P. 1
Family Code

Family Code

|Views: 22|Likes:
Published by Rachel Ann Rufon

More info:

Published by: Rachel Ann Rufon on Aug 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Rachel Ann Sinel


Page 1 of 6 As the above-quoted provision clearly states, a marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: 1.] at the point of death; 2.] in remote places in accordance with Article 29, or 3.] upon the request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. In this case, there is no pretense that either complainant Beso or her fiancé Yman was at the point of death or in a remote place. Neither was there a sworn written request made by the contracting parties to respondent Judge that the marriage be solemnized outside his chambers or at a place other than his sala. What, in fact, appears on record is that respondent Judge was prompted more by urgency to solemnize the marriage of Beso and Yman because complainant was "an overseas worker, who, respondent realized deserved more than ordinary official attention under present Government policy." Respondent Judge further avers that in solemnizing the marriage in question, "[h]e believed in good faith that by doing so he was leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may not be too expensive and complicated for citizens to get married." Considering that respondents Judge's jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta. Margarita-TaranganPagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the City of Calbayog. Furthermore, from the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exercise extra care in the exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observance extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code which states in no uncertain terms that Art. 23. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties, the original of the marriage contract referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage , to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license and, in proper cases, the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in Article 8. Case: Republic of the Philippines vs. CA and Angelina M. Castro (SECRET MARRIAGE) Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari (RTC  valid, CA not valid) Facts:The case at bench originated from a petition filed by private respondent Angelina M. Castro in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas. As ground therefore, Castro claims that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their marriage. On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage, license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila. Trial court denied the petition but on appeal CA declared the marriage void for lacking the essential requisite of a valid marriage license.

Article 1- Definition of Marriage Marriage is a special contract of a permanent union between a man and woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation except that marriage settlements may fix property relations within the limits provided by the Family Code of the Philippines. Case: Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. Arquero Nature: Administrative Case Facts: On June 1, 1994, Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan for immorality. Complainant alleged that his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a former stenographer of the MTC Brooke’s Point, and respondent unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband and wife at Bancudo Pulot, Brooke’s Point, Palawan as a result of which a girl, Desiree May Irader Arquero, was born to the two on May 21, 1989. Attached to the letter-complaint was the girl’s Baptismal Certificate reflecting the names of respondent and Dedje Irader as her parents Respondent claimed that the immorality charge by the petitioner was just a mere harassment and a product of complainnat’s hatred and jealousy. By respondent’s own admission however, he had an illicit relationship with the petitioner’s wife for 8-9 months. The reason for having this illicit relationship was explained by the respondent that the petitioner and his wife had a “kasunduan” in writing and duly notarized. The Kasunduan indicated that they would sever their marriage ties and allow themselves to live with other possible partner and that no one would go to court to institute any action against the other.

Issue: Whether or not the “Kasunduan” is enough ground to sever the marriage tie.

Ruling: SC ruled that respondent’s justification fails, being an employee of the judiciary, respondent ought to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the marriage between complainant and his wife. Art 1 of the family code provides that marriage is “an inviolable social institution whose nature and consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.” It is an institution of public order and policy, governed by rules established by law which cannot be made inoperative by stipulation of the parties. Respondent is suspended for 6 months. Article 3- Formal Requisites of Marriage/ Authority of Solemnizing Officer Case: Zenaida Beso vs Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan Nature: Administrative Complaint Facts: Zenaida S. Beso charged Judge Juan J. Daguman, Jr., for solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the office of the Local Registrar. The respondent acting as a solemnizing officer solemnized the wedding of the pertitioner and his fiancée in Calbayog City. The judge having jurisdiction only in Sta. Margarita, Samar. After the wedding the husband abandoned the petitioner, Smelling something fishy the petitioner went to the local civil registrar to search for the marriage documents but to no avail her marriage was no registered. Petitioner went to the judge to search for the marriage documents but said judge did not possess the documents, it was in fact within the possession of the husband and he left no copy to the judge. Issue: Whether or not the marriage was valid?

