This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
and its medical director, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife’s use !he" said it violated the #$th Amendment, which spea%s of no person shall be deprived of life, libert" without due process of law Issue: &#' (hether appellants have standing to assert constitutional rights of married people) &*' (hether the Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privac" (emanates from the right of liberty which cannot be deprived without due process) Held: 1. +,,C sustained that petitioners have legal standing Loo%ing at the aspect of substantive due process, the" held that the law operates directl" on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their ph"sician’s role in it 2. -arriage is an association, and the courts protect this freedom to associate, as well as the privac" in association, far from governmental intrusion Principle. /Governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionall" sub0ect to state regulation ma" not be achieved b" means which sweep unnecessaril" broadl" and thereb" invade the area of protected freedoms 1 2ence the statute is unconstitutional since it violates the right of marital privac" which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the 3ill of 4ights !ual Protection isenstadt v "aird Facts: 3aird, herein appellee, was convicted for violating -assachusetts law for giving a woman a contraceptive foam at the close of his lecture to students on contraception !hat law ma%es it a felon" to give awa" a drug , medicine instrument, or article for the prevention of contraception except in a case of ph"sicians and pharmacists who do it for married couples Issue: (hether the statute violated the e5ual protection clause of the #$ th Amendment Held: 6es, it violated the #$th Amendment b" providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarl" situated &7ote. ,tate interests here are to deter premarital sex and disease' !he Court said that. 1. !he deterrence of fornication cannot reasonabl" be regarded as the purpose of the statute since it is riddled with exceptions ma%ing contraceptives freel" available for use in premarital sexual relations and its scope and penalt" structure is inconsistent with that purpose, 2. !he protection of public health cannot also be reasonabl" regarded as the putose of the statute since if this were the case, it would be discriminator" and overbroad &!hus, there is no fit between statute and goal'
Facts: 7ita 8illanueva had 9 abortions done b" the same doctor, Antonio Gelu: 2usband ;scar La:o sued Gelu: on the 9 rd abortion see%ing damages CA sustained claim of La:o for P9,<<< Issue: (hether or not the husband can claim damages forn an unborn fetus from the abortionist Held: 7o, he cannot Award for death of a person does not cover unborn fetus because it is still not vested with legal personalit" According to &rticle -., birth determines personalit" =n this case, the fetus does not "et possess a personalit" to spea% of because it was aborted in uterus !he child should be born before the parents can see% an" recover" for damages Action for pecuniar" damages on account of personal in0ur" or death pertains primaril" to the one in0ured !here could be no action for such damages that can be instituted on behalf of the unborn child for the in0uries it received because it lac%ed 0uridical personalit" !he damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover are limited to moral damages, in this case, for the act of the apellant Gelu: to perform the abortion 2owever, moral damages cannot also be recovered because the wife willingl" sought the abortion, and the husband did not further investigate on the causes of the abortion >urthermore, the husband did not seem to have ta%en interest in the administrative and criminal cases against the appellant, but was more concerned in obtaining from the doctor a large mone" pa"ment Conce(t and Classes o) Persons*Civil (ersonalit/ e0tin1uis2ed +/ deat2 3&rt. -2 CC4 Peo(le v Tirol Facts: ?osain -anibpol and his famil" were sleeping when he heard the dog bar% (hen he went to investigate, * persons have alread" come up to their house, as%ing if the" can borrow his land After he gave his consent, ?ulas arrived, flashed the light in his face and punched him (hen he fell, the assailant’s companions &more than #< armed men' came in hac%ed him and his wife and @ children 2is wife died, A %ids ;f the #$ suspects, onl" * were apprehended, Ciriaco 3aldesco and 3onifacio !irol After the" were found guilt" of the crime of murder of the @ persons, the" filed an appeal, during which 3aldesco died Issue: (hether or not 3aldesco b" his death will still be liable for civil damages Held: !he courts dismissed the case insofar as the criminal liabilit" of 3aldesco is concerned 2owever following the doctrine in People vs ,enda"diego, the appeal will be resolved onl" for the purpose of determining his criminal liabilit" which is the basis of the civil liabilit" for which his estate is liable &rt. -2 o) t2e CC states that /Civil personalit" is extinguished b death !he effect of death upon rights and obligations of the deceased is determined b" law, b" contract and b" will 1 ;ne of the effects on rights as is that upon death of a person the sub0ect of legal relations disappears 2ence, criminal liabilit" is extinguished in death 2owever, 3aldesco’s civil liabilit" is not extinguished but remains to be determined which can be recovered from his estate Conce(t and Classes o) Persons*Dou+t re succession5 &rt. -6 CC 7oa!uin v Navarro Facts: !his was a summar" proceeding to resolve the order of the deaths of Boa5uin 7avarro Br &B7' and his mother Angela Boa5uin de 7avarro &AB' (hile the battle for the liberation of -anila was raging, the whole famil" sought refuge at the German
CI#I$ P R%ON&$IT' Conce(t and Classes o) Persons*Un+orn )etus Gelu, v. C&
: PFR Reviewer prepared by rean
Club (hile sta"ing there, the the building was pac%ed with refugees, it was set on fire and the Bapanese were shooting at the fleeing refugees =n tr"ing to escape the 9 daughters were shot dead Angela refused to leave the place while Boa5uin 7avarro Br, wife, &>rancisco Lope:' >L C Boa5uin 7avarro ,r fled Boa5uin 7avarro Br was shot while coming out -oments later, the German Club collapsed CA said that the mother died before the son on the basis that she could have died immediatel" after for a variet" of causes !he importance of the 5uestion whether AB died before B7 or vice versa lies in the fact that it radicall" affects the right of succession of petitioner 4amon Boa5uin an ac%nowledged child of AB and adopted child of the deceased spouses, and respondent Antonio 7avarro son of B7 Br b" first marriage Issue: (hether the mother died before Boa5uin 7avarro Br Held: =n light of the conditions painted b" >L, a fair inference can be arrived at that B7 Br died before his mother !he presumption that AB died before her son was based on speculations, not evidence Gauged b" the doctrine of preponderance of evidence b" which civil cases are decided, this inference should prevail Evidence of survivorship ma" be &#' direct &*' indirect &9' circumstantial or &$' inferential &rt. -6 o) t2e CC spea%s about resolving doubt when * or more persons are called to succeed each other as to which of them died first =n the Civil Code, in the absence of proof, it is presumed that the" died at the same time, and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to another =n the 4ules of Court, in cases of calamit", there is a hierarch" of survivorship Ca(acit/ to &ct and Restrictions T2ereon Presu8(tion o) Ca(acit/ %tandard Oil Co. v. &renas Facts: 8icente 8illanueva signed a bond as suret" for defendant Codina Arenas in favor of plaintiff on December #D, #E<F on April D, #E<E, the plaintiff sued on the bond) 8illanueva did not appear, and was declared in default (hen 0udgment against him was about to be executed, his wife appeared and as%ed that he be relieved from the bond and the 0udgment because he was insane =t appears that he was declared insane b" Bul" *$, #E<E and his wife was appointed as his guardian !he case was reopened and tried and the evidence showed that 8illanueva executed the bond with full understanding of the nature and conse5uences of the act performed b" him although he was suffering from a monomania of great wealth 2e was, therefore, held liable on the bond 2ence appealed to the ,C Issue: (hether or not suffering from monomania of wealth necessaril" warrants the conclusion that the person does not have capacit" to act and whether or not the 8illanueva was actuall" incapable of entering into contract at the time the bond was executed on December #D, #E<F Held: !he ,C affirmed the 0udgment of the CA =t would have been necessar" to show that # such monomania was habitual and constituted a veritable mental perturbation in the patient) * that the bond executed was the result of such monomania, and not the effect of an" other cause, that is, that there was not, or could there have been an" other cause for the contract than the ostentation of wealth and this was purel" an effect of such monomania of wealth) 9 that the monomania existed on the date the bond in 5uestion was executed -onomania of wealth does not necessaril" impl" that the person is incapable of executing a bond such as that in 5uestion Capacit" to act must be supposed to attach to a person who has not previousl" been declared incapable, and such capacit" is presumed to
continue for so long as the contrar" is not proved, that is, at the moment of his acting he was incapable, cra:", insane, or out of his mind) which, in the opinion of the court, has not been proved in this case ))ects o) 9inorit/ on Contracts*8ani)estation o) le1al a1e5 esto((el 9ercado vs s(iritu Facts: !he annulment of a deed of sale was sought on the ground that two &Domingo -ercado and Bosefa -ercado' of the four parties thereto were minors &under the Civil Code', #F and #E "ears old respectivel", on the date the instrument was executed =n the deed of sale however, the minors stated that the" were of legal age at the time the" executed and signed it) and the" made the same manifestation before the notar" public when the document was prepared Issues: 1. (hether it is true that plaintiffs were then minors and therefore incapable of selling their propert", and 2. (hether a person who are reall" and trul" minors, and notwithstanding, manifesting that the" are of legal age, can after the execution of the deed of sale, as% for the annulment of its execution Held: !he courts have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, effected b" minors who have alread" passed the age pf pubert" and adolescence and are near the adult age, when the" pretend to have alread" reached their ma0orit", while in fact, the" have not, is valid, and the" cannot be permitted afterwards to excuse themselves from compliance with the obligation assumed b" them or see% their annulment !his doctrine is entirel" in accord with the provisions of our law on estoppel ))ects o) 9inorit/ on Contracts*NO 8ani)estation o) le1al a1e "a8+alan v 9ara8+a Facts: =sidro 3ambalan, herein plaintiff, who was a minor, executed a deed of sale of a piece of land to the defendant, Genoveva -uerong 3ambalan made no representation as to his age, which was well %nown to the defendant, inasmuch as the latter was the one who purchased the plaintff’s cedula to be used in the ac%nowledgement of the document bfore a notar" public Plaintiff now see%s to annul the sale Issue: (as the sale of the piece of land in 5uestion void or validG Held: !he sale is void as to the plaintiff, because he was a minor as to its execution !he doctrine laid down in -ercado v Espiritu is not applicable in this case, because the plaintiff did not pretend to be of age, and the defendant %new him to be a minor ))ects o) 9inorit/ on Contracts*(arental consent as +indin1 %2ields v Gross Facts: =n #E@D, when she was #< "ears old, appellant 3roo%e ,hields did photographs for a Pla"bo" Press to pose nude in a bathtub 3efore session, ,hields’ mother and legal guardian executed * consents in favor of Gross, photographer and herein appellee, giving the latter the cop"rights =n #EF<, the #E@D photos came out in a >rench maga:ine =n #EF#, ,hields sought compensator" and punitive damages from Gross and an in0unction to permanentl" en0oining Gross from further use of her photographs Issue: (hether or not an infant model ma" disaffirm a prior consent made on her behalf b" her parent
: PFR Reviewer prepared by rean
as testified b" the notar" public who attended to her on Dec F. # /Appellants e"es were ver" big and red with his sight penetrating at the time he was %illing his wife 1 * /2e loo%ed at me he was cra:" because if he was not.Held: 7o.hields was a minor.<<< 7ine &E' da"s later. -iguela Carillo herein petitioner.ister said. =t is the state’s interest to protect the minors from immature decisionHma%ing and preventing unstable marriages 2. as administratrix of her estate. or emancipation !he illegitimac" of the child would onl" be a temporar" situation . does not exempt one from criminal responsibilit" =n the absence of proof that the defendant had lost his reason or became demented after a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime. brought an action for the annulment of the sale of land on the basis of Adriana’s mental incapacit" Issue: (hether or not Adriana was incapacitated to effect a valid sale of land Held: !here is no record of evidence to show that Adriana has been incapacitated before the execution of the deed of sale !hough she was confined in a hospital for cerebral hemorrhage on 7ov #9. #$H#F' !he" raised the issue of the statute impeding the exercise of their libert". therefore incapacitated and hence exempt from criminal liabilit" Held: !he evidence is insufficient to declare him insane !he appellant’s conduct was consistent with the acts of an enraged criminal. * that his mental defect did not affect the capacit" to appreciate the meaning and significance of the transaction Even the insane can have lucid moments Even if Paulino was incapacitated when he executed the contracts. as well as in0uring other persons with a bolo E"ewitnesses testified that the defendant appeared to be insane prior to the commission of the crimes !he" also testified that the appellant was complaining of pains in his head and stomach prior to the %illing !he witnesses’ evidence for insanit" include. #F#E. she was declared mentall" incapacitated b" the court and later on died 2er sister. there was no proof of an" mental abnormalit". =s it the cause of the act in 5uestionG 6. and that parents are more capable to act in their best interests 6. /he loo%ed li%e a madman) cra:" because he would cut an"bod" at random1 $ .tatue merel" dela"s plaintiff’s access to the institution of marriage until the" compl" with the necessar" re5uirements of parental consent. and en0oining the enforcement of a statue re5uiring parental consent of both parents prior to marriage of unemancipated minors &-ales. or moral insanit" which results not from an" disease of the mind. and her mother refused to give consent because she wished to continue receiving welfare benefits for -aria =nterveners Cristina Coe and Pedro Doe also raised the same issues Issue: (hether or not the statute is unconstitutional on the basis of substantive issues &(hether there exists a rational relation between the measure chosen b the 76 legislature and the legitimate state ob0ective' Held: !he statute is upheld 1. the court upheld the stabilit" of commercial transactions ' ))ect o) 9inorit/ on 9arria1e 9oe v Din:ins Facts: Plaintiffs see% 0udgment declaring unconstitutional. 1.aco Facts: Adriana Carillo executed a sale of land 99 hectares to -arcos Bao0aoco for the sum of P$.#F#E !he burden of proof in establishing mental incapacit" is upon an" person who alleges it 2ence. he wouldn’t have %illed his famil"1 9 At the moment of cutting those people.ec D< C $# of the Civil 4ights Law strictl". the transfers were valid !he presumption of mental incapacit" in a person under guardianship for mental derangement ma" be rebutted b" evidence !hat person ma" enter a valid contract provided it is proven. and the" do not want to have their child stigmati:ed as illegitimate Plaintiff -aria got pregnant at #D. !he re5uirement of parental consent ensures that at least # mature person will participate in the decision of a minor to marr" !hough petitioners suggest that the courts are in a better position to 0udge whether a minor is prepared to marr". =s it habitualG Does it cause mental perturbationG 2. the law presumes that the parents possess what the child lac%s in maturit". not of a person with an unsound mind at the time he committed the crimes !he fact that a person acts cra:" is not conclusive that he is insane !he popular meaning of /cra:"1 is not s"non"mous with the legal terms /insane1 !he conduct of the appellant after he was confined in 0ail is not inconsistent with the actions of a sane person ¬ sa"ing a word in the cell. consent was obtained from her parent and legal guardian !he parent’s consent is binding on the minor Construing . cr"ing out loud at night' who has reflected and felt remorse after the commission of the crime !he court further held that mere mental depravit". he could still be compelled through his guardian to execute the : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 3 . since the statute re5uiring such applies onl" to child performers &Note: b" den"ing the appeal. it is presumed that he was in a normal state of mind & Notes: 9Hwa" test of =nsanit".eptember #E9< . Did it exist it the time of the actG' ))ect o) Insanit/ on Contracts Du8a1uin v Re/nolds Facts: Appellant Paulino Dumaguin was placedunder the guardianship of his wife after . he had a morbid mental condition Issue: (hether or not these pieces of evidence are sufficient to declare the accused as insane. #AH#F) >emales. she ma" not because a written consent was obtained from the person 3ecause . the mental capacit" of Adriana must be presumed ))ect o) Insanit/ on Cri8es U% v #a!uilar Facts: Evaristo 8a5uilar was found guilt" of %illing his wife and his daughter. # that he was not insane at the time he executed the contract.ometime in #E9#. appellees =n that "ear Paulino and his brother >ructuoso located #< mining claims which Paulino transferred to 4e"nolds and 2arrison Dumaguin initiated this case b" filing a complaint alleging that the transfers were void claiming mental incapacit" as reason Issue: (hether or not the deeds of transfer were null and void because of Paulino’s mental incapacit" to contract Held: 7o.ubse5uent marriage of the parents legitimi:es the child ))ect o) Insanit/ on Contracts Carillo v 7ao. the parent’s consent is binding on the infant and no words prohibiting disaffirmance are necessar" to effectuate the legislative intent 7either is a prior court approval of the emplo"ment contract for child models is necessar" to validate the contract. he began to wor% for the gold propectors 4e"nolds and 2arrison. !here is no denial of right to marr" !he . /Ithen he pursued meIhe must have been cra:" because he cut me 1 =n prison. but from a perverted condition of the moral s"stem where the person is mentall" sane.
