Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.

A. When law takes effect Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. (1a) Pesigan v Angeles Facts:  Anselmo Pesigan and Marcelino Pesigan (petitioners) vs Judge Domingo Medina Angeles; Dra. Bella Miranda and Arnulfo Zenarosa, et al (respondents)  Anselmo Pesiga and Marcelo Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported on April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia, Batangas, as the destination.  Inspite of the permit to transport and the four certificates, the carabaos were confiscated by Lieutenant Arnulfo Zenarosa (police station manager) and Doctor Bella Miranda (veterinarian) based on Executive Order No. 626-A  Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos  Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Doctor Miranda an action for the recovery of the carabaos  Judge Domingo Medina Angeles dismissed the case for lack of cause of action  Pesigans appealed to the court Issue:  Enforceability, before publication in the Official Gazette of June 14, 1982, of Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A dated October 25, 1980, providing for the confiscation and forfeiture by the government of carabaos transported from one province to another Ratio:  Said executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because it is a penal regulation published more than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14, 1982  It became effective only 15 days thereafter  They are not bound by the order Relevant Provisions:  Commonwealth  Act  No.  638  provides  that  “every  order  or   document which shall prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general applicability and legal  effect”  Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that “regulations  and  orders  shall  become  effective  only  when   approved by the Department Head and published in the Official Gazette  or  otherwise  publicly  promulgated” Ruling:  Trial  court’s order of dismissal and the confiscation and dispersal are reversed and set aside  Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are ordered to restore the carabaos, with the requisite documents, to the petitioners  Pesigans are entitled to a reasonable rental for each carabao from the 26 farmers who used them Notes:  Statues generally have no retroactive effect unless the legislative intent is made manifest either by express terms of the stature or by necessary implication  Penal statutes are construed strictly against the state to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts 1

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
or otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures fall within this category. Before a person may be bound by law, he must be first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. When not published, such shall have no force and effect. For without publication, the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated, much less a definite way of informing themselves of the specific contents and texts of such decrees The  clause  “unless  it  is  otherwise  provided,”  in  Article  2  of  the   Civil Code, refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. The legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. The  word  “shall”  imposes  an  imperative  duty However, the implementation/enforcement of the presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Gazette is an operative fact, which may have consequences which cannot be justly ignored.

Tanada v Tuvera Facts:  Lorenzo   Tańada,   et   al   (petitioners)   v   Hon.   Juan   Tuvera,   et   al   (respondents)  Petitioners  invoke  the  people’s  right  to  be  informed  on  matters   of public concern as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette  Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various decrees and orders Issue:  Locus standi of the petitioners  Whether unpublished laws have binding force and effect  Whether   publication   is   required   in   light   of   the   clause   “unless   otherwise  provided” Ratio:  When the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest  The publication in the Official Gazette is required to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens  Publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of regulations and make penalties binding on the person affected thereby. The publication of all presidential issuances of a “public  nature”  or  “of  general  applicability” is a mandated by law, and is a requirement of due process. Presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation 

 

Relevant Provisions:  Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution provides that “the  right of people to information on matters of public concern shall  be  recognized”  Principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette  Section  3,  Rule  65  of  the  Rules  of  Court  provides  that  “petition   for Mandamus – When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law   specifically   enjoins   as   a   duty…   the   person   aggrieved   thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding  the  defendant…  to  do  the  act  required  to  be  done”   2

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
   Article  2  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  “laws  shall  take  effect   after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is  otherwise  provided” Commonwealth Act 638 Article  3  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  “ignorance  of  the  law   excuses  no  one  from  compliance  therewith” in permanent capacity), unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title Petitioners assert that Rep Act No. 9006 is null and void Petitioners maintain that Section 67 is a good law

 

Ruling:  Respondents are ordered to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are or general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect Notes:  Some justices concurred but with qualifications that publication required need not be confined to the Official Gazette Farinas v Executive Secretary Facts:  Rodolfo  Farińas  et  al  (petitioners)  v  The  Executive  Secretary  et   al (respondents) o Petition for certiorari and prohibition  Cong. Gerry Salapuddin (petitioner) v Commission on Elections (respondent) o Petition for prohibition  Two petitions are seeking to declare Section 14 of Rep Act No. 9006 (primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices), insofar as it expressly repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for office other than the one they are holding