Whether or not the judge was authorized to solemnize the marriage in this case? Whether or not the judge is duty bound to process the papers for registering the marriage?

Ruling: With regard to the solemnization of marriage, Article 7 of the Family Code provides, among others, that Art. 7. Marriage my be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction In relation thereto, Article 8 of the same statute mandates that: Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the counsel-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or

Issue: W/N a valid marriage license was issued? Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior to the celebration of the marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas?

in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or were both parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.

Ruling: The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" — a legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the parents of the former.

and (4) abandonment of her by her husband without justifiable cause for more than one year. On August 4. The parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and lived together for several years producing two offsprings. SC hold that. Manila. However. Later. the action was later amended to a petition for separation of property on the grounds that her husband abandoned her without just cause. the boy ignored her and continued playing with the family computer. and (3) refusal to have sex with her. the fact that only private respondent Castro testified during the trial cannot be held against her. may have been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing officer. on the contrary.Rachel Ann Sinel CIVIL LAW REVIEW Page 2 of 6 "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is marriage. 1992. hence. owned by her husband but operated by his mistress. before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. and punched her in the different parts of her body. because they found out that there was no existing license on record CA reversed the decision due to the fact that it was not substantially proven that there was no marriage license issued. RTC and CA denied the declaration for nullity of the marriage of Filipina and Fernando based on latter’s allegedly psychological incapacity. and released her only when he thought she was dead.The petition is DENIED there being no showing of any reversible error committed by respondent appellate court Case: Jaime Sevilla vs. and if the parties were not what they thus Issue: Whether or not a valid marriage license was issued in accordance with law to the parties herein prior to the celebration of the marriages in question? Held: SC agrees with the ruling of CA the absence of the logbook is not conclusive proof of non-issuance of Marriage License. their preservation is not the concern of the family members alone. She also cites as manifestations of her husband's psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual alcoholism. Case: Filipina Sy vs. thereupon plaintiff obtained a divorce decree and subsequently married in the US It was attested by different witnesses that it was the plaintiff’s family that arranged the marriage. RTC of San Fernando Pampanga and Fernando Sy Nature: Petition for Review on Decision of CA (affirmed RTC in denying for the declaration of nullity of the marriage) Facts: Petitioner Filipina Y. and started spanking him. the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. For failure to answer. At that instance. that the logbook just cannot be found. however. docketed as on the following grounds: (1) repeated physical violence. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric." This jurisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Their union was blessed with two children. as SC believed true in the case at bar. hold themselves out as being. she points out that these critical dates were contained in the documents she submitted before the court. Thus. Persons dwelling together in Surely. he married another individual sometime in 1991. Judgment of CA is affirmed by SC. It took Jaime several years before he filed the petition for declaration of nullity. the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage. While she was talking to her son. CA reversed and declared it valid) Facts: There are two facts given by both the plaintiff and the respondent: There was a Civil Marriage contracted in the City Hall of Manila Thereafter a Religious Ceremony was Conducted in Quezon City Plaintiff averred that he was forced to enter into marriage with the respondent Respondent averred that the plaintiff and took her away from her parents and arranged a wedding for them Plaintiff alleges that he did not procure a marriage license Due to irreconcilable differences. Issue: W/N marriage was valid due to absence of marriage license? Ruling: Petitioner states that though she did not categorically state in her petition for annulment of marriage before the trial court that the incongruity in the dates of the marriage license and the celebration of the marriage itself would lead to the conclusion that her marriage to Fernando was void from the beginning. On February 11. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract. The courts look upon this presumption with great favor. now adults themselves. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is `that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case. There was absolutely no evidence on record to show that there was collusion between private respondent and her husband Cardenas. Consequently. Her husband. Filipina suffered from hematoma and contusions on different parts of her body as a result of the blows inflicted by her husband The Regional Trial Court of Manila.We are not ready to reward petitioner by declaring the nullity of his marriage and give him his freedom and in the process allow him to profit from his own deceit and perfidy. apparent matrimony are presumed. Cardenas. 1987. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good. Filipina filed a petition for legal separation. that they have been living separately for more than one year. The reason is that such is the common order of society. (2) refusal to live with her without fault on her part. Moreover. In fine.' Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio – Always presume marriage. every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Filipina also claimed that her husband started choking her when she fell on the floor. before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando. . upon this petition. performing the marital act only to satisfy himself. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November 15. an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Carmelita Cardenas Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari (RTC: invalid. in her petitions for separation of property and legal separation. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract. Edwin F. It is not to be lightly repelled. but it is a new relation. took the computer away from her son. Filipina testified that one afternoon. Admittedly. RTC declared the marriage void for lack of a marriage license. they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. (3) attempt by respondent against her life. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the said logbook. Petition is Denied. Finally. upon motion of petitioner. the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent Castro sufficiently established the absence of the subject marriage license. Both were then 22 years old. the presumption is of great weight. a spurious marriage license. SC cannot easily accept that absence of the same also means non-existence or falsity of entries therein. It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the appellate court that the marriage between the contracting parties is null and void for lack of a marriage license does not discount the fact that indeed. under the circumstances of the case. Pampanga. choosing to live with his mistress instead. and issued a decree of legal separation. she went to the dental clinic at Tondo. Filipina got mad. It can also mean. Fernando pulled Filipina away from their son. Filipina Yap-Sy contended that the lower courts overlooked the dates of their marriage ceremony and the issuance of a marriage license. purporting to be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig. There were erratic problems with regard to the records because records were not found due to the absence of the handling officer. The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Despite receipt thereof. Our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. solid and happy families. but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her husband. any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. was duly served with notice of the proceedings and a copy of the petition. he chose to ignore the same. to be in fact married. Private respondent cannot be faulted for her husband's lack of interest to participate in the proceedings. In May 1988. CA. Petitioner later filed a new action for legal separation against private respondent. he was properly declared in default. to fetch her son and bring him to San Fernando. She points out that the final judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court in her favor. Filipina alleges that such psychological incapacity of her husband existed from the time of the celebration of their marriage and became manifest thereafter. Pampanga. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition on the grounds of repeated physical violence and sexual infidelity. 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City. in its decision convicted Fernando only of the lesser crime of slight physical injuries. Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. and Fernando's infliction of physical violence on her which led to the conviction of her husband for slight physical injuries are symptoms of psychological incapacity. plaintiff and respondent were separated. (2) sexual infidelity.