waste. considered included among the exceptions which in matters of prescription. defendant simpl" left a note for plaintiff stating /will have to postpone weddingH m" mother opposes it 2e enplaned to his home Cit" of Caga"an de . * da"s before the wedding.<<< !he C>= dismissed the complaint for no cause of action !he CA set aside the C>= decision Issue: (hether or not the acts of petitioner constitute seduction as contemplated in Art *# Held: 7o =n Art *# !he essential feature is seduction. the" should not !he . as well as to moral and exemplar" damages Budgment affirmed with modifications &on amount of damages' "reac2 o) Pro8ise to 9arr/ di))erent )ro8 %eduction Tan. plaintiff Arceli .antos and defendant Apolinario !an0anco were sweethearts) that in consideration of defendant’s promise marriage. and lessen the estate to such an extent as is li%el" to expose the famil" to want of support. a woman of adult age.iblings >ulgencia and Bose Dino. &*' the action for filing a claim regarding the partition of the estate has alread" prescribed 3eing a deafHmute is not b" itself alone. that in law is more than sexual intercourse or breach of promise to marr". whether b" signs or writing as he deems most satisfactor" Restrictions to Ca(acit/ to &ct*%tate o) "ein1 Dea)<8ute Director o) $ands v &+elardo Facts: !he case revolves around proving the ownership of * parcels of lands. Facts: Pedro -artine: =lustre brought an action against his father >rancisco for a declaration of prodigalit" against him Pedro alleges that his father has been dissipating and s5uandering his estate b" ma%ing donations to his * nd wife.ince prodigalit" is not defined in our law.C ruled that the sub0ect lands are still and should still be owned b" -anuel Libuano and famil" due to the following reasons &#' the preponderance of evidence as to the ownership of the lands are in favor of Libunao. plaintiff 3eatri: (assmer and defendant >rancisco 8ele: applied for a license to contract marriage which was subse5uentl" issued !heir wedding was set . without the concurrence of an" of the incapacities recogni:ed b" law. deaf and dumb persons were considered incompetent. but connoting essentiall" the idea of deceit. and the next da". it ma" be inferred that the acts of prodigalit" must show a morbid state of bind and a disposition to spend.ept $. #ED$ =nvitations were printed and distributed Part" dresses and wedding dresses were prepared A matrimonial bed with accessories was bought 3ridal showers were given and gifts received And then. in connection with the running of the prescriptive period Restrictions to Ca(acit/ to &ct*Prodi1alit/ 9artine. the court ma" ascertain whether he has the re5uisite intelligence. he wired plaintiff. thrift and abilit" in managing the estate 9&RRI&G "reac2 o) Pro8ise to 9arr/ =ass8er v #ele. or to deprive the forced heirs of their undisposable part of the estate !he testimon" of the plaintiff was insufficient to support his allegations against his father !here was no evidence to show his father has been transferring b" sale or mortgage an" propert". Facts: . v 9artine.asota was charged with the crime of rape of a deaf and dumb girl 2e was found guilt" of the crime because of the victim’s testimon" Defendant now posits that the testimon" of the deaf and dumb should not have been accepted b" the court at its full value Issue: (hether or not a deaf and dumb person is considered a competent witness b" the court Held: !here is no merit in the contention of the defendant that deaf and dumb persons are to be considered incompetent witnesses !hough formerl". herein appellants. #ED$. with : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 4 . are granted to incapacitated persons. the da" before the wedding. which will reflect in the cit" record of public deeds !he court found the defendant is far from being prodigal.transfers 2e acted as a trustee for his emplo"ers. and the law will not let him invo%e insanit" to violate his trust Restrictions to Ca(acit/ to &ct*%tate o) "ein1 Dea)<8ute Peo(le v %asota Facts: Defendant >idel .urel" this is not the case of mere breach of promise to marr" -ere breach of promise to marr" is not an actionable wrong 3ut to formall" set a wedding and go through all the preparations publicit". experience and observation have shown conclusivel" that the mere fact that a person is deaf and dumb is not sufficient to 0ustif" the finding that he is incompetent as a witness (hen such a witness is produced. and is still in the full exercise of his faculties and still possess the industr". plaintiff consented to have sexual intercourse with defendant) that these sexual intercourses became regular until plaintiff became pregnant) that defendant refused to marr" plaintiff !he pra"er was for a decree compelling the defendant to recogni:e the unborn child to give her support plus moral and exemplar" damages of P#<<. as well as the administration of his estate !he father denied such allegations.anco v C& Facts: !he essential allegations of the complaint are to the effect that from December #ED@ to December #EDE. onl" to wal% out of it when the matrimon" is about to be solemni:ed is 5uite different !his is contrar" to good customs for which the defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Art *# 7CC Defendant is liable for actual damages.ro. enticement. which were properties sub0ect in a successional litigation . instead he posted that his son was actuall" mismanaging and misappropriating the propert" of the estate Issue: (hat constitutes prodigalit"G Held: . or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has "ielded !he facts stand out that for one whole "ear.n August *9. the" should not be barred b" prescription in filing the case Issue: (hether or not the prescription period in filing the case should be relaxed due to their being deafHmutes Held: 7o. /7othing changed rest assured returning soon 1 3ut he never returned and was never heard from again Issue: (hether or not breach of promise to marr" is actionable Held: . the plaintiff. are contesting the ownership of sub0ect properties in the possession of -anuel Libunao. herein claimant and appellee Appellants further claim that as deafHmutes. and the 0udge will allow the witness to adopt such mode of communicating his ideas. maintained intimate sexual relations with defendant.
eptember *E.ebastian Graham herein plaintiff is suing his former wife. this court held that the extra0udicial dissolution of the con0ugal partnership during the marriage without 0udicial approval /secured beforehand1 was void (hile adulter" and concubinage are private crimes. and ma" add that the action for breach of promise to marr" has no standing for civil law. respondent law"er pointed to his diploma which was hanging on the wall and said.he has continued to use and en0o" her maiden name.a Facts: 4espondent Budge Ale0andro -endo:a prepared a document extra0udiciall" li5uidating the con0ugal partnership of . #E9# !he" lived together for one "ear until C.uch conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction Plainl" there is here voluntariness and mutual passion =f she had been deceived. to which he agreed Issue: (hether the contract or written agreement was valid Held: 7o. and in absence of an" fraudulent or legall" impermissible intent.repeated acts of intercourse . professionall".aturnino . married another woman !his action is for damages for breach of promise and recognition of the child Issue: (hether de Besus can claim damages for breach of promise to marr" Held: !he trial court was right in refusing to give damages to de Besus for supposed breach of contract . the right to marr") the right of association) and the right to free exercise of religion Appellants also contend that the refusal sub0ects them to cruel and unusual punishment Issue: (hether or not * women can marr" each other Held: 7o. sociall" and for all purposes !ennessee had a stateHwide compulsor" 4egistration Law . the contract is not valid As a result of the marriage contract. may elect to retain her own surname or she ma" adopt the surname of her husband and the choice is hers . #E@9 she married Dent" Cheatham.ubse5uent to her marriage.' courted Antonia de Besus who was *< "ears old Amorous relations resulted in de Besus giving birth to a bab" bo" on Bune #@. is contrar" to public polic" C2allen1es to Traditional 9odel*C2an1in1 %tatus o) =o8en Dunn v Paler8o Facts: 4ose Palermo is a 7ashville law"er . and unless until changed in prescribed manner.o long as a person’s name remains constant and consistent. inter alia. she would not have again "ield to his embraces. also a 7ashville law"er .ne condition of the li5uidation was that either spouse would withdraw the complaint for adulter" or concubinage which each had filed against the other and the" waived their right to prosecute each other for whatever acts of infidelit" either one would commit against the other !his document was also ac%nowledged before him as /Cit" Budge and 7otar" Public Ex . the husband has the dut" or obligation to support and live with his wife. as defined b" law. Palermo. her name was purged from the registration list 2ence this action Issue: =s it mandator" that a married woman assume her husband’s nameG Held: 7o (oman upon marriage. the" shall remain crimes. she lodged with the 4egistrar a change of address form listing her name as Palermo .he was advised that she was re5uired to register anew under the surname of her husband. -argrethe. were not issued a license to marr" each other in the state of ?entuc%" !he" contend that the failure of the cler% to issue the marriage license deprived them of three &9' basic constitutional rights."5uia &C. namel". state has no legitimate concern as to name used C2allen1es to Traditional 9odel*"/ Private Contract: =2en #oid> In Re %antia1o Facts: 4espondent law"er prepared for a married couple &who had bee separated for E "ears' a document wherein it was stipulated. /= would tear that off if this document turns out not to be valid 1 !he husband remarried Issue: (hether . or have her name purged from the registration list +pon her refusal to so register.elanova and his wife . apart from the right to recover mone" or propert" advanced b" the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise !his case exhibits none of the features necessar" to maintain such action 9arria1e 9odels*Traditional 9arria1e Gra2a8 v Gra2a8 Facts: Bames . and the wife must contribute her services and societ" to the husband and follow him in his choice of domicile >urthermore. herein appellants. that the" authori:e each other to marr" again.uch promise is not satisfactoril" proved. herein defendant to recover on a written agreement whereb" defendant agreed to pa" the plaintiff a certain some of mone" !he couple had once agreed that -argrethe would pa" Bames J9<< each month until the parties no longer desire the agreement !he reason wh" such agreement exists is that his wife as%ed him to 5uit his 0ob so that he can accompan" her to his travels.n . and a contract legali:ing their commission is contrar" to law and conse5uentl" not 0udiciall" recogni:able 4espondent is severel" censured ssential Re!uisites o) 9arria1e*$e1al Ca(acit/ 8ale and )e8ale 7ones v Halla2an Facts: -ar0orie Bones and her female partner.elanova charged Budge -endo:a with gross ignorance of the law Issue: (hether or not the document is valid Held: !he agreement is void because it contravenes the provisions of paragraphs &#' and &*' of Art **# of 7CC Even before the enactment of the 7CC.fficio 1 .antiago should be disbarred from the practice of law Held: !he respondent was suspended from practice of law for one "ear for having been ignorant of the law or being careless for giving legal advice b" tr"ing to bea% the marriage through a private contract !he document is contrar" to law. at the same time renouncing whatever right of action one might have against the other (hen the husband in5uired if there could be no trouble. good morals and public order -arriage is an inviolable social institution that cannot be made inoperative b" the stipulations of the parties C2allen1es to Traditional 9odel*"/ Private Contract: =2en #oid> %elanova v 9endo. the" cannot -arriage has alwa"s been considered as the union of a man and a woman =t appears that appellants are prevented from marr"ing not b" the : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 5 . a private agreement between persons married or about to be married whereb" the" attempt to change the essential obligations of the marriage contract. much less for one "ear 2ence no case is made under Art *# Decision reversed "reac2 o) Pro8ise to 9arr/*can clai8 da8a1es> De 7esus v %/!uia Facts: Cesar .
cciano for gross ignorance of the law . oral or even b" implication Eigenmann’s mother was present at the time of the celebration of marriage and did not ob0ect thereto. that is. among others. he procured a marriage ceremon" to be celebrated on the same da" between himself and the girl. as well as before.olemni:ation outside the 0udge’s territorial 0urisdiction will not invalidate the marriage (hat results is an irregularit" in the formal re5uisites of a valid marriage 4espondent 0udge.statute of ?entuc%" but rather b" their own incapacit" of entering into marriage as the term is defined A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of entering is a nullit" Definition of marriage sa"s.ctober *@.in1 O))icer 37urisdiction4 Navarro v Do8a1to/ Facts: Budge 2ernando Domagto" solemni:ed the marriage between >loriano .robia 3ut then since the marriage was a nullit".n Bune *$.antiago After this was over. #EE$ 2e has 0urisdiction in -C!C of . acted in gross ignorance of the law and was therefore held administrativel" liable K suspension of A months For8al Re!uisites*&ut2orit/ o) %ole8ni. and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer Budgment affirmed ssential Re!uisites o) 9arria1e*Consent o+tained t2rou12 Fraud> "uccat v 9an1onon de "uccat Facts: Godofredo married Luida with the belief that she was a virgin FE da"s after the marriage celebration. (hether or not there was parental consent. /union of a man and a woman 1 !hus. an #F "ear old girl who is a niece of his deceased wife.robia was not recogni:ed 4espondent explained that he solemni:ed the marriage out of human compassion and because the parties promised to present their license the afternoon after the wedding Issue: =s the respondent 0udge administrativel" liable Held: 6es 2e was faulted for solemni:ing a marriage without the re5uisite marriage license and for exceeding his territorial 0urisdiction 2e was fined PD<<< and was given a stern warning b" the . and whether this will render the marriage void Held: -arriage ma" be solemni:ed b".in1 O))icer*&rt A and B5 FC &raCes v Occiano Facts: Petitioner -ercedita AraLes charged respondent 0udge . having represented himself to be over *D "ears of age &. the child was born less than 9 months after the celebration of marriage (e refuse to annul the marriage for the reason that the woman was at an advanced age of pregnanc" at the time of the marriage and such condition must have been patent to the husband ssential Re!uisites* ))ect o) )ailure to 1et Parental Consent i1en8ann v Guerra Facts: Eduardo Eigenmann married -ar"den Guerra on 7ovember D.antiago as%ed >elicita -asilang. and simpl" director" to the cler% who issues the license. but the marriage was solemni:ed in Dapa which does not fall under his 0urisdictional area -a"or 4odolfo 7avarro filed this administrative complaint Issue: (hether or not respondent 0udge is held liable. b" citing Art F of the >C as defense for the exercise of his misplaced authorit".robia without the re5uisite marriage license and outside his territorial 0urisdiction Couple lived together as husband and wife until the death of . #E@< Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in a civil ceremon" performed b" Budge Pablo -alvar -arriage was celebrated without %nowledge of Castro’s parents Defendant Cardenas was personall" responsible for the processing of the documents. and the lac% of such written and ac%nowledged consent does not affect the validit" of marriage ' For8al Re!uisites*&ut2orit/ o) %ole8ni. (hether or not the marriage was void Held: !he offense of rape had been committed and the marriage ceremon" was a mere ruse in which appellant hoped to escape from the criminal conse5uences of the act !he manner in which appellant dealt with the girl after marriage. Consent ma" be given in an" form be it written. Luida gave birth 2er husband Godofredo herein appellant filed for annulment on the ground that she concealed her nonHvirginit" Issue: (hether or not marriage was valid Held: (here there has been no misrepresentation or fraud. in the court’s opinion.alvador .C.uma"lo and Gemma del 4osario outside his court’s 0urisdiction on . since there is no constitutional sanction which protects the right of marriage between persons of the same sex ssential Re!uisites o) 9arria1e*$e1al Ca(acit/*%a8e %e0 8arria1e ?Goodrid1e v De(art8ent o) Pu+lic Healt2 and "a:er v %tate@ ssential Re!uisites o) 9arria1e*Consent Freel/ Given Peo(le v %antia1o Facts: >elipe . he gave the girl a few pesos and sent her home 2e was charged and convicted with rape =ssue. #ED@ . the marriage cannot be annulled 2ere. to accompan" him across the river to do some errand 2e raped her After the accused had consummated the crime of rape.ta -onicaH3urgos. !he re5uirement of written and ac%nowledged consent has been held to be applicable onl" to the issuance of the license. when the husband at the time of the marriage %new that the wife was pregnant. there is not constitutional issue involved.n August *E. an" incumbent member of the 0udiciar" within the court’s 0urisdiction1 .cciano solemni:ed the marriage between herein petitioner and the late Dominador . that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt more severel" !he absence of a marriage license made the marriage void For8al Re!uisites*9arria1e $icense Re(u+lic v C& Facts: . the absent of which could render the marriage void 2eld.ome 7otes. including the procurement of marriage license : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 6 . officiated b" a Protestant minister in the house of his uncle Agaton . #EDE Eigenmann herein plaintiff appellant filed an action to annul his marriage with Guerra on the ground that he was between ages #AH*< at that time and his mother did not give her consent to the marriage =ssue. such that consent can be gleaned from such act (Effect of Minority on Marriage) Eigenmann is also estopped from asserting that he was a minor at the time of the marriage celebration. petitioner’s right to inherit the vast propert" left b" . shows that he had no bona fide intention of ma%ing her his wife. and the ceremon" cannot be considered binding on her because of duress !he marriage was therefore void for lac% of essential consent.