Issue:  Locus Standi – a party who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions  Whether Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which this court had declared in Dimaporo as deriving its existence from the constitutional provision on accountability of public officers, has been validly repealed by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006, is   one   of   overarching   significance   that   justifies   the   Court’s   adoption of a liberal stance vis-à-vis the procedural matter on standing  Enrolled bill doctrine – the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment Ratio:  On legal standing – being merely a matter of procedure, this Court,   in   several   cases   involving   issues   of   “overarching   significance   to   our   society”   had   adopted   a   liberal   stance   on   standing  Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 is not a rider 3

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
o Court is convinced that the title and objectives of Rep. Act No. 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code o “Section  67  as  a  form  of  harassment  or  discrimination”   is not the concern of the Court. It is not for the Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination  Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006 is not violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution o Equal protection of the law clause is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification o Since the classification of the officials is anchored upon material and significant distinctions and all the persons belonging under the same classification are similarly treated, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is not infringed  The enrolled bill doctrine is applicable in this case o Court finds no reason to deviate from the salutary rule in this case where the irregularities alleged by the petitioners mostly involved the internal rules of the Congress o Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.  The effectivity clause is defective o But it does not render the entire law invalid o See Tanada v Tuvera o When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the limits of legislative power Relevant Provisions:  Section   67   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code   provides   that   “any   elective official, whether national or local, running for office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate  of  candidacy” Section  14  of  Rep.  Act  No.  9006  provides  that  “sections  67  and   85 of the Omnibus Election Code and sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby  repealed  or  modified  or  amended  accordingly” Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides that “Every   bill   passed   by   the   Congress   shall   embrace   only   one   subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof Section   1,   Article   III   of   the   Constitution   provides   that   “No   person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection  of  the  laws”   Section 16 of Rep. Act   No.   9006   provides   that   it   “shall   take   effect  immediately  upon  its  approval”

 

Ruling:  Petitions are dismissed Notes:  Where a petition for mandamus involves the enforcement of constitutional rights – to information and to the equitable diffusion of natural resources – matters of transcendental public importance, a citizen has the requisite locus standi 4

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
MRCA v CA Facts:  MRCA, Inc. (petitioner) v Court of Appeals, Hon. Benjamin Pelayo; Domingo Sebastian Jr., Lilia Tioseco Sebastian, and Expectacion Tioseco (respondents)  Petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the order of the RTC dismissing the complaint for non-payment of the proper filing fees as the prayer of the complaint failed to specify the amounts of moral damages, exemplary   damages,   attorney’s   fees   and   litigation   expenses   sought to be recovered by it from the defendants Issue:  Is the ruling in the Manchester ineffective for the reason that it has yet been published in the Official Gazette?  Can that said ruling be not given a retroactive effect because it imposes new penalty for its non-observance?  Should it be applied to this present case because the petitioner herein had no fraudulent intent to deprive the government of the proper fees? Ratio:  The contention that the ruling in the Manchester (enormous amount of damages were claimed in the body of the complaint, but the amounts were not mentioned in the prayer thereof to mislead the court in computing the filing fees to be paid) is ineffective for the reason that it has yet been published in the Official Gazette is not well taken because publication is not a prerequisite for the effectivity of a court ruling even if it lays down new rule of procedure (Aguillon v Director of Lands)  Established rule of statutory construction: Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent. o Complaint was filed on March 24, 1988 o Manchester was promulgated on May 7, 1987 o Manchester should apply except that it was modified in the Sun Insurance case where it was ruled that the court may allow payment within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the prescriptive or reglementary period In  accordance  with  the  Court’s  ruling  in  Sun  Insurance  Office,   Ltd., the petitioner may be allowed to amend its complaint.