1992. Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. The date of issue of the marriage license and marriage certificate. A marriage license is a formal requirement. if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years. which is now moot and academic. Out of their marriage were born herein petitioners. in open court. hence. on November 15. 1986. for all intents and purposes. needs no judicial declaration of nullity. These pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that on the day of the marriage ceremony. This fact was also affirmed by petitioner. The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. From the documents she presented. Carefully reviewing the documents and the pleadings on record. September 17. 1974. appellant was charged with Bigamy The petitioner moved for suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio. Should it be a cohabitation wherein both parties are capacitated to marry each other during the entire five-year continuous period or should it be a cohabitation wherein both parties have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife during the entire five-year continuous period regardless of whether there is a legal impediment to their being lawfully married. appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish. as stated in paragraph three of petitioner's petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court. 1973. on January 22. that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. 1991. Teresita Parish. Cavite. then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. and that we now desire to marry each other. the marriage license was issued on September 17. 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two. Bohol. 1992 and to take effect on February 17. is contained in their marriage contract in her petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court. Otherwise. should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. we held that petitioner has not committed bigamy. Held: The SC found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. His motion was granted. the five-year common-law cohabitation period. This simply means that there was no marriage to begin with. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity that is unbroken. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24. and. Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in Canada. Lucia worked in Singapore and Canada and maintained communication with Lucio. 1993. but subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. 1974.Rachel Ann Sinel CIVIL LAW REVIEW Page 3 of 6 In other words. Under the circumstances of the present case. 1992. the marriage contract shows that the marriage license. is admitted both by petitioner and private respondent. docketed as Civil Case No. In lieu thereof. The date of celebration of their marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes. never married. Sta. thus they were married on August 30. The only issue that needs to be resolved pertains to what nature of cohabitation is contemplated under Article 76 of the Civil Code to warrant the counting of the five year period in order to exempt the future spouses from securing a marriage license. On October 19. 1985. we find that indeed petitioner did not expressly state in her petition before the trial court that there was incongruity between the date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance of their marriage license. accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The complaint seek (sic) among others. we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent. numbered 6237519. the decision had long become final and executory. On September 21. Both agreed to get married. its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. was issued in Carmona. On August 19. reckoned from the date of the declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio to the date of the celebration of the first marriage. Norma Bayadog Facts: Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26. The case was filed under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner's successional rights. which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage. The lower court dismissed the action on the ground that petitioners should have filed the action to declare their father’s marriage to respondent before his death applying by analogy of Article 47 of the FC (which enumerates the time and the persons who could initiate fro annulment of marriage) Issue: Whether or not there was a marriage ceremony validating the marriage of Lucio and Lucia? Issue: Whether or not the second marriage was void ab initio due to the absence of a marriage license? Ruling: There is no dispute that the marriage of petitioners' father to respondent Norma was celebrated without any marriage license. Such act alone. 1993. have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. Further. Case: Engrace Niñal vs. petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978). the accused was. One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11. 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at Catagdaan. The records show that no appeal was taken from the decision of the trial court. which impediment may have either disappeared or intervened sometime during the cohabitation period? Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage. Marriage Ceremony (Article 6) Case: Lucio Morigo y Cacho vs People of the Philippines Nature: Petition for review on certiorari (RTC convicted Lucio of Bigamy guilty beyond reasonable doubt) Facts: Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City. in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for "annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family Code. 1973. Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11. during her direct examination. cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage. the declaration of nullity of accused’s marriage with Lucia. Lucia filed with the Ontario Court (General Division) a petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by the court on January 17. 1974. On October 4. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus. yet. 6020 . Pepito died in a car accident. 1997. under the eyes of the law. Pilar. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license. On February 19. and that such declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage In other words. Instead. In addition. . Tagbilaran City. without the presence of a solemnizing officer. and private respondent's answer admitting it. After their father's death. In 1990. Province of Bohol. Bohol. being unmarried. almost one year after the ceremony took place on November 15. They executed an affidavit stating that "they have attained the age of majority. on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. 1993. neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in Carmona. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their own. there was no marriage license. without more.