#EE9 she and -arcelo -oreno were married before Budge 3ernabe .he found out that she could not get her marriage contract because the . (hether proof of absence of marriage license presented b" Castro as evidence is sufficient to render marriage void 2eld. that the" ta%e each other as husband and wife 1 C>= found for the defendant Issue: (as there a marriage between -artine: and !anG Held: 6es 1. all re5uisites for its validit" are present For8al Re!uisites*9arria1e $icense %e1uisa+al v Ca+rera Facts: Abdon . before the BP.imilar issues in particular with Moreno case' For8al Re!uisites*Cere8on/ 9artine. stating that the" appeared before the 0ustice and ratified all the contents of the instrument Plaintiff -artine: commenced this action for the cancellation of the certificate of marriage and for damages !he plaintiff claimed that what too% place before the Bustice of the Peace &BP' did not constitute a legal marriage under General . but homicide =t is therefore relevant and important to resolve the issue on their marriage Issue: (hether or not Elias and deceased . !he failure of Castro to offer an" other witness to corroborate her testimon" is manil" due to the peculiar circumstances of the case K /secret marriage 1 6.n . what too% place before the BP in this occasion amounted to legal marriage !here is no particular form of marriage ceremon" re5uired Budgment affirmed For8al Re!uisites*Cere8on/ 9adride.ec A. !he petition signed b" plaintiff and defendant contained a positive statement that the" had mutuall" agreed to be married and the" as%ed the BP to solemni:e the marriage Another document signed b" the plaintiff.Couple did not immediatel" live together. !he mere fact that no record of the marriage exists in the civil registr" of marriage does not invalidate said marriage. #EF# Elias %illed his wife . #EE9 . Esmero. which certificate gives rise to the presumption that the officer authori:ed the marriage in due form.ffice of the Local civil 4egistrar failed to issue a marriage license .usana were legall" married Held: 6es. unless contrar" is proved 3oth parties %new the contents of the documents !herefore.ffice of the Local Civil 4egistrar within #D da"s after solemni:ation as mandated b" law. man and wife. despite the attestations of the respondent 0udge of good faith. !he certification of /due search and inabilit" to find1 issued b" civil registrar of Pasig en0o"s probative value =t was then sufficientl" proved that civil registrar’s office did not issue marriage license no 9#EA#F* to the contracting parties 2. and BP.usana was his legitimate wife 2. testified that upon the occasion in 5uestion.ctober $. having discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to marriage celebration As proof Castro offered in evidence a certification from Pasig Civil 4egister that license number does not appear in the records Cardenas failed to answer the complaint. Elias himself admitted in his testimon" that the deceased victim . and is now in +. =n tr"ing to put into marital status in order before leaving to the +. defendant. the BP said nothing after the document was signed and then addressing himself to the plaintiff and defendant said /6ou are married 1 !he declaration of the contracting parties does not have to be verbali:ed 2. Art AF CC Issue: (as the marriage validG (as respondent 0udge liableG Held: !he parties were not issued a marriage license for their failure to attend the re5uired famil" planning seminar Absent the license the marriage is void !hus. . as long as in the celebration. Domingo de Leon &DL' !he wife and son survived the Eulogio who died in #E#D : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 7 .usana were not legall" married and therefore the crime would not be parricide. Cardenas was declared in default Private respondent Castro cannot be faulted for her husband’s lac% of interest to participate in the proceedings For8al Re!uisites*9arria1e $icense 9oreno v 9oreno Facts: -arilou -oreno filed this administrative complaint against Budge Bose 3ernabe for grave misconduct and ignorance of the law .he averred the 3ernabe assured her that the marriage contract will be released #< da"s after .eguisabal filed a complaint against Budge Bose Cabrera for solemni:ing the marriage of Baime . she sought a 0udicial declaration of nullit".ffice of the Court Administrator which investigated on the case that respondent 0udge was liable for misconduct for solemni:ing a marriage without a marriage license =t also said that the respondent 0udge’s claim of good intentions could never 0ustif" violation of the law For8al Re!uisites*9arria1e $icense Peo(le v "orro8eo Facts: at noon of Bul" 9#. signed b" two parties. !here is no better proof of marriage than the admission of the accused of the existence of such marriage =n this case. one of the witnesses. Persons living together in apparent matrimon" are presumed to be in fact married. but the parties must declare. thereafter she gave birth 3ab" was adopted b" her brother with the consent of Cardenas.o v De $eon Facts: Eulogio de Leon and >lavinia Pere: &>P'. in the presence of the person solemni:ing the marriage. absent an" counter presumption or evidence special to the case !he presumption in favor of matrimon" is one of the strongest %nown in law 6. without the re5uisite marriage license pursuant to Art D9 of the CC. to follow her daughter. #E@F.ctober $. had but one child. stated that the" ratified under oath.a"son and -arl"n Bagono" on April #$. thus was declared in default =ssue. v Tan Facts: 4osalia -artine: and Angel !an appeared before the ustice of the Peace &BP' and signed a statement that the" agreed to get married !he" signed another document. /7o particular form for the ceremon" of marriage is re5uired. and for having failed to transmit a cop" of the marriage contract signed b" him and the parties to the .usana with a bolo Elias was arrested and charged with parricide 2e claimed that he and . we was fined e5uivalent to 9 months salar" for deliberatel" dispensing with legal re5uirements &7ote.he claimed that respondent 0udge connived with relaties of private respondent -arcelo -oreno to deceive her Issue: (as the marriage validG (as respondent 0udge liableG Held: !he marriage was void due to the absence of a marriage license !he Court affirmed the recommendation of the .rders 7o AF. . 6es 1. the" were 1. >or his failure to answer despite notices. but onl" until Castro became pregnant !he" parted wa"s after $ months. the contents of the petition and the witnesses of the marriage produced A marriage too% place as shown b" the certification of the BP. along with the 0ustice and * witnesses.
he contracted another marriage with -a Clemente at Paombong. married Pedro Da" after. which was dated before the alleged date of marriage. #E$9 (hile marriage was still subsisting. being at death’s door. marriage was exceptional in character and did not re5uire a marriage license Burisprudential attitude towards marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage Also. # !here was an original marriage certificate.a Facts: Arturo -endo:a herein appellantHdefendant. >lavinia lived with Pedro -adride0o &P-'. #E$F 2e was convicted with bigam" After serving his sentence. and the forwarding cop" of the marriage certificate not being one of said re5uisites 2. he continued living with Clemente until he died on Bul" *D. Pedro wanted ot claim his share as Alfredo’s adopted son and onl" surviving heir 2e 5uestioned validit" of !omasa and Alfredo’s marriage !omasa can’t present a marriage contract. married Bovita de Asis in #E9A During the subsistence of -endo:a’s marriage to his first wife. named -elecio -adride0o Child was christened -elecio Pere: at the parish. >elicidad. (as marriage validG 2. a bachelor !he registr" of births in the municipalit" of . appellant contracted a third marriage with Carmencita Panlilio !his last marriage gave rise to his prosecution and for his conviction of the crime of bigam" !he . there was an affidavit. b" subse5uent marriage. "et their totalit" clearl" preponderates over private respondents’ selfH serving negations Presu8(tion o) 9arria1e #da de 7aco+ v C& Facts: Petitioner !omasa 8da de Bacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of the deceased Dr Alfredo Bacob and was appointed . failed to send a cop" of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretar". 9' birth and baptismal certificates of children born in such unionand $' mention of marriage in subse5uent documents Petitioner presented witnesses to marriage.olicitor General sa"s that he is not exempt from criminal liabilit" since there was no 0udicial annulment of the bigamous marriage Issue: (as -endo:a guilt" of bigam"G Held: 7o -endo:a is not guilt" of bigam" for his third marriage because he contracted this marriage after the death of his first wife. #E@$ -a Clemente was the surviving spouse indicated in his death certificate !olentino claims that she is the rightful surviving spouse and petitions for correction of the death certificate Lower court dismissed petition for lac% of publication Issue: (hether Paras is the rightful surviving spouse of !olentinoG Held: 6es # . * !hat the original cert was lost &proof of lost b" secondar" evidence.he then presented a reconstructed -arriage Contract 7o cop" of the marriage contract was sent to the LC4 b" officer. does not invalidate said marriage. Bovita !he second marriage with . natural child born must have been ac%nowledged b" parents either before or after marriage celebration =t was evident however that -elecio has not been ac%nowledged b" P. claiming it was lost . she died Parish priest failed to send the cop" of marriage cert to municipal secretar" DL also died in #E*F Issues: 1. !he mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff’s natural father and mother.and >P ether voluntar" or b" compulsion. that would prove his filiation and subse5uent share in properties as heir Held: -arriage can be proved b" relevant evidence such as #' testimon" of witnesses to the marriage.erafia G !olentino on Bul" 9#. Paras is still his rightful spouse 7o need for 0udicial declaration of nullit" : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 8 . and no cop" of contract in civil registr" 2owever. while the latter was in articulo mortis. so defendant was unable to prove before the CA the marriage +pon appeal his right to coHownership of the properties would depend on whether he was born during the existence of a valid and subsisting marriage of his parents Issue: (. =nocentes !he defendants. petitioner was also able to show that there was due execution of reconstructed marriage certificate b" providing evidence that.he needs to obtain 0udicial declaration from court first before she can re5uest for the correction of the entr" Publication not necessar" because all the parties involved are part of the case Court should order the publication * Conviction of !olentino for bigam" is best proof that his second marriage is null and void thus. Lourdes and >elix !rinidad claim that his father was not married to his mother.lga Lema in #E$# Bovita de Asis died in #E$9 =n #E$E. (hether marriage legitimated -elecio. and 9 !he reconstructed marriage contract is obtained #OID &ND #OID&"$ 9&RRI&G % #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*+i1a8ous and (ol/1a8ous 8arria1e Peo(le v 9endo. #E#@ a child was born to >P and P-. therefore he is illegitimate -arriage license was destro"ed in war. since it does not appear that the celebration thereof all re5uisites for its validit" were not present. 3ulacan on 7ov #. his baptismal certificate and a testimon" of witness Gerardo Although b" themselves the" are not conclusive evidence. as a son of >P but no mention of father >laviana.iniloan Laguna shows that on Bune #. of parent’s cohabitation and baptismal part" !herefore.pecial Administratix for the various estates of the deceased b" virtue of a reconstructed -arriage Contract between herself and Alfredo Defendant Pedro Pilapil is legall" adopted son of Dr de Bacob During a proceeding of the settlement of Alfredo’s estate. attesting that both of them lived for D "ears together Issue: (as the marriage validG Held: 6es 3ecause of the affidavit. !o be legitimated. a natural child Held: 1.7 there was a marriage. testimonial and documentar"''.During here widowhood. *' couple’s open and public cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedloc%. marriage did not legitimate him Presu8(tion o) 9arria1e Trinidad v C& Facts: Petitioner Arturo !rinidad was as%ing for his share of the land previousl" owned b" his father. before or after marriage !hus.lga Lema is void because it was contracted with the subsistence of a prior marriage =t is the second marriage that is bigamous #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*+i1a8ous 8arria1e Tolentino v Paras Facts: Amado !olentino was married to . he contracted a second marriage with . herein petitioner b" presenting these relevant evidences proved sufficientl" his parents’ marriage as well as his filiation !he proof for filiation was proved b" presenting evidence of * famil" pictures.
he learned that he married 8ilma -alicdem Doroth" filed charges for abandonment of minor. David contracted another marriage with Lu:viminda Pa"ao before =nfanta. #EE#. -a%ati where his famil" sta"ed 2e sta"s there too whenever he’s in -anila =n Dec . upon learning that Lilia had a subsisting marriage.anche: should have %nown that the marriage was void for being bigamous since man:ano had a previous subsisting marriage !he fact the" had been living apart from their respective spouses for "ears did not dissolve those marriage bonds Although the law exempts individuals who have freel" and voluntaril" cohabited for at least five "ears from securing a marriage license. bigam" and grossl" immoral conduct Bordan was alread" a member of the 3ar then Bordan claimed that he was unaware of Doroth"’s first marriage and that she sent her out of the house when he confronted her about it 2e contracted the second marriage. 3rillantes prevented him from visiting his children 2e claims that 3rillantes is married to Menaida . she still needed a 0udicial declaration before she can contract another marriage &Art $<.a<9an.a v "rilliantes Facts: Lupo Atien:a lived together with 6olanda de Castro with whom he has two children 2e purchased a house in 3elHAir. #E@@ Bordan wrote /single1 as Doroth"’s civil status despite latter’s protests Bordan said it didn’t matter because marriage was void to begin with After their marriage.for void marriages 9 Certificate entries though presumed to be correct must "ield to positive evidence establishing their inaccurac" #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*+i1a8ous 8arria1e =ie1el v %e8(io<D/ Facts: Lilia . . =loilo : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 9 . Doroth"’s marriage to Bordan !erre is void for being bigamous * Bordan has displa"ed a deepl" flawed moral character 2e demonstrated grossl" immoral conduct 2e should have %nown that a 0udicial declaration was essential Bordan is disbarred #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*lac: o) 8arria1e license &tien. he should have %nown that even if Doroth"’s first marriage was void ab initio. #E@* . the" must be legall" capacitated to marr" each other -an:ano and Pa"ao’s marriage is void for being bigamous.livia (iegel got married to ?arl 2ein: (iegel on Bul".ng%i%o with whom he has D children Atien:a filed a complaint for Gross =mmoralit" C Appearance of =mpropriet" against 3rillantes 3rillantes claims that his marriage to . he immorall" and illegall" cohabited with de Castro 7ot fit for the 0udiciar" #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*lac: o) 8arria1e license "or. second marriage with de Castro is void * 3ad faith and sinister motives of 3rillantes proven b" his marriage to . he was surprised to see -anila -etropolitan !rial Court Budge >rancisco 3rillantes sleeping on his bed !heir bo" informed him that 3rillantes had been cohabiting with de Castro Later on. the" both left their families and the" no longer communicated with them !he" have lived together as husband C wife for @ "ears Budge agreed to solemni:e the marriage 2erminia filed charges of gross ignorance of the law against . then a >irst Lieutenant of the Philippine Arm".anche: should have %nown that the marriage was void for being bigamous since -an:ano has a previous subsisting marriage 4espondent 0udge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemni:ed a void and bigamous marriage #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/ %antos v "edia<%antos Facts: Leouel .anche: Issue: (hether David -an:ano’s marriage with Pa"ao is validG Held: Budge . FC states that 0udicial declaration of nullit" of previous marriage is needed before one can enter into a second marriage 4ule has retroactive effect thus applicable to 3rillantes even if he got married under the Civil Code 2ence. 2er second marriage with ?arl was void because she contracted it while a prior marriage &with -axion' was subsisting #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*+i1a8/5 .ept *<. on -arch **. Bason. believing that his marriage to Doroth" was void ab initio because of her prior subsisting marriage Issue: (hether or not a 0udicial declaration of nullit" is needed to enter into a subse5uent marriageG Held: 6es # As a law student.anche: During that time. she married Bordan on Bune #$.chool . not because of the absence of the formal re5uisite of a marriage license Budge . got married with Bulia 3edia on .livia’s first marriage is voidG Held: 7o =t’s merel" voidable. then a freshman law student. filed for a declaration of nullit" of their marriage .ano v %anc2e. Presence of force onl" ma%es a marriage voidable.ng%i%o is not valid because of lac% of marriage license According to him. who was born on Bune *D. #EAA !he" had four children 2owever.udicial declaration &rt -.5 FC Terre v Terre Facts: Doroth" !erre first met Bordan !erre when the" were $ th "ear high school classmates in Cadi: Cit" 2igh . Pangasinan -!C Budge 4o5ue . &rt.he was then married to -erlito 3ercenilla Bordan courted her and this continued when the" moved to -anila to pursue their education Bordan.livia contracted her first marriage with Eduardo -axion on Bune *D. Bordan disappeared .ng%i%o abandoned him #E "ears ago leaving their children with him 2e claims that he believed that he was single when he married de Castro because his first marriage was void Issue: (hether 3rillantes can contract a second marriage without a 0udicial declaration of nullit"G Held: 1. marriage is still valid 2. >C' !hus. Pa"ao was also married to Domingo 4elos Pa"ao and David issued an affidavit stating that the" were both married however due to incessant 5uarrels. -.antos.hortl" after she gave birth. Facts: 2erminia 3or0aH-ariano was married to the late David -an:ano on -a" *#.he claims that the first marriage is not valid because the" were forced to enter the union and -axion was married to someone else at that time Issue: (hether . not void &Art FD CC' =t is valid until annulled and since there was no annulment. Doroth" supported Bordan because he was still stud"ing then !he" had a son. #EE9. her consent being vitiated b" force 1. #EFA !he" lived with Bulia’s parents in La Pa:. #EF# . #E@F at the 2ol" Catholic Apostolic Christian Church in -a%ati ?arl.ng%i%o !he" underwent two ceremonies however he never got a license !hen. told Doroth" that her marriage with 3ercenilla was void ab initio because the" are first cousins 3elieving in Bordan and with the consent of her mother and exHinHlaws.
