Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case Digest Compendium

Case Digest Compendium

Ratings: (0)|Views: 284|Likes:
Published by Cattleya

More info:

Published by: Cattleya on Sep 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





2006 Civil Law Case Digests
PERSONSPRESUMPTIVE DEATHRepublic of the Philippines VS. Bermudez ± LorinoG.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005Facts: Gloria Bermudez and Francisco Lorino were married in June 1987. The wife was unaware that her husband was a habitual drinker with violent attitude and character and had the propensity to go out withhis friends to the point of being unable to work. In 1991 she left him and returned to her parents together with her three children. She went abroad to work for her support her children. From the time she left him,she had no communication with him or his relatives.In 2000, nine years after leaving her husband, Gloria filed a verified petition with the RTC under the ruleson Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law. The lower court issued an order for the publicationof the petition in a newspaper of general circulation.In November 7, 2001, the RTC granted the summary petition. Although the judgment was final andexecutors under the provisions of Act. 247 of the Family Code, the OSG for the Republic of thePhilippines filed a notice of appeal.Issue: Whether or not the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Art41 of the Family Code were duly established.Held: Art. 238 of the Family Code under Title XI Summary Judicial Proceeding in the Family Law, setsthe tenor for cases scoured by these rules, to wit:Art238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all cases provided for in this Code requiring summary court proceeding. Such cases shall be decided in anexpedition¶s manner with out regards technical rules.The judge of the RTC fully complied with the above-cited provision by expeditiously rending judgmentwithin ninety (90) days after the formal offer of evidence by the petitioner.CO- OWNERSHIPBuenaventura VS. CAG.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos. 127449March 31, 2005Facts: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated.The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent null andviolation ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property; ordered petitioner aregular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject to modification as thenecessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother.Petitioner appealed before the CA. While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon respondent¶s motionissued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20, 000.The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.Issue: Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage.
 Held: Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of article 50 in relation to articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of theabsolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case maybe, do not apply. Rather the generalrule applies, which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable to beliquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership.Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the RTC and the CA,to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in saiddistribution.ADOPTION; ILLEGITIMATE CHILDIN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIAG.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005Facts: Honorato B. Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie AstorgaGarcia. He averred that Stephanie was born on June 26, 1994; that Stephanie had been using her mother¶smiddle name and surname; and that he is now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie¶s middle name be changedto Garcia, her mother¶s surname, and that her surname³Garcia´ be changed to ³Catindig´ his surname.The RTC granted the petition for adoption, and ordered that pursuant to article 189 of the Family Code,the minor shall be known as Stephanie Nathy Catindig.Honorato filed a motion for classification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie be allowed to usethe surname of her natural mother (Garcia) as her middle name. The lower court denied petitioner¶smotion for reconsideration holding that there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to usethe surname of his biological mother as his middle name.Issue: Whether or not an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name whenshe is subsequently adopted by her natural father.Held: One of the effects of adoption is that the adopted is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adapter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code and Section 17 of Article V of RA8557.Being a legitimate by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear the surname of her father and her mother. This is consistent with the intention of the members of the Civil Code andFamily Law Committees. In fact, it is a Filipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother shouldimmediately precede the surname of the father.JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF NULLITYCojuangco vs PalmaA.C. No. 2474 June 30, 2005Facts: On June 22, 1982, respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting marriage, wed Maria LuisaCojuangco, the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed on November 1982, a complaint disbarment against respondent. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint.On March 2, 1983, the court referred the case to OSG for investigation and recommendation. The
Assistant Solicitor General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondent¶s counsel.On March 19, 1984 respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on theground that the final actions of his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him andhis wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied.The OSG transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross immoralconduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for a periodof three years.In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a ³firm factual and legalconviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because his firstmarriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity.Issue: Whether or not a subsequent void marriage still needs a judicial declaration of nullity for the purpose of remarriage.Held: Respondents arguments that he was of the ³firm factual and legal conviction when he declared before the HIC authorities that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need judicial declaration of nullity´ cannot exonerate him. In Terre vs Terre, the same defense was raised byrespondent lawyer whose disbarment was also sought. We held:³xxx respondent Jordan Terre, being a lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument rancounter to the prevailing case law of this court which holds that purposes of determining whether a personis legally free to contract a second marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null andvoid an initio is essential. Even if we were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held thatmistaken belief in good faith, the same result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his ownargument, his frist marriage to complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that hissecond marriage must be regarded as bigamous and criminal.MARITAL CONSENTPelayo vs. PerezG.R. No. 141323Facts: David Pelayo through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed a deed of sale and transferred to MelkiPerez two parcel of agricultural lands. Loreza Pelayo and another one whose signature is eligiblewitnesses such execution of deed.Loreza signed only on the third page in the space provided for witnesses, as such, Perez application wasdenied.Perez asked Loreza to sign on the first and should pages of the deed of sale but she refused. He then fileda complaint for specific performance against the Pelayo spouses.The spouses moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground for lack of marital consent as provided byart166 of the Civil Code.Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale was null and viol for lack of marital consent.Held: Under Art 173, in relation to Art166, both of the NCC, W/C was still in effect on January 11, 1988when the deed in question was executed, the lack of marital consent to the disposition of conjugal property does not make the contract viol of initio but Merely violable. Said provisions of law provide:Art 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compass mentis or a spedthriff, or is under civilinterdiction or is confined in a lepresarium, the husband connot alienate or encumber any real propertynot the Longugal property w/o the wife¶s consent. It she refuses nreasonable to give her consent, the court

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Juris Arrest liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->