such connubial disharmony eventuated in private respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January. Only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration. petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named JamesChua sometime in 1983". The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage contract which Antonietta Chua failed to produce.  The case was filed in court but a Motion to Quash was filed but which was denied. CA. Federal Republic of Germany. seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash (Petitioner being charged of adultery) Facts:  On September 7. Robert Rafson Alonzo Chua who was born in General Santos City on April 28. together with other worthless pieces of evidence. such as a creditor. and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling. with a prayer for a temporary restraining order. Isabella Pilapil Geiling. she has no personality to file the subject motion to dismiss. private respondent. Further. or one who has a claim against the estate. Roberto Rafson Alonzo and Rudyard Pride Alonzo. Hon. the above named minors Robert Rafson Alonzo Chua and Rudyard Pride Alonzo Chua. his children with herein petitioner shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. that he died a bachelor. Manila where their only child. Consequently. the couple begot two illegitimate children. has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was not the offended spouse at the time of the suit. the alleged person to have solemnized the alleged marriage that he has not solemnized such alleged marriage. 1986. support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.  Petitioner. was born on April 20. An interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir. Registration Certificate of Vehicle of the decedent showing that his residence is Cotabato City. he has no more capacity to file such action because said divorce and its effects are recognized in the Philippines insofar as he is concerned. Chua married to Antonietta Garcia. Petitioner through counsels. This cannot be admitted in evidence on the ground of the timely objection of the counsels for petitioner that the best evidence is the original copy or authenticated copy which the movant cannot produce. Japal Guiani and Florita Vallejo. on the other hand. Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City. passports and other similar documents cannot prove marriage especially so when the petitioner has submitted a certification from the Local Civil Registrar concerned that the alleged marriage was not registered and a letter from the judge alleged to have solemnized the marriage that he has not solemnized said alleged marriage.  After about three and a half years of marriage. The marriage started auspiciously enough. and the couple lived together for some time in Malate. Petitioner through counsels. his interest is material and direct. At the hearing of the motion to dismiss on August 19. 1983. The best evidence is a valid marriage contract which the movant failed to produce. Branch XXXII. Transfer Certificates of Title. a petition was filed before the Supreme Court contending that the complainant cannot be qualified as an offended party since he has already obtained a final divorce under his national law prior to the filing of the case. In case of adultery or concubinage. 1977 and Rudyard Pride Alonzo Chua who was born in Davao City on August 30. objected to the admission in evidence of Exhibits "2" through "18" if the purpose is to establish the truth of the alleged marriage between the decedent and Antonietta Garcia. namely. 1980. The best evidence they said is the marriage contract. This is a case regarding the distribution of the property of the late Roberto Chua and the resolution of the designation of the Adminitratrix of his Estate Sometime from 1970 up to late 1981 petitioner lived with Roberto Lim Chua as husband and wife and out of said union they begot two (2) children. namely. They do not object to the admission of said exhibit if the purpose is to show that Davao City was the business residence of the decedent. presented Exhibit "A" through "K" to support her allegation that the decedent was a resident of Cotabato City.  