everal "ears after.uch incapacit" must be also shown to be medicall" or clinicall" permanent or incurable .antos ps"chologicall" incapacitated. dependent. thus rendering the marriage voidG Held: 7o !here was no ps"chological incapacit" in the present case (hat exist are mere irreconcilable differences !he court laid down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 9A of the >amil" Code. #EFF .<<< << monthl" allowance on the condition that the" will withdraw the charges !he" started receiving the allowance but the" still pushed through with the case >ound guilt" b" lower court Cantero died while case was pending : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 10 . 4e"naldo abandoned her and the child 4oridel filed a case for the declaration of nullit" of their marriage b" virtue of her husband’s ps"chological incapacit" 4e"naldo claims that 4oridel’s strange behavior. #EFD at the . to wor% as a nurse on -a" #F. their marriage was a drama marriage setHup b" their parents and that the" never lived together as husband wife . as the case ma" be. li%e the exercise of a profession or emplo"ment in a 0ob 3D4 . and an" doubt must be resolved in favor of the existence of the marriage and against its nullit" 324 !he root cause of the ps"chological incapacit" must be &a' medicall" or clinicall" identified. which will be 5uoted in the decision briefl" stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition. chronic liar C infidel 2e now lives with a mistress with whom he has a child Issue: (as 4e"naldo ps"chologicall" incapacitated.uch incurabilit" ma" be absolute or even relative onl" in regard to the other spouse.olicitor General.antos. to the petition !he . along with the prosecuting attorne".uch nonHcomplied marital obligation&s' must also be stated in the petition. not necessaril" to those not related to marriage. =n ps"chological incapacit" these 9 must be present and proved. not necessaril" absolutel" against ever"one of the same sex >urthermore.uch illness must be grave enough to bring about the disabilit" of the part" to assume the essential obligation of marriage 3E4 !he essential marital obligations must be those embraced b" Articles AF up to @# of the >amil" Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles **<. &#' spent more time with his friends &*' depended on his parents for aid C assistance &9' not honest with the finances &$' relieved of his 0ob ma%ing 4oridel the breadwinner of the famil" 4oridel went to live with his parents and afterwards. irresponsible. refusal to perform marital duties C failure to run the household C handle finances caused their 5uarrels 4oridel on the other hand claims that her husband is immature. appointed them as heirs to his propert" inherited from his parents.he didn’t come bac% Leouel had training in the +. &#' fre5uent interference of Bulia’s parents &*' when C where the"’d start living independentl" &9' Leouel’s spending a few da"s with his parents Bulia left for the +. !eresita C Glicerio. should be given great respect b" our courts 3B4 !he trial court must order the prosecuting attorne" or fiscal and the . Cantero went to 2inunda"an. **# and **D of the same Code in regard to parents and their children . &c' sufficientl" proven b" experts and &d' clearl" explained in the decision 364 !he incapacit" must be proven to be existing at /the time of the celebration1 of marriage 3-4 . . Br was born on Bul" #F. Andre -olina A "ear after the marriage. 314 !he burden of proof to show the nullit" of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. thus marriage still valid Article 9A of the >amil" Code cannot be ta%en independentl" of but must stand in con0unction with. &b' alleged in the complaint.!heir son. #EF@ !he" started to have problems. arrogant.he onl" called up Leouel seven months after she left with promise to return after her contract expires on Bul" #EFE . proven b" evidence and included in the text of the decision 3A4 =nterpretations given b" the 7ational Appellate -atrimonial !ribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.olicitor General issues a certification. disrespectful.=. existing prior to the marriage c. #E$@ !he" had two children. retirement to !eresita C Glicerio 2e li%ewise included them as his beneficiaries. 0uridical antecedence means it should be rooted in histor". filed charge of gross misconduct for committing bigam" and falsification of public documents against Cantero Cantero claims that he got married without an" annulment or declaration of nullit" of his first marriage because he believed that it was void ab initio thus nothing was to be voided Apiag was living with another man with whom she has one child !he parties entered into a compromise agreement Cantero agreed to give N of his G. !eresita and Glicerio Cantero left his famil" without an" apparent cause and left -aria to raise the famil" on her own According to Cantero.an Agustin Church !he" had a son. such incapacit" must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations. incurabilit" including cure that is be"ond the part"’s means ' #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/5 1uidelines Re(u+lic v 9olina Facts: 4oridel C 4e"naldo -olina were married on April #$.he filed a manifestation stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence !rial court C CA dismissed the complaint Issue: (as Bulie . 4e"naldo started manifesting signs of immaturit" and irresponsibilit". Leouel . a. existing precepts and laws on marriage /Ps"chological incapacit"1 refers to the mental incapacit" of a part" to the marriage to be trul" incognitive of the basic marital covenants !he facts were not enough to show ps"chological incapacit" (hat was shown was lac% of willingness to compl" with marital obligations &7ote. shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen &#D' da"s from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/ &(ia1 v Cantero Facts: -aria Apiag and Esmeraldo Cantero were married on August ##. authori:ed them to receive P$. while not controlling or decisive. gravit" that would reall" render one incapable of carr"ing out the ordinar" duties in marriage +.olicitor General to appear as counsel for the state 7o decision shall be handed down unless the . thus rendering the marriage voidG Held: 7o. and loo%ed for Bulia but never found her 2e filed a case for voiding their marriage under Art 9A of the >C &marriage contracted b" either part" who at the time of the marriage was ps"chologicall" incapacitated to compl" with the essential obligations of marriage shall li%ewise be void even if such incapacit" shall be manifest after the solemni:ation' Leouel claims that Bulia’s failure to communicate with him C inform him of her whereabouts are proof that she’s ps"chologicall" incapacitated to compl" with the essential obligations of marriage Bulia denied her husband’s allegations sa"ing it was her husband who was irresponsible C incompetent .outhern Le"te where Apiag and her children were sta"ing !he" begged for support but he ignored them !he" sent him a letter demanding support which was also ignored !he" learned that he was alread" married to 7ievas 6ga" with whom he has D children Apiag along with her * children.
(as the second marriage valid or voidG 2. causing her death After a "ear and a half.7 0udge is liableG Held: 1. #E@A +n%nown to her. #EF# !he" had two children. #EFF After E months of marriage.Issues: 1. (. not the parties themselves. with 0uridical antecedence and incurable 364 2is proof onl" shows that the" can’t get along with each other but not incapable -ild characterological peculiarities. Budicial declaration of nullit" was instituted to prevent 0ust about an"one from declaring that hisOher marriage was void !his 0udgment is reserved to the court. #E@E 4oberto has been unemplo"ed and dependent on her since #EF9 . -isconduct in office should include onl" those acts which affect ones performance of his duties as an officer.<<< << . lac% of intention to procreate are not sufficient to render one as ps"chologicall" incapable 4easons should be grave. not official 2. he could have resorted to the court if she still resisted =t demonstrates utter insensitivit" or inabilit" to give meaning and significance to the marriage 2.4 7.4 6E. =t is for the protection of * contracting parties in a subse5uent marriage ' #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*%2ow (roo) o) Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/ C2oa v C2oa Facts: Leni C Alfonso Choa were married on -arch #D. (. and occasional emotional outbursts are not acceptable causes of ps"chological incapacit" 3-4 Ph"sician’s testimon". 7o 0udicial decree of nullit" is needed to establish the invalidit" of void marriages !hus. he’ll be dealt with lenienc" 2e should have been fined but since he passed awa" alread".7 gross misconduct is applicableG 2.he onl" learned about the marriage when dela Pa: sued them for bigam" Delia has been wor%ing in . not as a private individual Prove that it is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action =nvolved here are personal acts.oledad Domingo and 4oberto Domingo were married on 7ov *E. =s 0udicial declaration of nullit" necessar"G : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 11 . immaturit".r. 2owever.o.4 7.7 first marriage is validG 6. Cher"l L"nne and Albr"an Alfonso filed a petition for the declaration of nullit" of their marriage based on Leni’s ps"chological incapacit" 2e cited also that his wife was immature.5 D25 D6F 7udicial declaration5 "i1a8/ Do8in1o v C& Facts: Delia . he had a prior subsisting marriage with Emerlinda dela Pa: . 2is abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate marriage is strongl" indicative of a serious personalit" disorder Chi -ing should have discussed the problem with his wife if she indeed refused to have sexual intercourse with him .he claims that her husband’s a homosexual who married her to maintain his residenc" status and to prove that he is reall" a man Chi -ing claims that it is Gina who refuses to have sexual intercourse !he" both underwent medical examinations but neither part" was found to be impotent !he wife wanted to annul the marriage but the husband did not . Gina filed a petition for declaration of nullit" of marriage on the ground of Chi -ing’s ps"chological incapacit" Issue: (hether Chi -ing is ps"chologicall" incapable Held: 6es -arriage is void 1. he did not examine Leni so his findings are not reall" reliable 2e onl" based this on Alfonso’s claims !he records of the case will not give him accurate findings -edical examinationsOfindings are admissible !he" 0ust need to present sufficient evidence #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/5 Re)usal to se0 Tsoi v C& Facts: Gina and Chi -ing !soi were married on -a" **. case will 0ust be dismissed #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*&rt -. Purposes of Art $< >C. . he was free to contract second marriage without court declaration of the nullit" of first marriage 7ew law re5uires declaration of nullit" before one remarries >alsification accusation fails 6.he learned that her husband was cohabiting with another woman C that he was disposing her properties without her consent 2e re5uested that he turnover the properties but he refused !hus she filed this petition for the declaration of nullit" of marriage and separation of propert" against 4oberto Lower court C CA dismissed the case Issue: (hether 0udicial declaration of void marriage is necessar" onl" for purpose of remarriageG Held: 7o Budicial declaration of nullit" can be invo%ed for purposes other than remarriage . 1. there has been no sexual intercourse or an" attempt at it given between Chi -ing !soi and 2is wife . 2e admitted that couple is curable if onl" the" will be sub0ected to famil" therap" 3esides. 7iLal contracted a second marriage with 3ada"og without a marriage license !he" executed an affidavit stating the" have cohabited for at least five "ears 7iLal died in #EE@ 2is children with 3ellones see% a declaration of nullit" of 7iLal’s marriage with 3ada"og Issues: 1. mood changes. (. old law will appl" to Cantero because it is more favorable for him 4uling in Odayat v Amante will appl".audi since Banuar" *9.enseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill marital obligations is e5uivalent to ps"chological incapacit" #oid 9arria1es*Grounds*Ps/c2olo1ical Inca(acit/5 2a+itual lies ?&ntonio v Re/es@ 2abitual l"ing as constitutive of ps"chological incapacit" to compl" with essential marital obligation Applied -olina Guidelines here #oid 9arria1es* ))ects o) Declaration o) Nullit/ NiCal v "ada/o1 Facts: 7iLal and 3ellones were married in #E@$ 7iLal shot 3ellones in #EFD. and 2. inattentive to their children and lac%ed intention of procreative sexualit" Issue: (as Leni ps"chologicall" incapacitatedG Held: 7o Alfonso presented insufficient evidence to prove Leni’s incapacit" 314 >iling of case is not entirel" connected to ps"chological incapacit" 324 Grounds of Alfonso. 2e will be administrativel" liable 2e’s expected to maintain high ethical principles and free from appearance of impropriet" including his personal behavior 3ut since this is his onl" wrongdoing throughout the 9* "ears that he has served the government and the Court saw his sincerit" to repent and reform. lac% of attention to their children.eparation of propert" is also one of the effects of a 0udicial declaration of nullit" &7otes.he entrusted the administration of her real C personal properties to 4oberto which cost P9D<.
dissolution of propert" regime. he had man" companions whom he could as% for help !he evidence then does not warrant that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation !he provision in the marriage law which contains force and violence does not include mere intimidation. that is. especiall" since she was Pnaturall" plump1 or fat as alleged b" plaintiff According to medical authorities. which ma" be a cause for its annulment. that is to sa". void marriage can be attac%ed collaterall"' #oida+le 9arria1es*Grounds*unsound 8ind Gati(unan v Tenorio Facts: Plaintiff -arcos ?atipunan in this case see%s to annul his marriage on the ground that defendant 4ita !enorio was insane at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. ma%ing the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent Decision set aside) new trial is granted #oida+le 9arria1es*Grounds* Fraud Facts: Plaintiff Aurora and defendant >ernando were married on December a. Luida gave birth 2er husband Godofredo herein appellant filed for annulment on the ground that she concealed her nonHvirginit" Issue: (hether or not marriage was valid Held: (here there has been no misrepresentation or fraud. that defendant was insane at the time of marriage) but it was admitted that she became insane subse5uentl" Issue: (as !enorio insane. Deli:o gave birth to a child !his is a complaint for annulment of marriage on ground of fraud &concealment of pregnanc"' Issue: (as there fraud. that fear is reasonable and wellHfounded. while the said attorne" threatened to file immoralit" charges against him that would prevent him admission to bar if he did not marr" Pelagia Issue: (. we are not prepared to sa" that her pregnanc" was readil" apparent. when the husband at the time of the marriage %new that the wife was pregnant. the child was born less than 9 months after the celebration of marriage (e refuse to annul the marriage for the reason that the woman was at an advanced age of pregnanc" at the time of the marriage and such condition must have been patent to the husband #oida+le 9arria1es*Grounds* Fraud5 conceal8ent o) (re1nanc/ &!uino v Deli. alleging that he was forced unto marriage since he got her pregnant 2e claims that after their bab"’s birth.ares : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 12 . insanit" of one of the spouses which occurred after the celebration of the marriage cannot constitute a cause of nullit" #oida+le 9arria1es*Grounds*Fraud5 conceal8ent o) (re1nanc/ "uccat v 9an1onon de "uccat5 supra Facts: Godofredo married Luida with the belief that she was a virgin FE da"s after the marriage celebration.o Facts: >ernando A5uino married Conchita Deli:o on December *@. no 0udicial action is necessar" to declare a marriage an absolute nullit" >or other purposes. even on the D th month of pregnanc". 7o $ of CC !his fraud is limited exclusivel" b" law to those %inds of species of fraud enumerated in Art FA !he legislative intent on this point is clear 7onHdisclosure of a husband’s preHmarital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment #oida+le 9aria1es*Grounds*Consent vitiated +/ Force Rui. to constitute as a ground re5uires $ things. or about four months after the marriage. it must come under Art FD. unless it amounts to force or violence &7ote. and that evil must be imminent and grave Art #99D CC' #oida+le 9aria1es*Grounds*I8(otence 7i8ene. >or purposes of remarriage. settlement of estate. onl" *< months were without an" legal impediment 2. un%nown to the latter !here was no proof however. the enlargement of a woman’s abdomen is still below the umbilicus. the marriage cannot be annulled 2ere. legitimac" or illegitimac" of child. came to his house and threatened him to marr" Pelagia Bose Atien:a allegedl" threatened him with a balisong. the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardl" noticeable and ma". or a criminal case for that matter. such as but not limited to determination of heirship. v &tien. the defendant’s father and attorne" 8villavicencio.f the five "ears the" had cohabited. if noticed. une5uivocall" and convincingl" +nder the law. #ED$ in April #EDD.7 the intimidation would warrant as a ground for annulment Held: 7o =t was not sufficientl" established that Bose displa"ed an" balisong or made an" threat to the life of 4ui: !he attorne"’s threat to obstruct his admission to the bar is not such duress as to constitute a reason for annulling the marriage !he plaintiff’s claim that he was /practicall" %idnapped1 b" Pelagia’s relatives until the marriage ceremon" cannot be true since he had man" occasions to escape.a Facts: Bose 4ui: filed an annulment of his marriage to Pelagia Atien:a. #ED9 >ernando was alleged to have divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage he had preHmarital relationship with a close relative of his !his >ernando denied Issue: (hether or not the nonHdisclosure to a wife b" her husband of his preHmarital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulmentG Held: >or fraud as a vice of consent in marriage. 7iLal and 3ada"og’s marriage is void for lac% of marriage license !he" are not exempt from ac5uiring a marriage license because their fiveH"ear period cohabitation was not the cohabilitation contemplated b" law =t should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect onl" b" the absence of the marriage contract . so as to be a ground to annul marriageG Held: !he case of 3uccat vs 3uccat is not applicable here =n this case. the wife was alleged to be onl" more than $ months pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff At that stage.Held: 1. the court ma" pass upon the validit" of marriage even in a suit not directl" instituted to 5uestion the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case &7ote. and also. the defendant’s cousin in law. intimidation and undue influence. >orce. v Cani. so as to annul the marriageG Held: Ever" presumption goes in favor of the validit" of a marriage !he causes alleged in support of an action for a declaration of nullit" should be established clearl". be attributed onl" to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen =t is onl" on the A th month of pregnanc" that the enlargement of the abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus. Bose Atien:a.
