MALCAMPO-SIN VS SIN Florence Malcampo-Sin, petitioner, v. Philip T.

Sin, respondent FACTS Florence and Philip wed in 1987 after a 2-year courtship. In 1994, Florence filed for a declaration of nullity due to psychological incapacity. However, RTC dismissed it due to insufficiency of evidence. In the RTC, Fiscal Jose Danilo C. Jabson (4th Asst. Provincial Prosecutor) filed a manifestation stating that he found no collusion between the parties, but didnt actively participate therein. He didnt do anything aside from appear in certain hearings. Moreover, the judge didnt encourage Fiscal Jabson to contribute more to the proceedings. ISSUE/S WON the prosecuting attorney took steps to prevent collusion between the parties HELD No case remanded back to RTC RATIO The Court invoked FC 481 and the States ultimate duty of protecting the marriage as an inviolable social institution. This duty requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The Court cited the lack of evidence of State participation not just at the RTC level but also on appeal with the CA. Other than the manifestation, the State didnt file any pleading, motion or position paper. In RP vs. Dagdag, the Court characterized the decision of the RTC as prematurely rendered since the investigating prosecutor was not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. This stresses the importance of the participation of the State.

FC 48 In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State and take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. In all cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.