Relevant Provisions: Ruling:  Petition for review is granted  Order of RTC is set aside  Complaint is reinstated  Petitioner is allowed to amend the same by specifying the amounts of damages it seeks to recover from the defendants and to pay the proper filing fees therefore as computed by the Clerk of Court NEA v Gonzaga Facts:  National Electrification Administration (petitioner) v Victoriano Gonzaga (respondent)  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Issue: 5

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
  Whether or not the court of appeals erred in not applying section 59 of PD 269 Whether or not the court of appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s  nullification  of  the  ECEC National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (respondents) Santiago Javier Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili (petitioner) v The Senate of the Philippines (respondent)

Ratio:  The ECEC was issued by NEA pursuant to its rule-making authority, not its quasi-judicial function. Hence, the issue regarding   the   controversy   over   respondent’s   disqualification   and the question  on  the  ECEC’s  validity  are  within  the  inherent   jurisdiction of regular courts to review.  There  is  no  error  in  the  appellate  and  trial  court’s  nullification   of the ECEC o ZAMSURECO offered no proof of publication in the official gazette nor in a newspaper of general circulation. Without compliance, rules and regulations in the ECEC cannot be enforced and implemented. Relevant Provisions:  Article  2  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  “laws  shall  take  effect   after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in  the  Official  Gazette,  unless  it  is  otherwise  provided”  Section 59 of PD 269 Ruling:  Petition is denied Garcillano v HR Facts:  Virgilio Garcillano (petitioner) v The House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety,

Issue:  Locus standi – Elements of standing: (1) petitioner must have suffered injury in fact which can be legal, economic, or environmental; (2) the injury must be traceable to the governmental act being challenged; (3) the injury must be redressable by the remedy being sought by petitioner  Justiciability – the exercise by the Court of judicial power is limited to the determination and resolution of actual cases and controversies o Actual cases – existing conflicts appropriate for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, for otherwise the decision of the Court will amount to an advisory opinion o Advisory opinion – an advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law  Legislative inquiry – Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure o The requisite of publication of rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process Ratio:  Court recognizes the legal standing of petitioners (Agcaoili et al) due to the transcendental and paramout importance of the issue 6

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
 Court points out that the Senate cannot be allowed to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation without duly published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of the constitutional requirement o Every senate is distinct from the one before it or after it o Rules of the senate confirms it Notes:  Dissent to the Neri ruling o Neri ruling – a faithful adherence to the case at bar to the Neri ruling would yield the conclusion that the Garci tapes investigation may be conducted even without the published rules of procedure governing inquiries, and that only those orders and proceedings that result in the violation of the rights of the witnesses may be considered null and void  Neri decision – not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm  Senate of each congress, although a continuing body, acts separately and independently of the senate of the congress before it o One-time publication suffices to satisfy the due process requirement to inform the public of a rule that would govern it and affect its rights  Exception: one-time publication suffices for a law or rule to have a continuing effect is when there are circumstances or factors that interrupt this continuity o Wiretapping may be held legal only if it was recorded with consent of the parties to the conversation or upon written court order Fuentes v Roca Facts:  Manuel Fuentes and Leticia Fuentes (petitioners) v Conrado Roca, Annabelle Joson, Rose Marie Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo (respondents) 7

Relevant Provisions:  Section 21, Article VI of he 1987 Constitution provides that “the   Senate   or   the   House   of   Representatives,   or   any   of   its   respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure”  Article  2  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  “laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in  the  Official  Gazette,  unless  it  is  otherwise  provided”  RA 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes  Anti-Wiretapping Law (RA 4200) – penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communication by means of devices enumerated therein  Section 123 of Rule XLIV of the Rules of Senate provides that “all  pending  matters  and  proceedings  shall  terminate  upon  the   expiration  of  one  Congress” Ruling:  Garcillano’s  petition  is  dismissed  Ranada   and   Agcaoili’s   petition   for   a   writ   of   prohibition   is   granted  Conducting any inquiry in aid of legislation centered on the Hello Garci tapes is not allowed

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
      Sabina Tarroza sold a piece of land to his son Tarciano Roca who did not for the meantime have the title be transferred to his name Tarciano offered to sell the lot to the Fuentes spouses The parties left their signed agreement with Atty. Plagata who then worked on the other requirements of the sale A new title was issued bearing the name of the spouses Tarciano passed away, followed by his wife the children of Tarciano and Rosario, namely, respondents Conrado G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, and Rose Marie R. Cristobal,   together   with   Tarciano’s   sister,   Pilar   R.   Malcampo,   represented by her son, John Paul M. Trinidad (collectively, the Rocas), filed an action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of the land against the Fuentes spouses the Fuentes spouses pointed out that the claim of forgery was personal to Rosario and she alone could invoke it RTC dismissed the case CA reversed the RTC decision Fuentes spouses came to this court by petition for review o Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal property to the Fuentes spouses on January 11, 1989, a few months after the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988 In contrast to Article 173 of the Civil Code, Article 124 of the Family Code does not provide a period within which the wife who  gave  no  consent  may  assail  her  husband’s  sale  of  the  real   property.   It   simply   provides   that   without   the   other   spouse’s   written consent or a court order allowing the sale, the same would be void. Sale was void from the beginning. Consequently, the land remained the property of Tarciano and Rosario despite that sale. When the two died, they passed on the ownership of the property to their heirs, namely, the Rocas. As lawful owners, the Rocas had the right, under Article 429 of the Civil Code, to exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal

   

Issue:  Whether  or  not  Rosario’s  signature  on  the  document  of  consent   to   her   husband   Tarciano’s   sale   of   their   conjugal   land   to   the   Fuentes spouses was forged  Whether  or  not  the  Rocas’  action  for  the  declaration  of  nullity   of that sale to the spouses already prescribed  Whether or not only Rosario, the wife whose consent was not had, could bring the action to annul that sale. Ratio:  Signature is forged  The law that applies to this case is the Family Code, not the Civil Code

Relevant Provisions:  Article  124  of  the  Family  Code  provides  that  “in  the  event  that   one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void” Ruling:  Court denies the petition  Affirms  the  CA’s  decision  The deed of sale is declared void 8

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
  The Register of Deeds of Zamboanga City is DIRECTED to reinstate Transfer Certificate of Title 3533 in the name of Tarciano T. Roca, married to Rosario Gabriel Respondents Gonzalo G. Roca, Annabelle R. Joson, Rose Marie R. Cristobal, and Pilar Malcampo are further ORDERED, at their option, to indemnify petitioner spouses Manuel and Leticia Fuentes with their expenses for introducing useful improvements on the subject land or pay the increase in value which it may have acquired by reason of those improvements, with the spouses entitled to the right of retention of the land until the indemnity is made The RTC of Zamboanga City from which this case originated is DIRECTED to receive evidence and determine the amount of indemnity to which petitioner spouses Manuel and Leticia Fuentes are entitled B. Ignorance of the Law    Entire exhibit 1 is null and void therefore as well as the verbal contract Error was committed in holding that the contract entered into between parties was one of absolute sale of the land and its improvement and that exhibit 1 is null and void CA held that the petitioner acted in bad faith in taking possession of the land because he knew that the contract he made with Emiliana Ambrosio was an absolute deed of sale and that the latter could not sell the land because it is prohibited by section 116

Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (2) Kasilag v Rodriguez Facts:  Marcial Kasilag (petitioner) v Rafaela Rodriguez, Urbano Roque, Severo Mapilisan, and Ignacio del Rosario (respondent)  Petition for review on certiorari  May 16,1932 Emiliano Ambrosio (party of the 1st part) and the petitioner executed a deed  There commenced a verbal contract between the two parties: petitioner entered upon the possession of the land, introduced improvements, etc.  Court of Appeals held that the contract was one of absolute purchase and sale of land

Issue:  Whether the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in good faith because he was unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated Ratio:  Principal contract is that of (1) loan and the accessory that of (2) mortgage of the improvements upon the land acquired as a homestead o First is valid o Second converted the pact into antichresis (illegal and void)  But the clauses regarding the contract of antichresis can be eliminated thereby leaving the latter in being because it is legal and valid  Ignorance of the flaw is the keynote of the rule o The  court  can’t  deduce  nor  presume  that  the  petitioner   was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, aside from the prohibition contained in section 116 o Even ignorance of law may be based upon an error of fact, or ignorance of fact is possible as to the capacity to transmit and as to the intervention of certain persons, 9