Emilio predeceased her mother. filed for legal separation !he court then declared the marriage null and void since Emilio was proven to be schi:ophrenic . plaintiff tried to have carnal %nowledge of defendant. the cit" attorne" intervened for the . who did not answer the complaint. children born out of voidable marriages shall have the same status rights and obligations as ac%nowledged natural children =sabel is therefore a legitimate grandchild and ma" invo%e her successional right of representation in the estate of their grandmother : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 13 . it was acquired by force !he marriage then. he as%s for annulment Issue: (. CA. was the respondent in this case. =sabel AguinaldoH . bashful and sh" and would not submit to a ph"sical examination unless compelled to b" competent authorit" A ph"sical examination in this case is not selfHincrimination . sa"ing that under Art EE* CC. lost all desire to have access with his wife 7ow. because the test of impotence is not the capacit" to reproduce. #E@E. in retaliation.n Bune #. she complained of pains in her private parts and he noticed oo:ing therefrom some matter offensive to the smell 3ecause of this. =n the case at bar. since witnessing the operation. one of which. however. was and is impotent Held: !he law specificall" enumerates the legal grounds that must be proved to exist b" indubitable evidence to annul a marriage. an operation was performed in which the uterus and ovaries were removed !his rendered her incapable of procreation. plaintiff again approached the defendant.' . niece of his deceased wife.uan1co<%unta/ Facts: Emilio AguinaldoH.Facts: Plaintiff Bimene: filed a complaint for the annulment of his marriage to defendant Cani:ares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. "et for such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise o be inferred because women in this countr" are b" nature co". pra"ing that she be appointed as the administratix of her estate >ederico .he is not charged with an" offense . as well as before. and the ceremon" cannot be considered binding on her because of duress !he marriage was therefore void for lac% of essential consent. filed and opposition and pra"ed that he be appointed the administratix. and refused to submit to a medical examination. he procured a marriage ceremon" to be celebrated on the same da" between him and the girl. and after the first night ever" attempt the plaintiff’s part to have a carnal act with his wife proved a failure. in this respect. an illegitimate child has no right to succeed b" right of representation the legitimate relatives of her father or mother !rial court denied the motion to dismiss the case Issue: Can =sabel be appointed as administratix of her grandmother’s estate even though the marriage of her parents were declared null and voidG Held: 6es !he marriage is voidable 3eing of unsound mind is a ground for annulment and not for declaration of nullit" !hus. shows that he had no bona fide intention of ma%ing her his wife. coitus was not a success. the annulment of the marriage in 5uestion was decreed upon the sole testimon" of the husband who was expected to give testimon" tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and see%s (hether the wife is reall" impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactoril" established Although the wife’s refusal to be examined or failure to appear in the court show indifference on her part. and that this condition existed at the time of marriage and continued to exist Defendant did not file an answer +pon the direction of the court. husband of the decedent and the petitioner in this case.he is not compelled to be a witness against herself =mpotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed !he presumption is in favor of potenc" !he lone testimon" of the husband is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife Decree set aside #oida+le 9aria1es*Grounds*Inca(acit/ to (rocreate v I8(otence %arao v Guevara Facts: Plaintiff and defendant were married on Bune 9.tate to prevent collusion Court then ordered defendant to submit herself to a ph"sical examination which defendant refused !he Court entered a decree annulling the marriage !he Cit" Attorne" appealed Issue: (hether the marriage in 5uestion ma" be annulled on the strength onl" of the lone testimon" of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife. #E9A =n the afternoon of the same da".unta" &CA. but the latter showed reluctance and begged him to wait until evening (hen night came. since he said the he has been managing the con0ugal propert" even while the decedent has been alive and is better situated to protect the integrit" of the estate * "ears after filing the opposition. but through he found the orifice of her vagina sufficientl" large of his organ. but she could copulate Plaintiff. he as%ed the court to dismiss the petition of =sabel. filed a petition.unta" got married and had 9 children. and left no will D "ears later. but the capacit" to copulate #oida+le 9aria1es*Grounds* Peo(le v %antia1o5 supra Facts: After the accused had consummated the crime of rape upon a girl of the age of #F. is voidable since there is a defect in the consent #oida+le 9aria1es*Grounds*Isanit/ %unta/ v Co. was absent during the hearing. and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer As to the consent of the girl. the decedent Cristina AguinaldoH . because she complained of pains in her genital organs and he did not want her to suffer +pon the advice of a ph"sician and with the plaintiff’s consent.7 their marriage can be annulled based on the defendant’s incapacit" to procreate Held: Annulment denied !he incapacit" for copulation was onl" temporar" !he defect must be lasting to be a ground for annulment. officiated b" a Protestant minister 2e was charged and convicted with rape Issue: (as the marriage validG Held: !he offense of rape had been committed and the marriage ceremon" was a mere ruse in which appellant hoped to escape from the criminal conse5uences of the act !he manner in which appellant dealt with the girl after marriage. their marriage soured and =sabel filed a criminal case against Emilio Emilio.he is also the respondent’s paternal grandmother !he decedent died thereafter.unta".unta" &Emilio' and =sabel Co0uangcoH.unta" &=sabel' After $ "ears.
en !amano never reall" divorced her and also. -E’s first husband. as well as Estrellita’s subse5uent motion for reconsideration !he CA then declared the marriage of Estrellita and . and her paramour.he li%ewise contends that the 4!C doesn’t have 0urisdiction over the case since !amano and Mora"da were both -uslims and married according to -uslim rites .enator !amano married respondent Mora"da !amano in civil rites .he was hit in the abdomen and face.en !amano null Issue: Does the 4!C have 0urisdiction over the caseG Held: 6es Cases would fall onl" under the exclusive 0urisdiction of the . wherein the husband maltreated her wife 3ecause >elicidad could not bear with it an"more. when Arthur left and was never heard from again !herefore.haria courts !he 4!C denied the motion.he said that . Estrellita said that her marriage was conducted in -uslim rites) Also Note: +nder !he Budiciar" 4eorgani:ation Act of #EF<.ct #E#E. in accordance with sec 9 par * of G. the date it was first published. the petitioner and daughter of her first marriage. their marriage was void Issue: (.@ >or a continuous crime to exist there have to be. v del "arrio Facts: >elicidad -uno: and Bose del 3arrio were married in #E$* During their marriage the" fre5uentl" had fights. then male defendant. were appointed as the heirs !he partition of her estate was approved b" the court A "ear later. the court issued another order. Arthur Bones &Arthur'. wherein her husband 0ust used his bare hands.en !amano married petitioner Estrellita !amano in civil rites while his marriage with Mora"da was still subsisting -onths after senator !amano died.he claims that the proper court in this case should be the .eptember of the latter "ear . the date the court held that the decree has ta%en effect !herefore. Andres again filed the same complaint against her wife and her paramour !he defendants filed a motion to 5uash since the" were being placed in double 0eopard" !he trial court granted their motion since the adulterous acts charged must constitute a continuous offense Issue: (as the C>= was correct in sustaining the respondents motionG Held: 7o 1. who at first crime was ac5uitted since he said he did not %now woman was married. when the * nd marriage was celebrated. the" unceremoniousl" separated in #E$@ After the" separated. Dalmacio 3ondoc 2er wife pleaded guilt" and was sentenced to four months in prison After "ear. AB filed a motion to declare her the onl" heir. where the 4!C has 0urisdiction over. thus.n the *D th of the said month. cannot constitute an intention to %ill &Note: !his case was decided under the Civil Code where the onl" grounds were attempt on the life of the spouse and adulter" or concubinage +nder the >amil" : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 14 . since culprits perpetrated the crime in ever" sexual intercourse and does not need another act to consummate it 2.he claims that in Ban #E#F. Facts: . the court also pointed out that -E and even AB herself believed Arthur was dead. went abroad and was never heard from again =n . no AF. at the election of the plaintiff Court denied Estrellita’s complaint &Obiter "ictum: Court also said that court’s 0urisdiction is determined over the allegations in the complaint =t was onl" in her motion for reconsideration that. is Ban #E#F. Guadalupe Mapata. from that date until the time of the second marriage. personal actions. can be tried where the plaintiff or where the defendant resides.#oida+le 9aria1es *9arria1e =2en One %(ouse is &+sent 7ones v Horti1uela Facts: -arciana EscaLo &-E' died and a proceeding regarding her estate was commenced 2er second husband >elix 2ortiguela &>2'. will be absolved from the crime even though he alread" %new woman was married when he committed the subse5uent adulterous acts !he court then reversed the C>= decision $e1al %e(aration*Grounds*&tte8(t on t2e li)e5 8altreat8ent 9uno. her hair was pulled and her twisted !he trial court dismissed the petition based on lac% of merit Issue: (. as evidenced b" her treating >2 as her step father #oida+le 9aria1es*7urisdiction Ta8ano v Orti. the fact that their marriage doesn’t appear in the register does not affect the validit" of the marriage >urthermore.@ =f complaint will be 5uashed. Arthur was alread" absent for more than E "rs Also. but in April #E*#. 4!Cs have 0urisdiction over all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations ' $ G&$ % P&R&TION $e1al %e(aration*Grounds*adulter/ Peo(le v Ha(ata "ondoc Facts: Andres 3ondoc filed a complaint for adulter" against her wife. >2 and -E got married AB now contends that the decree should be understood as not having ta%en effect from Cct #E#E.he the filed for legal separation.haria courts when the cases are filed in places where there are . Mora"da filed a complaint for a declaration of nullit" of marriage of !amano and Estrellita on the ground of bigam" . >elicidad claimed that he still maltreated her in December #ED< or Banuar" #ED# and . the respondent. the law onl" re5uires that the former spouse be absent for @ consecutive "rs at the time of the * nd marriage !he date that should be considered therefore. a' pluralit" of acts performed separatel" during a period of time b' unit" of the penal provision infringed upon or violated c' unit" of the criminal intent or purpose & acts are united b" one intent leading to the perpetration the same criminal purpose< Last did not exist. Angelita Bones &AB'. sa"ing that the 0udicial decree has ta%en effect =n -a" #E*@. onl" A "rs and #$ da"s has elapsed. Estrellita was not single since the annulment of her previous marriage never reall" became final and executor" Estrellita then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that onl" a part" to marriage can file an action for annulment .7 the" can be legall" separated because of her claim that her husband was ma%ing attempts against her life Held: 7o !here is no ground for legal separation !he maltreatment against her did not prove that there was intent to %ill =t must be established b" clear and convincing evidence !he attac% against her.n April #E*#.7 the second marriage was void Held: 7o >or the celebration of marriage. since she claims her husband has made several attempts on her life .haria courts Also. the court issued and order declaring that Arthur is an absentee and the declaration will not ta%e effect until A months after its publication =t was then published in the succeeding months . -E as%ed her husband to be 0udiciall" declared an absentee . since she claims that the marriage between -E and >2 was null and void .
he went to Caga"an and sta"ed there for 9 "ears 2e did not write nor give support +rsula then met -arcelo 4amos and started cohabiting with him (hen -ariano came bac%. their source being the decree itself) without the decree such rights do not come into existence.7 -c-ann was a habitual drun%ard Held: 6es According to the testimon" of one of the witnesses. but he refused to pardon her. he saw -c-ann drun% man" times !he court also said that a drun%ard is some one who has a fixed habit of drun%enness. as evidenced b" its continued growth $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*i8(lied consent Peo(le v %ansano Facts: +rsula . which was granted b" the trial court !he petitioner then contends that the civil action for legal separation and the application for support pendent lite should be suspended.Code. b" their reconciliation. #E9$ and lived together until #E$9 when Eufemio abandoned her =n #ED9. stop or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree alread" rendered 3eing personal in character. v Dela Cru. she pra"ed for a legal separation decree from the BD4C of -anila and that Eufemio be deprived of his share of the con0ugal partnership profits 3efore the trial could be completed.ec 9 4ule ### of the 4ules on Criminal Procedure. refers to the recover" of civil liabilit" arising from the offense charged 3ut the action for legal separation is not aimed at recovering civil liabilit". she also filed a criminal case against the petitioner for concubinage Later. +rsula tried to reconcile with -ariano. even if propert" rights are involved in this action because these rights are mere effects or incidental to a decree of legal separation. these claims are merel" rights in expectation Budgment affirmed $e1al %e(aration*Grounds*&+andon8ent Dela Cru. but on the con0ugal rights of spouses and their relations to each other 2. Carmen died in a vehicular accident Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that Carmen’s death abated the action Counsel for the deceased moved to substitute the deceased Carmen b" her father. therefore his condition could not be ta%en into consideration for the purpose of lessening his sentence Issue: (.he went bac% to -arcelo but her husband did nothing to interfere -ariano then left for 2awaii and sta"ed there for @ "ears 2e came bac% and charged them again with adulter". the same facts would fall under a new ground of /repeated ph"sical violence and grossl" abusive conduct 1' $e1al %e(aration*Grounds*Concu+ina1e5 su((ort (endente lite Gandionco v PeCaranda Facts: PeLaranda filed a case for legal separation against Gandionco on the ground of concubinage -onths later." and Eufemio Eufemio were married on . 7o 1.n the petitioner. he had mismanaged their con0ugal properties . %/ v u)e8io Facts: Carmen Lapu: . even though he might be sober for da"s and wee%s together e1al %e(aration*Grounds*a+ate8ent o) action5 also a+andon8ent $a(u.7 what her husband did constitutes as abandonment and mismanagement as to warrant a decree for separation of propert" Held: 7o (hat her husband did does not constitute abandonment Abandonment must not onl" be ph"sical estrangement but also financial and moral desertion Despite her husband leaving the con0ugal dwelling. even telling her that she could do what she wants and go an"where she wants .@ . since he is alread" been charged of a criminal case based on the same ground !he petitioner also argues that his conviction in the criminal case for concubinage must be secured first before the action for legal separation can proceed =ssue.eptember *#. it follows that the death of one part" to the action causes the death of the action itself An action for legal separation is abated b" the death of the plaintiff. b" allowing onl" the innocent spouse &and no one else' to claim legal separation) and its Art #<F.7 the civil action against Gandionco should be suspended 2eld. 9c9ann Facts: -c-ann was convicted of %illing -c%a".s argument that a conviction must be secure first.he claimed that her husband has not slept in their con0ugal home since #EDD and has onl" made short visits 2er husband also failed to disclose to her transactions regarding their business !he trial court ruled that ordered for the separation of con0ugal assets Issue: (. and therefore the court should ta%e this into account and lessen his sentence !he court then said that he was a habitual drun%. Facts: Estrella Dela Cru: filed for a separation of propert" against her husband . so that before the finalit" of a decree. which the petitioner brought about to his defense. the husband was handling their business ver" well. so that he could see% divorce !he trial court convicted them : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 15 .@ A civil action based on concubinage ma" proceed ahead or simultaneousl" with a criminal action since it is not one to enforce the civil liabilit" arising from the offense . evidenced b" a repetition of deliberate acts and omissions pre0udicial to the latter =n fact. (. he continued to support her and their children as evidenced b" the allowances he gave them As to the supposed abuse of administration. a friend and cowor%er of his -c-ann said that the act was accidental and that he had no intention of %illing him 2e said that he was onl" drun% at that time. b" providing that the spouses can. the court also answered in the negative Abuse connotes willful and utter disregard of the interests of the partnership. -acario Lapu: !he BD4C dismissed the case Issue: (hether the action for legal separation is abated at the death of one spouse Held: 6es An action for the legal separation is purel" personal !he 7CC recogni:es this in its Art #<<. she applied for the provisional remed" of support pendent elite. the court held that a decree for legal separation ma" be issued based upon the evidence presented in the action for legal separation 7o criminal conviction is necessar" $e1al %e(aration*Grounds*Ha+itual drun:enness de)ined United %tates vs. he charged them with adulter" and the" were convicted After serving her sentence.ansano and -ariano 8enture are husband and wife +pon the birth of the child.everino Dela Cru: since she claimed that he had abandoned her and also.