The records show that under German law said court was locally and internationally competent for the divorce proceeding and that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and authorized by the applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction. while still married to said respondent. or more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree. "1" was the xerox copy of the alleged marriage contract between the movant and the petitioner.  On June 27. a German national.On 28 May 1992. 1981  In 1986 Myros left for the US. Roberto Lim Chua lived out of wedlock with private respondent Florita A. and not one that is only indirect or contingent. 21 Ruling: No. passport of the decedent specifying that he was married and his residence was Davao City. 1983 where the same is still pending as Civil Case No. Out of this union. private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that. The petitioner has no standing to be the administrator of the properties of her children with the deceased. Corona Somerah Nature: Special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. The lower court correctly disregarded the photostat copy of the marriage certificate which she presented. 1978. hence.  On January 15. the counsels for petitioner in opposition presented the following: a certification from the Local Civil Registrar concerned that no such marriage contract was ever registered with them . as administrator of the Estate of the late Roberto L.  The custody of the child was granted to petitioner. Vallejo from 1970 up to 1981. PETITION is denied. a letter from Judge Augusto Banzali. Residence Certificates. counsel for movant Antonietta G. a few years later. Under the same considerations and rationale. Among these exhibits are Income Tax Returns filed in Cotabato City from 1968 through 1979 indicating therein that he was single. Issue: Whether the adultery case against the petitioner can prosper even after she and her former Case: Antonietta Garcia VDA De Chua vs. 83-15866. that he begot two illegitimate children with the petitioner as mother. Chua Facts: During his lifetime. 1979. 1992. filed an action for legal separation. Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court. promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. birth certificates of the alleged two illegitimate children of the decedent. It was found that the deceased Roberto Lim Chua died single and without legitimate descendants or ascendants. Hon. Exhibit "2" through "18" consist among others of Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of Roberto L. Since they are already divorced. petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil. The trial court correctly ruled in its 21 August 1992 Order that: Case: Imelda Pilapil vs. Cipriano discovered that Lady Myros had been naturalized as an American citizen  It was in the year 2000 that Cipriano learned from his son that Lady obtained a divorce decree and then remarried  Cipriano thus filed a petition for authority to remarry invoking paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code  The RTC granted the petition . Residence Certificates from 1988 and 1989 issued at Davao City indicating that he was married and was born in Cotabato City. Income Tax Returns for 1990 and 1991 filed in Davao City where the status of the decedent was stated as married. Cipriano Orbecido III Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari regarding the declaration of the capacity of Orbecido III to remarry by RTC Facts:  Cipriano married Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24. Resident Certificates of the decedent issued in Cotabato City.Rachel Ann Sinel CIVIL LAW REVIEW Page 4 of 6 Petitioner was not able to prove her status as the surviving wife of the decedent. being no longer the husband of the petitioner. Case: Republic of the Philippines vs. on January 23. and a resident of Davao City. the complainant must be the offended spouse and by this is meant that the complainant is still married to the accused. a Filipino citizen. Chua presented 18 Exhibits in support of her allegation that she was the lawful wife of the decedent and that the latter resides in Davao City at the time of his death. this being a violation of the best evidence rule. foreign husband had divorce in Germany? Issue: Whether or not petitioner is the legal wife of the deceased? Held: It is clear from the foregoing that the movant failed to establish the truth of her allegation that she was the lawful wife of the decedent.  Hence. Exh. were married in the Federal Republic of Germany. 1986.