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
compliance with certain formalities and appreciation of certain acts, and an error of law is possible in the interpretation of doubtful doctrines o Gross and inexcusable ignorance of law may not be the basis of good faith, but possible, excusable ignorance may be such basis  It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant with the laws because he s not a lawyer o As to the petitioner, his ignorance of the provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith o Petitioner acted in good faith in taking possession of the land and enjoying its fruits                    Ildefonso Elegado (petitioner) v Hon. Court of Tax Appeals and Commissioner of Internal Revenue (respondent) Warren Graham died Ward Graham filed an estate tax return Commissioner of Internal   revenue   assessed   the   decedent’s   estate an estate tax (Feb. 9, 1978) Assessment was protested (Mar. 7, 1978) Protest was denied by the commissioner (July 7, 1978) No further action Ward Graham appointed Ildefonso Elegado as his attorney-infact for the allowance of the will in the Philippines Will was allowed He filed a second estate tax return with the BIR Commissioner imposed an assessment Protest again Commissioner filed a motion for the allowance of the basic estate tax Commissioner cancelled the protested assessment The petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals challenging the assessment The commissioner did not answer and instead cancelled the protest assessment cancellation was notified to the Court of Tax Appeals in a motion to dismiss on the ground that the protest had become moot and academic The motion was granted and the petition was dismissed Petition to review the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals

Relevant Provisions:  Section  443  of  the  Civil  Code    provides  that  “every  person  who   is unaware of any flaw in his title, or in the manner of its acquisition, by which it is invalidated, shall be deemed a possessor   in   good   faith…   possessors   aware   of   such flaw are deemed  possessors  in  bad  faith”  Article  1950  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  “good  faith  on  the   part of the possessor consists in his belief that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same, and could transmit the title thereto” Ruling:  Appealed decision is reversed Elegado v CA Facts:

Issue:  Whether the first assessment is binding

10

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
     Whether or not the respondent Court of Tax Appeals erred in dismissing   the   petitioner’s   appeal   on   grounds   of   jurisdiction   and lack of cause of action Appeal from what? Whether the shares of stocks left by the decedent should be treated as his exclusive, and not conjugal, property Whether the said stocks should be assessed as of the time of the owner’s  death  or  six  months  thereafter Whether the appeal filed with the respondent court should be considered moot and academic ignorance, it stands to reason that foreigners cannot be any less bound by our own laws in our country Relevant Provisions:  Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith Ruling:  Petition is denied Notes:  A judgment which had become final and had been executed can no longer be disturbed or modified Manzano v Sanchez Facts:  Herminia Borja-Manzano charges respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law  Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David Manzano (May 21, 1966)  However, her husband contracted another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge (March 22, 1993)  Judge contended that he did not know that Manzano was legally married  Court administrator recommended that respondent judge be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law Issue:  whether Judge Roque Sanchez is guilty of gross ignorance of the law Ratio: 11

Ratio:  Whether the shares of stocks left by the decedent should be treated as his exclusive, and not conjugal, property and whether the  said  stocks  should  be  assessed  as  of  the  time  of  the  owner’s   death or six months thereafter o Immaterial  Whether the appeal filed with the respondent court should be considered moot and academic o There was really no more assessment to review o Petitioner cannot now raise the question of validity  Petitioner argues that second assessment cancels the first assessment and that the cancellation of the second assessment did not have the effect of reviving the first o It is illogical to suggest that a provisional assessment can supersede an earlier assessment which had become final and executory  First assessment is not binding because it was based on a return filed by foreign lawyers who had no knowledge of our tax laws or access to the Court of Tax Appeals o If our own lawyers and taxpayers cannot claim a similar preference because they are not allowed to claim a like

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
  In the two unearthed affidavits, Manzano and Payao expressly stated that they were married to Borja and Relos The judge ought to know that the same was void and bigamous, as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties  were  “separated” provided said new right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right, of the same origin. (Rule 1) Art. 2254. No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others. (n) Art. 2255. The former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition or period, which were executed or entered into before the effectivity of this Code, even though the condition or period may still be pending at the time this body of laws goes into effect. (n) Art. 2256. Acts and contracts under the regime of the old laws, if they are valid in accordance therewith, shall continue to be fully operative as provided in the same, with the limitations established in these rules. But the revocation or modification of these acts and contracts after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be subject to the provisions of this new body of laws. (Rule 2a) Art. 2257. Provisions of this Code which attach a civil sanction or penalty or a deprivation of rights to acts or omissions which were not penalized by the former laws, are not applicable to those who, when said laws were in force, may have executed the act or incurred in the omission forbidden or condemned by this Code. If the fault is also punished by the previous legislation, the less severe sanction shall be applied. If a continuous or repeated act or omission was commenced before the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, and the same subsists or is maintained or repeated after this body of laws has become operative, the sanction or penalty prescribed in this Code shall be applied, even though the previous laws may not have provided any sanction or penalty therefor. (Rule 3a) 12