it is an action for condonation' $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Condonation Gine. after refusing to pardon his wife.immons !he wife denied the charge and alleged that her husband conspired with detectives and servants to falsel" accuse her of adulter" with . calling for the intervention of the state attorne"s in the case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation is to emphasi:e that marriage is more than a mere contract) that it is a social institution in which the state is vitall" interested. he discovered that she was going out with several men After . 6es !he prescriptive period is over 3rown did not petition for legal separation until #< "ears after he learned of his wife’s adulter" +nder the CC. who is a private citi:en and who is far from being the state Issues: 1. and #nowing that she resumed living with 4amos in #E*$. claims that -ariano’s conduct constitutes consent to her adulterous act Issue: Did -ariano consent to the adulter"G Held: 6es 8entura consented to the adulterous relations of his wife 2e. .erafina were married in #E9F .erafina.again +rsula.erafina allegedl" committed adulter" in #ED# with Bose Arcalas 2er husband then sent her to manila to stud" beaut" culture Again. habituall" used offensive and obscene language and alwa"s demanded sexual intercourse from him. within D "ears from and after the date when such cause occurred 1 &Note: !his case was decided under CC +nder the >C. when /the power of the prosecuting officer is limited to finding out whether or not there is collusion. an action for legal separation shall be filed within D "ears from time of occurrence of cause ' $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Condonation =illan v =illan Facts: !he petitioner in this case wanted to file for dissolution of marriage because he claims that his wife was fre5uentl" assaulting him. Did the >iscal exceed his powersG 2. he had received : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 16 .he said that the husband solicited . (illiam 2 3rown filed suit in the C>= of -anila to obtain legal separation from his lawful wife Buanita 6ambao alleging adulter" &of which he learned in #E$D upon his release from interment' +pon petition of the plaintiff. the defendantH appellee. the court subse5uentl" declared the wife in default. who was not his wife. . 7o 3rown’s cohabitation with a woman other than his wife bars him from claiming legal separation b" express provision of Article #<< of the new Civil Code Legal separation cannot be claimed where both spouses are offenders . /action for legal separation should be filed within # "ear from the time the time the plaintiff became cogni:ant of the cause. for failure to answer in due time.hould brown be entitled to obtain a decree of legal separationG 6.immons to commit adulter" with her. did nothing to interfere to assert his right as husband constituted implied consent to the adulter" 2e was therefore barred from instituting a case for adulter" !he sole purpose for filing the charge was to use it as a ground for legal separation $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Collusion Oca8(o v Florenciano Facts: Bose . so that its continuation or interruption can not be made to depend upon the parties themselves =t is consonant with this polic" that the in5uir" b" the fiscal should be allowed to focus upon an" relevant matter that ma" indicate whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are full" 0ustified or not 2.he also confessed that she was guilt" of the said acts Issue: (hether her confession barred them from getting a decree for legal separation under Art #<# 7CCG &(as there collusionG' Held: !here was no collusion despite the confession made b" the guilt" spouse. the truth of the matter being that he intervened for Buanita 6ambao. but at the same time. >rances. it elicited the fact that after liberation. provided she not be charged w adulter" in a criminal action . left his wife Leonila Gine: to her sisters since he needed to report bac% to dut" As earl" as ul" #ED#. whether or not collusion exists between the parties During crossHexamination. she left her husband and since then the" had lived separatel" =n #EDD.erafina conformed with.argent charged his wife. the" had sexual intercourse Issue: (hether the husband’s acts constituted condonation on his part Held: !he last sexual intercourse with the wife amounts to a condonation (illan was free to submit or resist his wife’s pleadings 2e ma" have been reluctant to submit himself to his wife but this does not mean that he acted involuntaril" 2e could have 0ust left or run awa" & Note: (hat is crucial here is the sexual act itself =t was the wa" to stop the cruelt" of the wife. he connived with the servants and detectives to bring about the adulterous act A man ma" not actuall" participate in a course of action leading to his wife’s downfall $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Recri8ination and Prescri(tion "rown v 'a8+ao Facts: =n #EDD. 3rown had lived maritall" with another woman and had begotten children b" her Appellant 3rown argues that in crossHexamining him with regard to his martial relations with Lilia Dieto. to intervene for the state which is not the fact in the instant case.ne must come to court with clean hands 6. was alwa"s immensel" 0ealous of his relations with other women. a serviceman in the +. despite service summons) and directed the Cit" >iscal or his representative to /investigate. >iscal acted as counsel for the defaulting wife. and afforded him opportunities to do so Issue: Did the husband connive or consent to the alleged adulter" of his wifeG Held: Donald .argent’s acts amount to consent and connivance 2e had reason to suspect that his wife was inclined to commit adulter" but he did nothing to prevent it =nstead. v "u1a/on1 Facts: 3en0amin 3uga"ong. and. obliging him to conform to her wishes b" indulging in various t"pes of violence in order to bend his will to hers 3efore (illan left his wife for good. there was other evidence to prove the adulter" $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Connivance and Consent %ar1ent v %ar1ent Facts: Donald .. to which .erafina finished stud"ing. Charles . and if there is no collusion. in her appeal. in accordance with Article #<# of the Civil Code. outside the court (hat is prohibited is a decree of legal separation based solel" on such confession =n the case at bar.immons .campo and . with having committed adulter" with un%nown men and their driver. he again discovered that his wfe was having illicit relations with a 7elson . 2as the action prescribedG Held: 1 7o !he polic" of Article #<# of the new Civil Code. which is the fact in the case at the bar.r:ame 2e then filed a case for legal separation.
Elena finall" confronted his husband. when she confronted her husband and her husband admitted to his acts As a matter of fact.eptember #EA*. even with all the painful information. admitted.erafina finished stud"ing.he sent her father’s emplo"ee to verif" the reports !he latter saw the defendant carr"ing a child !he plaintiff then as%ed her father in law to intercede with the defendant and as% him to come home . the plaintiff instructed her sister in law to meet with Lil" Lil" she was willing to brea% up with Eusebio but it was Eusebio who didn’t want to leave =n December #EA9. through a letter.eptember #EA* but she instituted the action onl" in December #EA9 Issue: (. he brought her to his cousin’s house and the" passed the night therein as husband and wife !he next da". Also. she left her husband and since then the" had lived separatel" =n #EDD. that is $ "ears after he had %nowledge of his wife’s adulter" Art #<* CC states that /An action for legal separation should be filed within # "ear from the time the time the plaintiff became cogni:ant of the cause.7 wife consented to his husband’s actsG Held: 6es =t was clearl" expressed in their agreement !he condonation and consent are not onl" implied but expressed 2ence. 3en0amin tried to verif" from his wife the truth about her alleged adulter".erafina conformed with.7 there was condonation on the part of the husband Held: 6es An" cohabitation and sexual intercourse with the guilt" part" after the commission of the offense and with %nowledge of the offence is evidence of condonation =n the case at bar. #EA9. she filed for legal separation !he trial court dismissed the petition since the prescriptive period had elapsed .r:ame 2e then filed a case for legal separation. she again refrained from discussing the matter to avoid an" 5uarrel Elena received reports that Lil" had given birth to a child . the driver of the famil" car told the plaintiff that her husband has been living with Lil" Ann Alcala (hen he defendant came home the following . defendant didn’t want to =n 7ovember #EA9.n #E$F.7 the prescriptive period had elapsed Held: 7o Elena became truly cogni:ant of her husband’s acts in December #EA9. this petition for certiorari Issue: (hatever the Art #<9 7CC prohibiting the hearing of an action for legal separation before the lapse of A months from the filing of the petition would li%ewise preclude the court from acting on a motion for preliminar" mandator" in0unction applied for as an ancillar" remed" to such a suit Held: Art #<9 7CC is not an absolute bar to the hearing of a motion for preliminar" in0unction prior to the expiration of A months period !he court where an action for legal separation is pending according to Art #<9 is to remain passive -eanwhile the : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 17 . that she %issed a certain Eliong =n august #ED*. and $ neither of them can claim an"thing from each other =n #EDD.he started hearing about her husband’s infidelit" in .ctober. provided she not be charged w adulter" in a criminal action .ocorro -atubis and husband Moilo Praxedes married on #E$9 A "ear after. the plaintiff went to search for his wife (hen he found her. the" agreed to live separatel" . to save the marriage & Note: Question of when %nowledge was actuall" ac5uired Compare it with Gine: case' $e1al %e(aration*=2en to File or Tr/ &ctions %o8osa Ra8os v #a8enta Facts: Petitioner filed before respondent 0udge an action for legal separation against her husband Clemente 4amos on the ground of concubinage and attempt b" her husband against her life Petitioner li%ewise sought issuance of a writ of preliminar" mandator" in0unction for the return to her of what she claimed to be her paraphernal propert". Elena refrained from discussing the matter in her desire not to anger the defendant and drive him awa" =n April #EA9.letters from his sisters which informed him of the alleged acts of infidelit" 2er wife. but she wife simpl" pac%ed up and left 2e then filed for legal separation !he trial court denied his petition.campo and .till. within D "ears from and after the date when such cause occurred 1 $e1al %e(aration*=2en to File or Tr/ &ctions Contreras v 9acarai1 Facts: Elena Contreras and Eusebio -acaraig got married in #ED* =n . but still.erafina allegedl" committed adulter" in #ED# with Bose Arcalas 2er husband then sent her to manila to stud" beaut" culture Again. her husband refused to return to his legitimate famil" . to which . he again discovered that his wfe was having illicit relations with a 7elson . sa"ing that he condoned the acts charged to his wife Issue: (. in fact.n December #$. she alread" filed outside the prescriptive period since she %new of her husband’s act in Banuar" #EDD but she onl" filed for legal separation in April #EDA ' $e1al %e(aration*=2en to File or Tr/ &ctions Oca8(o v Florenciano5 supra Facts: Bose . Elena again received rumors that her husband was seen with a woman (hen the defendant came home =n ma" #EA9. he discovered that she was going out with several men After . then under the administration and the management of her husband 4espondent 4amos filed a motion to suspend the hearing of the petition for a writ of mandator" preliminar" in0unction. sa"ing that she condoned or consented to his acts and that she alread" filed outside the prescriptive period Issue: (. Gine: and 3uga"ong slept together as husband and wife even though the plaintiff %new of his wife’s adulter" Even a single act of marital intercourse is enough to constitute condonation & Note: refer to Contreras case and compare' $e1al %e(aration*De)enses*Consent5 Condonation5 also Prescri(tion 9atu+is v Pra0edes Facts: .erafina were married in #E9F . appellant still made brave if desperate attempts to persuade her husband to come bac% home. for failure to agree on how the" should live as husband and wife. legal separation cannot be claimed &Note: Prescription as defense. Moilo began cohabiting with Asuncion 4ebulado and the" even had a child . and. which respondent 0udge granted 2ence. the" entered into an agreement stating that # the" relin5uish their legal right over each other as husband and wife * the" could get an" mate and live as husband and wife without interference b" an" of them and the" cannot prosecute each other for adulter" or concubinage 9 the wife is no longer entitled to support from her husband. he did not file for legal separation =nstead he sent wife to -anila to stud" 2e onl" filed a petition for legal separation in Bul" #EDD.he also confessed that she was guilt" of the said acts Issue: 2as action for adulter" of wife with Bose Arcalas prescribedG Held: 6es Plaintiff discovered wife’s illicit relations with Bose Arcalas in -arch #ED# 2aving found this. alleging abandonment and concubinage !he trial court dismissed the petition.ocorro then filed for legal separation.
the defendant husband been sustaining illicit relations with one Ana Calog and having her as his concubine. &b ' the partition of the con0ugal propert". for legal separation on the ground that the defendant had attempted to %ill the plaintiff !he plaintiff as%ed for support pendente lite for her and her three children !he defendant. 2on Antonio 8illareal. in view of the merel" provisional character of the resolution to be entered -ere affidavits ma" satisf" the court to pass upon the application for support pendente lite =t is enough that the facts be satisfied b" affidavits or other documentar" evidence appearing in the record !he private respondent has submitted documents showing that the corporations controlled b" the petitioner have entered into multiHmillion contracts in pro0ects of the -inistr" of Public 2ighwa"s Considering the high cost of living due inflation and the financial abilit" of the petitioner as shown b" the documents of record. and &c ' alimon" pendente lite in the sum of P$<< per month . the domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the wife) that the plaintiff could not ac5uire a residence in =loilo before the marriage between her and the defendant was legall" dissolved Issues: (. there would appear to be a recognition that the 5uestion of management from the spouses’ respective propert" need not to be unresolved even during the A months period !he absolute limitation from which the court suffers under Art #<9 is thereb" eased !he parties ma" in the meanwhile be heard !here is all the more reason then for the petitioner’s insistence that her motion for preliminar" mandator" in0unction should not be ignored !his is speciall" so. (. where the husband has given cause for legal separation =n an action for divorce brought b" the wife against husband. as the wife of the defendant. =t is true that the adulter" of the wife is defense in an action for support 2owever. opposed the application for support pendent elite for the ground that his wife had committed adulter" with her ph"sician Issue: 1. the wife ma" ac5uire another and separate domicile from that of her husband 1 /Although the law fixes the domicile of the wife as being of her husband. which 0ustified her in leaving him. and that he did not exceed his power and authorit" in issuing a preliminar" in0unction against the defendant. however. one wa" or the other. that a married woman ma" ac5uire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband. it is enough that the court ascertain the %ind and amount of evidence even b" afiidavits onl" or other documentar" evidence Held: 1. with public scandal and in disgrace of plaintiff +pon said allegations she pra"ed for &a ' a decree of divorce. therefore. plaintiff filed a motion. (. considering that the husband whom the petitioner accused of concubinage and an attempt against her life would in the meanwhile continue in the management of what she claimed to be her paraphernal propert". in which the partition of the con0ugal propert" is also pra"ed for. prohibiting the latter from alienating or encumbering an" part of con0ugal propert" during the pendenc" of the action =t follows from all of the foregoing that the respondent. . it being sufficient that the court ascertain the %ind and amount of evidence which it ma" deem sufficient to enable to it 0ustl" resolve the application.ubse5uent to said complaint. petitioner did not present an" evidence to prove the allegation that his wife had committed adulter" with an" person 2. an assertion that was not specificall" denied b" the husband (rit granted $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Filin1 Petition De $a #ina v #illareal Facts: =n an action for divorce. universal 0urisprudence recogni:es an exception to the rule in the case where the husband’s conduct has been such as to furnish lawful ground for a divorce. under the law. <<< << a month granted b" the respondent Budge as alimon" pendente lite to the private respondent is not excessive $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree "aCe. (e find that the amount of P$. there would be a failure to abide b" the literal language of such codal provision !hat the law. v "aCe.7 the alleged adulter" of his wife dis5ualifies her from alimon" pendente lite 2. must also be considered a resident of the same province inasmuch as. and. =n determining the amount to be awarded as support pendente lite it is not necessar" to go full" into the merits of the case. the petitioner herein. : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 18 . during the existence of the marriage.parties must be left alone =t is precluded from hearing the suit !here is then some plausibilit" for the view that an ancillar" motion such as one for preliminar" mandator" in0unction is not to be acted on =f it were otherwise.7 the wife ma" obtain a preliminar" writ of in0uction during the pendenc" of the case Did the 0udge exceed his 0urisdictionG Held: /(here the husband has given cause of divorce. the plaintiff wife 7arcisa Geopano alleged that since the "ear #E#9 and up to date of the complaint. the alleged adulter" of his wife must be established b" competent evidence !he mere allegation that wife has committed adulter" will not bar her from the right to receive support pendente lite =n the instant case.riental and the plaintiff. remains cogni:ant of the need in certain cases of 0udicial power to assert itself is discernible from what is set forth in Art #<$ 7CC &nowArt A# >C' 2ence. the wife ma" obtain a preliminar" in0unction against the husband. E (all &+ . had 0urisdiction to hear and determine the action for divorce instituted in said court b" the respondent 7arcissa Geopano. #<F'' =t is clear therefore. prohibiting him from alienating or encumbering an" part of the con0ugal propert" during the pendenc" of the action $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Filin1 Petition Re/es v Ines<$uciano Facts: Celia =lustreH4e"es filed in the BD4C of Que:on Cit" a complaint against her husband. alleging that since the filing of her complaint she had personal %nowledge that the defendant was tr"ing to alienate or encumber the propert" which belonged to their con0ugal partnership and pra"ed that a preliminar" in0unction be issued against the defendant Petitioner contends that the C>= of =loilo had no 0urisdiction to have cogni:ance of the said action for divorce because the defendant therein was a resident of Province of 7egros . as Auxiliar" Budge sitting in the Court of >irst =nstance of the Province of =loilo.7 in determining the amount of support pendent lite. at the hearing of the application for support pendente lite before the BD4C. -anuel B C 4e"es. necessaril" authori:es her to live elsewhere and to ac5uire a separate domicile 1 &Cheever v (ilson.
