Scribd
Upload
317 views1 page

Pacete Vs Carriaga

The defendants failed to file an answer to the plaintiff's complaint for legal separation by the court's deadline due to a misunderstanding in communication. The court then declared the defendants in default and ruled in favor of the plaintiff after hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot be declared in default in an action for legal separation according to the Civil Code and Family Code, which require the court to order a prosecutor to investigate for possible collusion between the parties and intervene on behalf of the state if there is no collusion. The codes emphasize that marriage is more than a contract and mandate a minimum six-month waiting period for legal separation to allow for reconciliation.

Uploaded by

Doms Erodias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
317 views1 page

Pacete Vs Carriaga

The defendants failed to file an answer to the plaintiff's complaint for legal separation by the court's deadline due to a misunderstanding in communication. The court then declared the defendants in default and ruled in favor of the plaintiff after hearings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot be declared in default in an action for legal separation according to the Civil Code and Family Code, which require the court to order a prosecutor to investigate for possible collusion between the parties and intervene on behalf of the state if there is no collusion. The codes emphasize that marriage is more than a contract and mandate a minimum six-month waiting period for legal separation to allow for reconciliation.

Uploaded by

Doms Erodias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Dominador D.

Erodias III
Legal Counseling Friday 7:30-9:30 PM

Enrico L. Pacete, Clarita De La Concepcion, Emelda C. Pacete, Evelina C. Pacete And Eduardo
C. Pacete vs.
Hon. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr. And Concepcion (Conchita) Alanis Pacete
G.R. No. L-53880 March 17, 1994

FACTS: Concepcion Alanis filed a complaint on October 1979, for the Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage between her erstwhile husband Enrico Pacete and one Clarita de la Concepcion, as well
as for legal separation between her and Pacete, accounting and separation of property. She averred
in her complaint that she was married to Pacete on April 1938 and they had a child named
Consuelo; that Pacete subsequently contracted a second marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion
and that she learned of such marriage only on August 1979. Reconciliation between her and Pacete
was impossible since he evidently preferred to continue living with Clarita.
The defendants were each served with summons. They filed an extension within which to file an
answer, which the court partly granted. Due to unwanted misunderstanding, particularly in
communication, the defendants failed to file an answer on the date set by the court. Thereafter, the
plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendants in default, which the court forthwith granted. The
court received plaintiffs’ evidence during the hearings held on February 15, 20, 21, and 22, 1980.
After trial, the court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on March 17, 1980.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners can be declared in default in an action for legal separation
RULING: No. The Civil Code provides that “no decree of legal separation shall be promulgated
upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. In case of non-appearance of the
defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not collusion
between parties exists. If there is collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State
in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.”
The above stated provision calling for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of uncontested
proceedings for legal separation (and of annulment of marriages, under Article 88) is to emphasize
that marriage is more than a mere contract. Article 103 of the Civil Code, now Article 58 of the
Family Code, further mandates that an action for legal separation must “in no case be tried before
six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition,” obviously in order to provide the
parties a “cooling-off” period. In this interim, the court should take steps toward getting the parties
to reconcile.
The significance of the above substantive provisions of the law is further or underscored by the
inclusion of a provision in Rule 18 of the Rules of Court which provides that no defaults in actions
for annulments of marriage or for legal separation. Therefore, “if the defendant in an action for
annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting
attorney to investigate whether or not collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no
collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not
fabricated.”

You might also like