Relevant Provisions:  Ignorance of the law excuses no one Ruling: Recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby adopted

RETROACTIVITY OF LAWS NCC Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS Art. 2252. Changes made and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no retroactive effect. For the determination of the applicable law in cases which are not specified elsewhere in this Code, the following articles shall be observed: (Pars. 1 and 2, Transitional Provisions). Art. 2253. The Civil Code of 1889 and other previous laws shall govern rights originating, under said laws, from acts done or events which took place under their regime, even though this Code may regulate them in a different manner, or may not recognize them. But if a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under prior legislation,

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Art. 2258. Actions and rights which came into being but were not exercised before the effectivity of this Code, shall remain in full force in conformity with the old legislation; but their exercise, duration and the procedure to enforce them shall be regulated by this Code and by the Rules of Court. If the exercise of the right or of the action was commenced under the old laws, but is pending on the date this Code takes effect, and the procedure was different from that established in this new body of laws, the parties concerned may choose which method or course to pursue. (Rule 4) Art. 2259. The capacity of a married woman to execute acts and contracts is governed by this Code, even if her marriage was celebrated under the former laws. (n) Art. 2260. The voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this Code, even if the child was born before the effectivity of this body of laws. (n) Art. 2261. The exemption prescribed in Article 302 shall also be applicable to any support, pension or gratuity already existing or granted before this Code becomes effective. (n) Art. 2262. Guardians of the property of minors, appointed by the courts before this Code goes into effect, shall continue to act as such, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 320. (n) Art. 2263. Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will, before the effectivity of this Code, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with or without a will, die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code, shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but the testamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as they may be permitted by this Code. Therefore, legitimes, betterments, legacies and bequests shall be respected; however, their amount shall be reduced if in no other manner can every compulsory heir be given his full share according to this Code. (Rule 12a) Art. 2264. The status and rights of natural children by legal fiction referred to in article 89 and illegitimate children mentioned in Article 287, shall also be acquired by children born before the effectivity of this Code. (n) Art. 2265. The right of retention of real or personal property arising after this Code becomes effective, includes those things which came into the creditor's possession before said date. (n) Art. 2266. The following shall have not only prospective but also retroactive effect: (1) Article 315, whereby a descendant cannot be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and ascendants; (2) Articles 101 and 88, providing against collusion in cases of legal separation and annulment of marriage; (3) Articles 283, 284, and 289, concerning the proof of illegitimate filiation; (4) Article 838, authorizing the probate of a will on petition of the testator himself; (5) Articles 1359 to 1369, relative to the reformation of instruments; (6) Articles 476 to 481, regulating actions to quiet title; (7) Articles 2029 to 2031, which are designed to promote compromise. (n) Art. 2267. The following provisions shall apply not only to future cases but also to those pending on the date this Code becomes effective: (1) Article 29, Relative to criminal prosecutions wherein the accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt; 13

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
(2) Article 33, concerning cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries. (n) Art. 2268. Suits between members of the same family which are pending at the time this Code goes into effect shall be suspended, under such terms as the court may determine, in order that compromise may be earnestly sought, or, in case of legal separation proceedings, for the purpose of effecting, if possible, a reconciliation. (n) Art. 2269. The principles upon which the preceding transitional provisions are based shall, by analogy, be applied to cases not specifically regulated by them. (Rule 13a) RPC Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. FC Art. 255. If any provision of this Code is held invalid, all the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid. Frivaldo v. COMELEC G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996. Facts: Juan G. Frivaldo unquestionably obtained the highest number of votes in three successive elections but he was twice declared to be disqualified to hold such office due to his alien citizenship, and he now claims to have re-assumed his lost Philippine citizenship thru repatriation. Issues: 1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid? (Secondary Issues) Who should be declared the rightful governor of Sorsogon? Should it be Frivaldo who is said to be an alien, Lee who got the second most number of votes or Vice- Governor Deri as the rules on political succession states? Held: Frivaldo’s   repatriation   is   valid   and   it   was given a retroactive effect. He is also allowed to take office for he got the popular support as is shown in the ballots. Gregorio v. C.A. G.R. No. L – 22802, Nov. 29, 1968 Facts: The   petitioner’s   father,   then   the   appellant,   was   denied   to   elevate to the CA the evidence presented in the two cases he was appealing.     His   counsel’s   next   motion   for   reconsideration   was   then   denied. Issues: Can a procedural law have a retroactive effect? resolutions made by the CA valid? Are the