#EF@. and also.7 Gina has rights to the child Held: 7o the provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under D "ears will not appl" when the court finds compelling reasons to do otherwise =n this case.s notice of appeal was elevated to the CA Aida filed a motion to dismiss but the court denied it sine she wasn’t able to pa" the doc%et fee Issues: 1 (. that the mother is unfit !hus. (.7 the trial court’s reliance on tender "ears presumption deprived the father of his constitutional entitlement to the e5ual protection of the law Held: 6es !he tender "ears presumption represents an unconstitutional genderH based classification which discriminates between fathers and mothers in child custod" proceedings solel" on the basis of sex =t creates a presumption of fitness and suitabilit" of one parent without consideration of the actual capabilities of both parties =t also imposes unnecessar" legal burden on the father & Note: !he burden of proof.eptember *9.7 the execution of 0udgment pending appeal is 0ustified 2.Facts: =n .n . in actions for recover" of propert" with accounting. who are common law husband and wife !he couple offered angelie for adoption to her sister and brother in law. res 0udicata does not foreclose this asset from being valued as part of the net assets $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Tender 'ears 0 Parte Devine Facts: -r Devine was a school teacher. under @ "ears.<<<. but concluded that mr La 4ue’s abusive conduct far outweighed his wife’s (hen the divorce was awarded. while -rs Devine was emplo"ed with the +. mother will ta%e care of them. right to claim e5uitable relief is not barred because a part" see%ing them ma" be found at fault in the divorce action Economic contributions are also similar to propert" interests =n determining the appropriate amount for e5uitable distribution in this case. according to the tender "ears presumption &if both parents are fit.he sought for moral and exemplar" damages as well as litigation expenses and an execution of motion pending appeal Court denied her motion for damages but gave due course to the execution pending appeal !he respondent was ordered to leave the house and car to petitioner !he petitioner meanwhile has been ordered to post a bond to answer for all the damages the respondent ma" suffer !he order was appealed b" Gabriel. both in their tender "ears &@ and $' (hen -r and -rs Devine were divorced. Aida and Gabrial 3ane: were awarded a decree for legal separation because of the latter’s sexual infidelit" Also included in the decree was the dissolution of their con0ugal propert". or else. Gina has another child b" another married man Angelie Anne was also legall" adopted and it dissolves the authorit" of the natural parents to the child : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 19 . Menaida Carreon Cervantes and 7elson Cervantes. the" would get bac% their child !he petitioners refused . the forfeiture of the respondent’s one half share in the net con0ugal assets in favor of the common children.ardo Facts: Angelie Anne Cervantes was born to Conrado >a0ardo and Gina Carreon. based on irreconcilable differences !he court found ine5uitable conduct on both sides. we should consider * things. -rs La 4ue onl" got alimon" and allowance for health insurance 2owever. sa"ing that she had no desire to give up the child in the first place and the affidavit that she executed wasn’t explained full" to her !he petitioners herein filed a writ of habeas corpus Issue: (. the male can onl" gain custod" => the female is unfit even if the father is fit !his violates the e5ual protection clause ' $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Tender 'ears Cervantes v Fa. the petitioners received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid #D<. -rs La 4ue’s contribution at the start of marriage &JD#<<<' and her homema%er services As for -rs La 4ue wanting to obtain one half interest of the home propert" &court denied it also'. and children are at their tender "ears. and it was set aside b" the CA Aida filed a ->4 but it was denied =n the meantime. special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of mortgage !he rationale for multiple appeals in one case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved b" the court and is to be held final =n this case. Gina too% the child from their "a"a at the petitioners’ residence Petitioners as%ed for the child but respondent refused. and the" are final when the decree for it has been granted !he" are mere incidents of the decree $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Dissolution &CP CPG $a Rue v $a Rue Facts: !he parties were married in #ED< !heir marriage was a traditional one as -r La 4ue handled the famil"’s financial affairs and -rs La 4ue was mainl" a housewife !he" then filed for divorce in -arch #EF<. the court awarded the children to -rs Devine. Gina wouldn’t be able to provide a desirable environment for her child Conrado is married to another woman.eptember ##. pa"ment to petitioner’s counsel to be ta%en from the petitioner’s share in the net assets and the surrender of a vehicle and the house to the petitioner !he petitioner filed a motion to modif" the decision !he decision was modified. obliging the petitioner to pa" as attorne"’s fees the e5uivalent of DR of the total value of respondent’s ideal share in the net con0ugal assets and ordering the administrator to pa" her counsel . the divorce order did not provide for an" distribution of marital assets c then petitioned the court to award her one half of the all personal propert" and one half of the real estate owned b" -r La 4ue 2er petition was denied since she failed to carr" the burden of proving that either a contract existed that marital assets were e5uall" owned or that her earnings were invested in an" propert" owned titled to -r La 4ue’s name Issue: (.7 a homema%er is entitled to an e5uitable share of the propert" Held: 6es 2omema%er services are economic contributions (here a spouse who has made material contributions of industr" and labor during the marriage to the ac5uisition of propert". based on instinctive role of the mother' -r Devine now challenges the constitutionalit" of the tender "ears presumption and claiming that it is violative of the#$th amendment &e5ual protection' Issue: (.7 an action for legal is one where multiple appeals is allowed Held: # 7o !here was no superior or urgent circumstance * 7o -ultiple appeals are onl" allowed in special proceedings. Arm" at >ort -cClellan * children were born out of their marriage. a special e5uit" or e5uitable interest can be found Also. the petitioners in this case Gina executed an affidavit of consent and an appropriate petition for adoption was filed b" herein petitioners !he petition was granted .ometime in march #EF@. Gabriel. n actions for partition of propert". the * appeals came from the same issue the legal separation !he effects of legal separation are not separate matters.
oledad1 merel" provides an option for .7 custod" of children should be awarded to husband. and he will be coming bac% home to the Philippines permanentl" $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Tender 'ears Celis v Ca)uir Facts: (hen =leana Celis gave birth to a bo".7 Leouel should be awarded proper custod" Held: 6es !he father. Leouel was not shown to be an unfit parent !he fact that he %idnapped his son from the latter’s maternal grandSparents does not render him unfit . Philip. the mother is the best custodian 2owever. absence or unsuitabilit" of parents ma" substitute parental authorit" be exercised b" the surviving grandparents $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*C2ildIs Pre)erence David v. on the other hand.oledad as the guardian of the child !he designation of one as the $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Parental Un)itness Feld8an v Feld8an Facts: -ad" >eldman filed for divorce against her husband. claims that the two documents enacted b" =leana renounced her custod" of and patria potestas over her child Issue: (. C& Facts: Petitioner Daisie David is a secretar" to respondent 4amon 8illar A relationship between them developed. Leouel abducted the child from his grandparents !he grandparents then filed for custod" of the bo". 4osalind was born !he" then got married in #EF@ and later had a son. she entrusted him to . the" again met in Pittsburgh. that the publications or pictures were ever seen b" the children &7ote. not for the advancement of the litigation case 6. Philip >eldman Held: 7o 2er peculiar sexual practices do not ipso facto constitute unfitness for custod" =t was found that she had supported her children well and has given them a great atmosphere at home !he unusual practices b" the mother did not.n . which no wa" affect her minor children. but the CA granted the petition. she was awarded the custod" of their * children After the divorce. which the trial court granted Leouel then appealed. based upon cruel and inhuman treatment Pursuant to their separation agreement.aturda" and provided some mil%. is within the penumbra of privac" mandated b" the 3ill of 4ights' $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Parental Un)itness %antos %r v C& Facts: Leouel and Bulia had placed their child into the care of the latter’s parents ever since the child was born !he grandparents were the ones who provided support for the child.oledad as the child’s guardian !hereafter. his or her choice of parent is paramount 2.crew -aga:ine and some letters with explicit photographs on the dining room and %itchen tables !he letters were in response to the ads placed b" the former wife and her male companion regarding fun and games with other couples or groups !he former husband then filed a petition for the custod" of the two children !he trial court found that the wife was living sexuall" liberated lifest"le 3ased on this.oledad Cafuir because of her father’s displeasure of the disgrace =leana brought to the famil" for having illicit relations with a man whom she is not married with and because of her father’s ob0ection of having her son sta" in the paternal home As such. and this should be the primar" consideration of the court Issue: (. the trial court granted the custod" of the two children to the former husband Issue: (. the clause that sa"s /7o one has the right to claim for adoption except . her illicit affair with 4e"naldo’s cowor%er seemed to have caused emotional disturbances to 4osalind !here is also nothing in the records which show that 4e"naldo was unfit 2is assignment in the states is 0ust temporar". Also. in an" wa". stating that the respondents have failed to show the he is unfit to be the father and that the substitute parental authorit" granted to the bo"’s grandparents was inappropriate !he respondents. the right of a divorced woman to engage in private sexual activities. 4eginald !heir relationship deteriorated and the" separated in #EE< !eresita then left the children and 4e"naldo and went bac% to California 4e"naldo brought the children to the Philippines and left them to her sister !eresita then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the petitioners !he trial court denied the writ. he found a cop" of .oledad Held: 7o !he first document merel" entrusted her son to soledad Entrusted cannot conve" the idea of permanent renunciation Also.guardian does not mean that the guardian will alwa"s assume and discharge the duties of the office or position $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Tender 'ears s(iritu v C& Facts: 4e"naldo Espiritu and !eresita -asauding first met at =ligan Cit" in #E@A =n #EF$.7 =leana had renounced her custod" of the child in favor of . which she didn’t ta%e !he second document.oledad can adopt the child !he second appoints . in her defense. =leana onl" came to visit the bo" ever" . Boel. but . the former wife began dating a married man =n one visit of the former husband at her former wife’s house. since Leouel cannot afford to do so Bulia then left for the states to wor% !he grandparents claim that Bulia has been sending financial support to her son . affect the children !here is no evidence also. !he testimonies of the ps"chologist and social wor%er showed that the children disli%ed their mother !heir testimonies were given weight b" the court since the interview and the examination were done for foreign travel and school purposes respectivel". and as such. Penns"lvania and began to maintain a common law relationship as husband and wife * "ears later.oledad. she married co petitioner Agustin 4ivera !he" then decided to get the bo" bac%. the presumption is not absolute and ma" be overcome b" compelling reasons (hen a child is over seven. =leana two documents !he first sa"s that she entrusts .oledad refused =leana then filed for a writ of habeas corpus . Bulia has entrusted the bo" to them Leouel’s use of tric%er" to abduct the child also is a sign of his unfitness !he" li%ewise claim that the" are in the best position to ta%e care of the child.7 !eresita is fit to be granted custod" of the children Held: 7o 1. appl"ing Art 9A9 CC which states that a child below @ "rs old shall not be separated from the mother Issue: (.nl" in cases of death. on the other hand. merel" designated .oledad.eptember #EE<. a child was born to them. !he prime consideration is the child’s best interest !he tender 6ears Presumption provides that if the child is under seven "ears of age.oledad her child and onl" .eptember #E$F. while Leouel is not Also. claim that the" are financiall" wellHoff to ta%e care of the son. food and a little mone" =n . : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 20 .
Gwen’s grandfather attempted to use his medical insurance provided b" the united mine wor%ers 3ut he has been informed that the" would have to adopt the bab" so the" can avail of the said insurance Gwen then signed a consent in which she agreed that her bab" will be adopted b" her grandparents -ichael.eptember *@. the ps"chiatrist did not detect an" evidence that the paternal visits would be harmful to the children 3ased on this. Ann 4obin. after the parties reached an agreement. the appellee and Gwendol"n -cCo". 8illar as%ed permission from Daisie to ta%e Christopher B to 3oraca" Daisie agreed After the trip. visited the bab" for the #st time and sent mone" wee%l" Gwen’s grandfather then filed a petition for adoption Conse5uentl". she received no support from -ichael. the child and her father lived in =srael. was better educated. among others Issue: (. granted custod" to the father !he wife argued that the 0udge failed to consider all circumstances and allowed the child’s choice to control his decision Issue: (. being financiall" wellHoff was given temporar" custod" of the child Issue: (. the results of the ps"chiatric evaluation were presented to the court !he exam states that the children were affected ps"chologicall" b" the father’s drugH related behavior. while the husband argued that the states had more violence and engaged in much more wars !he 0udge and Ann 4obin then tal%ed.ne summer. and also the ps"chiatrist found that 4e"mond is still not completel" cured of the drug addiction 2owever. 4e"mond Laxamana. while the mother. because of the latter’s drug dependence which led to his being violent towards them August #EEE. the records are inade5uate as to his moral. since the bab" had not resided with them for the re5uisite A months !he court also awarded custod" to -ichael for reasons that he. when her husband and child returned to the . Claire. ta%ing into consideration the child’s best interests. the CA reversed the ruling. Ann said that she loved her father more than her mother and that she had no desire to visit with her mother but agreed if she was allowed to live with her father if she visited her mother for $ wee%s during the summer !he 0udge. the mother’s custod" over him will have to be upheld because the child categoricall" expressed preference to live with his mother $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*C2ildIs Pre)erence ?Pi.n December #EEE. Christopher B is under the parental authorit" of the mother !he fact that the respondent is wellHoff does not deprive the petitioner custod" of her children. and to pa" for the medical bills. the children of Daisie were freel" brought b" 8illar to his house and was treated as legal famil" .7 the 0udge’s reliance on the child’s preference was 0ustifiable Held: 6es !he factors in awarding custod" to one or the other of the parents were e5uall" balanced as to ma%e it difficult for the 0udge to decide between them !hat being so.@ $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*C2ildIs Pre)erence Goldstein v Goldstein Facts: Edward Goldstein was awarded custod" of a child. and from their conversation. it does not seem that he abused his discretion when he gave great weight to the child’s preference $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*C2ildIs Pre)erence $a0a8ana v $a0a8ana Facts: 4espondent Lourdes Laxamana and her children abandoned the petitioner.arro v #as!ue. financial and social wellH being Although he is not completel" cured of his drug dependence.tate to promote and protect the welfare of the children shall not be disregarded b" mere technicalit" in resolving disputes which involve the famil" and the "outh (hile 4e"mond ma" have a histor" of drug dependence. -ichael sent a pac%age of food and diapers =n the subse5uent months.7 Daisie should be given custod" of the child Held: 6es Custod" of a child in an adulterous relationship can be settled in a habeas corpus case As such.n appeal.7 the court properl" resolved the issue of custod" Held: 7o !he fundamental polic" of the . after a decree b" the court As such. the children in this case were #$ and #D "ears old at the time of the promulgation of the decision. upon learning this. under Art #@A >C. more intelligent. able to provide better financial support. but after she gave birth. sta"ed in the . education and moral and intellectual training and development -oreover. citing the drug dependence of the petitioner . the appellant. -ichael filed a petition for write of habeas corpus to secure custod" of his son !he court denied the petition for adoption. #EE. #EEE .he then filed for an annulment of their marriage on . the bab" had man" complications.7 -ichael should be awarded custod" Held: 7o the court set forth the rule regarding the presumption of primar" careta%er !he court held that the primar" careta%er is one who performs the following caring and nurturing duties of the parent.Christopher B &A "ears old at the time case was pending' =t was followed b" * more girls !he relationship became %nown to the respondent’s wife when Daisie too% Christopher B to the respondent’s house and was introduced 8illar’s legal wife After this. 4e"mond filed in the habeas corpus case a motion see%ing visitation rights over his children . 4e"mond then filed a petition for habeas corpus. 8illar refused to return the child Daisie then filed for a writ of habeas corpus !he trial court granted her petition and custod" of the child was awarded to her . "et the court did not ascertain their choice as to which parent the" wanted to live $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Custod/*Pri8ar/ Careta:er Gars:a v 9cCo/ Facts: -ichael Gars%a. stating that the custod" of the child ma" be decided in a habeas corpus case where the parents are legall" married to each other but are separated 3ut the same does not hold true in an adulterous relationship 4amon 8illar. Gwen moved bac% to her grandparents During her pregnanc". met at north Carolina -ichael got Gwen pregnant and thus. is natural father.tates and appeared in court !he trial 0udge found it advisable to place the child under the mother’s custod" pending the hearing At the hearing.tates !he wife then initiated a series of proceedings to reclaim rights over the child and she finall" succeeded in part. pra"ing for the custod" of the 9 children. the court granted the visitation rights and ordered the parties to undergo ps"chiatric and ps"chological examination =n Banuar" *<<<. both were found to be fit Ann was found to be ver" intelligent and suffers no emotional damage !he wife re5uested for the 0udge to ta%e notice of the threat of war in =srael.n . Lourdes opposed the petition.eptember *$. since she has proven that she has been able to support them Also even now that Christopher B is over @ "ears of age. there is no evidence showing that he is unfit to provide the children with ade5uate support. the court granted custod" to Lourdes and visitation rights to 4e"mond Issue: (. # preparing and planning of : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 21 .
