via certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed CA Decision (July 13, 2001) and Resolution (August 30, 2001) are AFFIRMED. The trial court's ex parte hearings on May 2-3, 2001, and Decision dated May 15, 2001, are NULLIFIED for lack of due process. The trial court is ordered to resolve respondent's May 5, 2001 motion for reconsideration after comment/opposition, then proceed per Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Due Process Violation): The trial court blatantly violated due process by not observing rudimentary principles under the Constitution and Rules, proceeding to ex parte hearings without waiting for respondent's motion for reconsideration of the April 19, 2001 denial of motion to dismiss, and absent joinder of issues since no answer was filed. Pursuant to Section 3(e), Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in nullity cases, failure to answer triggers mandatory order for prosecuting attorney to investigate collusion and intervene for the State to prevent fabricated evidence—a condition sine qua non ignored here, rendering proceedings a 'patent nullity.' Even assuming an answer, respondent received hearing notice only on May 8, 2001, post-May 2-3 hearings, making presence impossible and opportunity to be heard illusory. The court violated its own March 7, 2001 order tying merits hearing to answer filing, and disregarded respondent's April 18, 2001 manifestation suspending merits until motion to dismiss resolution. Filing motion to dismiss on April 10 suspended answer period (Rule 16, Sec. 1); denial on April 19 gave residual period under Rule 16, Sec. 6 (balance of Rule 11 period, min. 5 days from service), extendible by reconsideration (Rule 135, Sec. 5), barring premature hearings. This rushed process railroaded defense, confirming CA's finding of ignorance or disregard of Civil Procedure rudiments. Supreme Court precedents like Pinlac v. CA (G.R. No. 91486, January 19, 2001) affirm due process as legal system cornerstone, uncountenanced when transgressed. On Issue 2 (Void Proceedings and Certiorari): Denial of due process imprints nullity on official acts per Uy v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000), where void decisions deprive party of hearing opportunity, assailable anytime directly/collaterally. Trial court's grave abuse—hasty ex parte evidence-taking sans prosecutor report or notice—warrants certiorari relief under Rule 65, as proceedings lacked due process essence, being 'farce' and 'travesty.' Case must be litigated anew per Rules, ensuring prosecutorial safeguard in family cases protecting State's marriage interest.
Main Doctrine
In petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, where the respondent fails to file an answer, the trial court is strictly mandated under Section 3(e), Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to order the prosecuting attorney to investigate for collusion and intervene for the State to ensure evidence is not fabricated, making such report a condition sine qua non before any hearing on the merits. Conducting ex parte proceedings without this intervention constitutes grave abuse of discretion and violates the respondent's fundamental right to due process under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. Even if a motion to dismiss is filed, suspending the period to answer, the court must await resolution with finality (including any motion for reconsideration) and joinder of issues before setting hearings, as premature trials railroad the defense. A decision rendered in such flawed proceedings is void ab initio, assailable via certiorari under Rule 65 at any time, directly or collaterally. The doctrine reinforces that due process demands opportunity to be heard, and procedural shortcuts in family cases, especially nullity grounded on psychological incapacity, cannot prejudice the State's interest in marriage dissolution.