00 but the spouses failed to comply with their obligation  petitioner filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money and damages against respondent and his wife before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela  Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner  Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to show that the subject amount was indeed loaned by petitioner to respondent and his wife  SC reversed decision of CA Hence the present recourse where the Solicitor General argues that the subject provision only applies in the case of a valid mixed marriage. had he known that the late Manzano was married. Judge Sanchez is guilty of Gross Ignorance of Law. What he knew was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage. Not all of the requirements of Article 34 (Provision on Legal Ratification of Marital Cohabitation) are present in the case at bar. 4. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other. after obtaining a divorce. respondent and his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo approached him and requested him to advance the amount of US$25. Four children were born out of that marriage. Infanta. The subject provision includes cases involving parties who at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens. In those affidavits. Judge Roque Sanchez. claims in his Comment that when he officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao he did not know that Manzano was legally married. General rule is that payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. respondent spouse are jointly and severally liable in the payment plus damages a. the following requisites must concur: Issue: w/n CA erred in dismissing the case due to lack of evidence to prove that respondent spouses are liable Held: petition GRANTED. as manifested in their joint affidavit. or by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other. It is significant to note that in the affidavits of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge himself. 26 of the FC are both present in the case. If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities. and 5.000. in October 31. the amount of money loaned came from the personal account of the plaintiff Article 121.between a Filipino citizen and an alien Issue: Does par. 1966 in Caloocan City.000. issued a check in the name of a certain Pura Vallejo. 2 of Art. he knew or ought to know that the same was void and bigamous. Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment. 26 of the Family Code apply in the case of Cipriano? Ruling: The twin requisites for the application of Par 2 of Art. having been married to him on May 21. R husband cannot allege as a defense that the amount of US $25. which were allegedly unearthed by a member of his staff upon his instruction. the divorced Filipino spouse. 1989. which would make the subsequent marriage null and void Note: Article 34 of the Family Code: For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply. BILDNER . otherwise. where Lady is naturalized. o acknowledgment of the loan made by respondent wife binds the conjugal partnership since its proceeds redounded to the benefit of the family b.00 was received as his share in the income or profits of the corporation and not as a loan for he is not a stockholder nor an employee of the company c. 3. Issue: Whether the subsequent marriage of the deceased husband is valid? Whether the Judge can be charged of Gross Ignorance of Law? Ruling: No. The respondent must prove to the said divorce as a fact and in accordance with the foreign law. (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been benefited. as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were "separated.Rachel Ann Sinel  CIVIL LAW REVIEW Page 5 of 6 1. seller of the property. 2. Case: Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. For his part. who acknowledged receipt and the amount was in full payment of the property  when petitioner inquired about the status of the loan due. he agreed to solemnize the marriage in question in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code.00 for the purchase of a house and lot  petitioner. The intent of paragraph 2."  Respondent Judge. expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriage. one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. because. respondent Judge filed a Manifestation reiterating his plea for the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside his earlier Comment. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry each other]. Respondent Judge alleges that on the basis of those affidavits. her husband contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. He therein invites the attention of the Court to two separate affidavits of the late Manzano and of Payao. but later on. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage. MRC.  On March 22. respondent spouses pleaded that in they are not yet in the position to settle the obligation  respondent expressed violent resistance to petitioner’s inquiries on the amount to the extent of making various death threats against petitioner  petitioner made a formal demand for the payment of the amount of US$25. When respondent Judge solemnized said marriage. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage MANUEL T. Thus Cipriano. respectively. Facts:  October 1989. he would have advised the latter not to marry again. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage. Case: ILUSORIO vs. The subsequent marriage of the late David Manzano with Luzviminda Payao is null and void. should be allowed to remarry. both David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly stated that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos. ABELARDO. still both of them had legal impediments to be married again because of their previous valid marriages. 1993. they had both left their families and had never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore. even though the two cohabited for seven years. Yes. on the other hand. He then prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for being designed merely to harass him. Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who. thus benefiting the family. and that since their respective marriages had been marked by constant quarrels. o The defendants never denied that the check of US$25k was used to purchase the property and used as family home o Spouses didn’t deny that the same served as their conjugal home.000. is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. respondent. the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. he (Manzano) could be charged with bigamy. According to him. Pangasinan Nature: Administrative Complaint against Judge Sanchez for Gross Ignorance of Law Facts:  Herminia Manzano avers that she was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains.