in the interest of this child and that she went to extraordinar" lengths to provide for him ade5uate medical attention and financial support $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Ot2er ))ects 9atute v 9acadalo Facts: Armando -edel filed for legal separation against 4osario -atute on the ground of adulter" with Armando’s brother. +nited .n #EDD.meals * 3athing and grooming and dressing.tates. had obtained 0urisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before it =t also obtained 0urisdiction over +pton who authori:ed his attorne"s to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibilit" in the understanding that there were neither communit" propert" nor communit" obligations !here can be no 5uestion as to the validit" of that 7evada divorced in an" . Armando left for the . 4osario as%ed permission from Armando to bring the children to manila for her father’s funeral Armando agreed on the condition that she will return them after * wee%s 3ut 4osario did not Later. #EF9. for to hold otherwise would be to provide for an eas" circumvention of said Art 9@* 2. namel" the solicitous regard of her grandparents. =t is true that in the second decision which reconsidered the first it is stated that a petitioner owns extensive business interests. stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita. the custod" of the children under Armando was stand !he 0udge was onl" performing his dut" to implement such award &Note: Ph"sical Custod" K wife vs Legal Custod" K husband !his is a procedural case) solution is not %idnapping the children but filing the proper custod" case in court ' $e1al %e(aration* ))ects o) Decree*Ot2er ))ects*Use o) %urna8e $a(eral v Re(u+lic Facts: . the fact of legal separation.tates and left the children with his sister. a decree of legal separation was entered between them b" C>= 3aguio Elisea Laperal ceased to live with Enri5ue . &the Galleon . all of the evidence indicates that she mobili:ed all of the resources at her command.econdl". obviousl" no evidence to this effect had been adduced .he claims that the children did not want to go bac% to their father since the" claim he was living with another woman other than their mother !he court denied her custod" and ordered her to return the children to Armando 4osario then instituted against Armando and the 0udge the present action for certiorari and prohibition with preliminar" in0unction Issues: 1 (hether the court acted without or in excess of 0urisdiction. with the issuance of the decree of legal separation in #EDF. F disciplining. the onl" basis for petition. there could be no more occasions for an eventual li5uidation of con0ugal assets . it is obvious that Gwen is the primar" careta%er !here is no finding which points that Gwen is unfit =n fact.tates !he decree is binding on +pton as an American citi:en >or instance.n -a" #<. 2. #< teaching elementar" s%ills . the procedure prescribed in 4ule #<9 44C on change of name has been observed 3ut from the petition. in #EF*) and petitioner has remarried also in 7evada. these were not the causes upon which the petition was based) hence. A arranging alternative care. in an" .antamaria since then . provided the" are valid according to their national law : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 22 . @ putting child to bed at night. the onl" reason relied upon for change of name is the fact that Elisea Laperal is legall" separated from Enri5ue . which decreed the divorce.antamaria and has in fact. onl" Philippine nationals are covered b" the polic" against absolute divorces the same being considered contrar" to our concept of public polic" and moralit" 2owever. (hether the 0udge acted with grave abuse of discretion Held: 7o # !he court had 0urisdiction over the case (hatever mista%es the court had committed would be merel" errors of 0udgment. ceased to live with him =t is doubtful whether 4ule #<9 ma" prevail over Art 9@* with regard to a married woman legall" separated from her husband 2owever. and that +pton be declared as having the right to manage the con0ugal propert" Issue: !he effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged con0ugal propert" in the Philippines Held: !he 7evada District Court.antamaria’s surname ma" cause undue confusion in her finances and the eventual li5uidation of con0ugal asset !his finding is however without basis =n the first place. cleaning and care of clothes. this time to !heodore 8an Dorn . #E9E. #EA<. aliens ma" obtain divorces abroad. 9 purchasing. +pton filed a suit against petitioner in the 4!C of Pasa" Cit". is con0ugal propert" and as%ing that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business. E educating. -anila. the" established their residence in the Philippines and begot two children) the parties were divorced in 7evada. Armando came bac% home and the children 0oined him .tates) the" were married in 2ong%ong in #E@*) after the marriage. Elisea Laperal married Enri5ue .rder set aside) petition dismissed Divorces*Forei1n Divorces #an Dorn v Ro8illo Facts: Petitioner Alice 4e"es 8an Dorn is a citi:en of the Philippines while private respondent 4ichard +pton is a citi:en of the +nited . she /shall continue1 using her name and surname emplo"ed before the legal separation !here is no dispute that in the institution of these proceedings. Ernesto !he court granted the decree and also awarded their $ children to Armando’s custod" !hereafter.hop'. the continued use of Enri5ue . all that need to be determined is whether the parent is unfit or not =n this case.nce the primar" careta%e is identified. he con0ugal partnership between Elisea Laperal and Enri5ue . thereafter using the name Elisea L . there being no severance of the vinculum. A woman’s married status is not affected b" a decree of legal separation. 4osario filed a civil case for the custod" of the children and support thereof . and is reviewable b" appeal * 7o +nless the custod" has been reviewed or modified. even appl"ing 4ule #<9.antamaria had automaticall" been dissolved and li5uidated Conse5uentl".n -arch *$. in whose house 4osario also lived in order to be with her children After * "ears.tates of the +nited . attending to child in the middle of the night.n Bune F. is not sufficient ground to 0ustif" the change.tate of the +nion (hat he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and binding in this 0urisdiction the same being contrar" to local law and public polic" =t is true that owing to the nationalit" principle embodied in Article #D of the Civil Code. and. and under the mandator" provisions of Art 9@* 7CC. $ medical care. wa%ing child in the morning. Elisea Laperal filed in C>= 3aguio a petition pra"ing that she be allowed to resume using her maiden name of Elisea Laperal Issue: =s Elisea allowed to use her maiden nameG Held: 1.antamaria. which ma" be recogni:ed in the Philippines. as her husband.antamaria =n #EDF. he cannot sue petitioner. D arranging for social interaction among peers after school.
amson. departed to the +. citing sec # rule E< of the rules of court and said that the present case should be heard and decided as in ordinar" cases !he CA agreed and declared the trial court’s decision to be null and void and directed the remand of the case to the trial court Issue: (.ometime later.a. thus Paula and Loren:o’s marriage was still subsisting at the time of the latter’s death Also. Loren:o came bac% to the Philippines and married Alicia Llorente. the court said that it is governed b" the laws of Loren:o’s nationalit" !herefore the case was remanded to the trial court to see if the will was executed in accordance with the laws of Loren:o’s nationalit" Divorces*Forei1n Divorces*(roo) o) )orei1n divorce Garcia a. but the trial court denied the motion and further modified the decision. Arturo died. were married on #E$# .7 the case should be remanded Held: 6es !here is a need to determine the factual issues of the case. Alicia being 0ust a paramour of Loren:o !he court then declared Paula and Loren:o’s allegedl" illegitimate children as heirs Alicia filed a ->4.. oppositors filed final 0udgment of divorce between the petitioner and Arturo Arturo’s brother 4uperto also intervened =n #EF@. on the ground that it stated no cause of action !he trial court then declared that the divorce had ended the marriage. et . (. an Australian citi:en in -alabon. their relationship soured. but the trial court should onl" loo% upon the petitioner’s right to inherit Divorces*Forei1n Divorces*&rt 1D5 CC $lorente v C& Facts: Loren:o Llorente and Paula Llorente were married in Camarines . thus. both >ilipinos. 7o >or a foreign divorce to be recogni:ed b" the court. he is estopped b" his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged con0ugal propert" !o maintain. Loren:o died Paula then filed a petition for letters of administration of Loren:o’s estate Alicia li%ewise filed the same !he trial court granted Paula’s petition. thus. since Loren:o was alread" an American citi:en at that time As for the validit" of the will. mainl" the issue on the citi:enship of the petitioner when she ac5uired the divorce & Note: * contracting or confusing facts. 8an Dorn would become applicable and >e could ver" well lose here right to inherit from Arturo !he case was then remanded.he should not be discriminated against in her own countr" if the ends are to be served Divorces*Forei1n Divorces*"asis is &rt 1D5 CC Juita v Dandan Facts: Petitioner >e Quita and Arturo Padlan. herein petitioner !heir marriage also soured. observe respect and fidelit". their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo >e and 4uperto were then declared heirs 3landina and the Padlan children later filed a ->4 and submitted the necessar" documents earlier on demanded b" the court !he court then declared the Padlan children heirs. but was denied since he was still alive Later. citi:enship !hereafter. under which divorce dissolves the marriage !hus. since her marriage was void as she contracted the marriage when Arturo had a subsisting marriage 3landina then appealed. admitted it 3ut before the proceedings could be terminated. +pton is no longer the husband of petitioner 2e would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over con0ugal assets As he is bound b" the Decision of his own countr"’s Court.=n this case. the court. released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law. the petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of the heirs of Arturo !he court re5uired 3landina and her children to submit documents to support their claim. under our laws. the part" pleading it must prove divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformit" to the foreign law : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 23 . claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo and the latter’s alleged children with her opposed the petition and as%ed the court the appointment instead of Att" Cabasal Later. as +pton does. but the latter failed to do so !he trial court then held that the divorce obtained b" the petitioner is void. which validl" exercised 0urisdiction over him. but not 3landina. the" obtained decree of divorce >e had two other marriages later =n #E@*. and the" began to live separatel" and their con0ugal assets were divided Grace then learned of 4ederic%’s previous divorce. (. and b T time of divorce between >e and Arturo. Loren:o was able to obtain +. Loren:o executed a last will and testament. that. he discovered that her wife was having illicit relations with his brother Ceferino Llorente and was even pregnant with him Loren:o then filed for divorce in California. leaving Paula in the Philippines (hile in the +. the will is intrinsicall" void. whom he had three children =i #EF#. Recio v Recio Facts: 4ederic% 4ecio was married to Editha . and render support to private respondent !he latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to con0ugal propert" .:. nav". and whose decision he does not repudiate. which the court granted A few "ears later. leaving no will A certain Lino =nciong filed a petition pra"ing for the issuance of letters of administration of Arturo’s estate 4espondent 3landina Dandan. 4i:al (hen their marriage soured.7 the divorce decree of the respondent’s first marriage was proven 2.A &Note: -arriage between 3landina and Arturo was in #E$@' =n #ED$. the" filed for divorce in .ur Loren:o. a serviceman of the +. the" applied for a decree of divorce in the Australian famil" courts.7 respondent was proven to be legall" capacitated Held: 1. pursuant to his national law.e5 of the Civil Code cannot be 0ust Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with. both happened in #ED$' =t will determine whether the divorce will have legal effect in the Philippines . which sa"s that Alicia and their children will be declared heirs of his estate 2e then filed a petition for probate and allowance of his will before the trial court. there being no legal capacit" to marr" on the part of 4ederic% 2e claims however that his first marriage was validl" dissolved. when the Pacific war bro%e out.an >rancisco +. which was later granted 4ederic% then became an Australian citi:en 2e remarried with a >ilipina. declaring onl" one of the children as heir instead of all three . finding it was dul" executed. the divorce in 7evada.he then filed an appeal before the CA the CA affirmed the decision but modified it to include Alicia as coHowner of whatever properties she and the deceased ma" have ac5uired during their relationship Issue: (hether Alicia is entitled to Loren:o’s estate Held: 6es !he court upheld the validit" of the divorce decree.nce proved that >e was no longer a >ilipino citi:en at the time of their divorce. and subse5uentl" filed for a declaration of nullit" of marriage. petitioner has to be considered still married to him and still sub0ect to a wife’s obligations under Article #<E. sa"ing that the divorce decree was null and void. 4ederic% was able to secure a divorce decree from Australia 2e then pra"ed that the pending case be dismissed. thus he was legall" capacitated to marr" (hen the case filed b" Grace was pending. a T time of >e’s naturali:ation. Grace Garcia. thus there was no marital union to nullif" Issues: 1.
the couple were no longer in good terms . while his wife 7erissa is a nurse After A miscarriages.he wanted the child to come with her. v C& Facts: 4a" Pere: is a doctor practicing in Cebu. or to put the child in a da" care center C ' fact that 4a" lives with his parents is not crucial D petitioner’s wor% schedule is not necessaril" permanent. but onl" to resume it b" virtue of the decree of divorce !he change in name will 0ust reflect the change of status of the woman Also.he claims that the" onl" came for a vacation. to ta%e a leave. such as inviting a relative to care of the child. a provisional 0udgment of divorce. there is no need for 0udicial confirmation for this as the use of her former husband’s name is optional and not obligator" for her De Facto %e(aration Pere. a lot of options are open to her.. but 4a" %ept her awa" =n Bul" #EE9. Art *#9 >C does not 5ualif" the word separation to mean legal separation (here the law does not ma%e a distinction. whether absolute or limited !he respondent 0ust showed an interlocutor" decree. based on Art *#9 >C stating that no child under @ shall be separated from the mother . still restrict marriage !here is also an Australian law which sa"s that a part" who marries before divorce becomes absolute commits bigam". 7erissa filed a petition for habeas corpus. and that ra" sta"ed behind for his sic% mother and promised to follow her with the bab" 4a" claims that the" agreed to reside in the Philippines but once 7erissa was in 76. neither should we !hus. in #EFF and became a resident alien in #EE* ra" sta"ed with her in the +. stating that it is not covered b" 4ule #<9 of the 4ules of Court but is merel" a petition to use her maiden name after the divorce !he motion was denied on the ground that the petition was substantiall" a change of name and there should be compliance to 4ule #<9 Issue: (hether a petition for resumption of maiden name should be granted Held: 6es 4ule #<9 of the 4ules of Court is for used for a change of the real name. : PFR Reviewer prepared by rean 24 . * operations and a high ris% pregnanc". thus bolstering the court’s contention that the divorce ac5uired b" the respondent was restricted !he court then remanded the case to receive evidence to show the respondent’s capacit" to marr" Divorces*9usli8 Divorces 'asin v %2aria District Facts: 2atima 6asin filed a petition to resume the use of her maiden name . which is similar to a separation from bed and board although absolute divorce ma" follow Also. the respondent wasn’t able to prove that it was made in accordance with Australian laws 2e has the burden of proving it since he raised his previous divorce as a defense 2. so as not to able to ta%e care of their children 3 should her time be unmanageable. onl" 7erissa came bac% .allowing it !hough the divorce was proven as fact since the divorce decree was submitted as evidence. the court ma" under some foreign statutes. and E it also does not follow that petitioner values her career more than her famil" since she chose to wor% in the +. 7o !he court cannot conclude that the respondent had legal capacit" to marr" !here is a 5uestion which t"pe of divorce he applied for.he didn’t want to live with her inHlaws. the" returned to Cebu After a few wee%s. sa"ing there are enough reasons to den" 7erissa custod".n Ban #EE9. 7erissa finall" gave birth to a child. 4a" Pere: == 7erissa began wor%ing in the +. which is the name recorded in the civil registr" !he petitioner on the other hand.n appeal. such as her wor% schedule Issue: (hether custod" should be awarded to 7erissa Held: 6es 1. it is applicable to the case at bar !he child then cannot be separated from his mother since he is below @ "ears old 2. while ra" wanted to sta" in the Philippines . even if divorce was absolute. it being insufficient in form and substance and it as%ed the petitioner to ma%e the necessar" amendments 6asin then filed a ->4. Also. she changed her mind and continued wor%ing (hen 7erissa came home fro her son’s birthda". but onl" had a tourist visa and was not emplo"ed . as%ing ra" to surrender to her their son !he trial court granted the petition. the CA reversed the decision.he claims that she was divorced under the code of -uslim laws and that her former husband has now contracted another marriage !he court denied the petition. there are no signs which render the mother unfit A ' her wor% schedule doesn’t appear unmanageable. does not see% a change of her registered name.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.