Philippine Blooming Mills has a personality distinct and separate even though members of the said family happened to be stockholders of said corporate entity.does not render him mentally incapacitated Ilusorio was in sound and alert mind and can still make his own choices Case: AYALA INVESTMENT vs. The debt is clearly a corporate debt and petitioner’s right of recourse against Ching as surety is only to the extent of his corporate stockholdings. respondent-appellant AIDC failed to prove that the debt was contracted by appelleehusband. for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains. Upon AIDC's putting up of an P8M bond  private respondents filed a case of injunction against petitioners alleging that petitioners cannot enforce the judgment against the conjugal partnership levied because the subject loan did not redound to the benefit of the said conjugal partnership  auction sale took place.  To security for the credit line extended to PBM. The burden of proof that the debt was contracted for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains. Facts:  Philippine Blooming Mills (hereinafter referred to as PBM) obtained a P50.000. petitioners. respondent Alfredo Ching. and ABELARDO MAGSAJO.Rachel Ann Sinel Facts:         Held:      CIVIL LAW REVIEW Page 6 of 6 Potenciano Ilusorio a lawyer and a rich business man is married to Erlinda Kalaw and had 6 children Upon his arrival from the US the stayed in Antipolo with Erlinda for 5 months Their children alleged that their mother overdosed him as a result of his deteriorating health Erlinda filed a petition for guardianship over the properties due to his health problems and advanced age After attending a meeting in Baguio city he did not return to their house in Antipolo but instead lived in Makati Erlinda filed a petition for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband and visitation rights CA granted the petition for humanitarian reasons SC reversed the CA’s decision Issue: w/n the CA erred in granting the petition for habeas corpus Writ of habeas corpus should not be issued No court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his wife Evidence show that there was no actual and effective detention or deprivation of Ilusorio that would justify the issuance of the writ Even though he is in medication.300. Executive Vice President of PBM. AIDC being the only bidder. In the case at bar. the lower court issued a writ of execution pending appeal. executed security agreements making himself jointly and severally answerable with PBM's indebtedness to AIDC  PBM failed to pay the loan  AIDC filed a case for sum of money against PBM and respondent-husband Alfredo Ching  Court found PBM and Ching jointly and severally liable  upon motion of AIDC. was issued a Certificate of Sale by petitioner Magsajo  trial court promulgated its decision declaring the sale on execution null and void Issue: w/n respondent court erred in ruling that the conjugal partnership of private respondents is not liable for the obligation by the respondent-husband Held : NOT liable      The loan procured from AIDC was for the advancement and benefit of Philippine Blooming Mills and not for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of the spouses. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES ALFREDO & ENCARNACION CHING. respondents.00 loan from petitioner Ayala Investment and Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as AIDC). CA AYALA INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP. lies with the creditor-party litigant claiming as such. It does not extend to the conjugal partnership of gains of the family of .

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)//-->