Held: The writ of certiorari is granted annulling the resolutions of CA denying the motion for reconsideration. The writ of mandamus is granted to compel CA to elevate to it the evidence presented at the trial before the Court of First Instance in Bulacan. Notes: Penal laws shall be applied retroactively if such application is favorable to the accused even if he is already serving a sentence unless he is a habitual deliveryman. Aruego v. CA 254 SCRA 711 Facts: The late Jose M. Aruego Sr., a married man, had an amorous relationship with Luz M. Fabian for 23 years. They had two children out of it, Antonia and Evelyn. Issues: Can the two be called illegitimate children? 14

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Held: Antonia was proclaimed an illegitimate child and Evelyn was said not to be an illegitimate child. Cang v. CA 296 SCRA128 Facts: Herbert  Cang  and  Anna  Marie  Clavano  were  married  in  ’73  and   begot 3 children. Later on Anna Marie found out that her husband had extramarital affair with Wilma Soco. Because of this, she filed for legal separation. They agreed that their children should receive a monthly support of P1,000 and that Anna Marie can enter into any contract or agreement without the written consent of her husband. After this, Mr. Cang went abroad filed a divorce case from her wife and married an American woman. (Anna Marie got custody of the children.) Eventually, they also divorced. While in the US, he remits money to his children in the Philippines. On 1987, the brother and sister-in-law of Anna Marie filed for adoption of the 3 children. Anna Marie consented this because she was leaving the country and her brothers and sisters have been helping her raise the children since her husband already lost his parental rights for not supporting their children. Upon learning about this, Cang went back to the Philippines and filed an opposition and a petition to reacquire custody of his children. Since the mother is already in the US, the court ruled that the custody should be passed to whom she relinquished it. Issues: Can minor children be legally adopted without the written consent of a natural parent on the ground that the latter has abandoned them? Held: The petition for reconsideration of the father was granted and the ruling of the lower courts has been set aside. Thereby denying the adoption since the court believes that who, by law and under the facts of the case, has not abandoned them. Francisco v. CA 299 SCRA 188 Facts: Eusebio Francisco was married to Arte Guevarra, his second wife, when they acquired a sari-sari store and two houses and lots. Eventually, Eusebio got too sick to administer these properties. During this time, his children in his first marriage were able to find a way on having him authorize Conchita, one of his children, to administer the two houses and lot. Issues: Arte petitioned that the administration of such properties be passed to her but the lower courts denied this for the reason of lack of evidence that these properties were acquired during their marriage. The trial court ruled that the properties were exclusively owned by Eusebio. Held: The petition is denied and the administration of the property in question is still given to the daughter of Eusebio. WAIVER OF RIGHTS PEFTOK Integrated Services vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124841. July 31, 1998 This is a petition for certiorari filed by PEFTOK seeking to set aside the decision of NLRC dated 26 Feb 1995 that granted claims to complainants (security guards) against PEFTOK, and two other corps.

Facts: 15

Marcos issued Proclamation No. they asserted that the waivers they signed were contrary to public policy. Albano offered to sell the property to Salvacion Macalde and her siblings. CV No. nor were the contents of said waiver explained to them. 1967.R. Herminia Albano acquired the lot. J.Digested by: De Guzman. It was later on found that the buyers of the land are the spouses Valderama. 48899 partially annulling the deed of sale insofar as it affects the 2/3rds of the lot being occupied by the Macaldes. Proc. Eduardo Abugho. 26. 1517 proclaiming specific parcels of urban lands as Urban Land  Reform  Zones. and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract continuously for the last ten years. declaring the Metro Manila area as an Urban Zone. 1989. Castillo. *14 March 1991. Yu. *13 April 1983. 1992. A. Leonardo Daluperi. *October 13. their services be terminated. Madarang. her willingness to buy the portion of the 16 . Facts: * Before the WWII. No. 1967. and Reynaldo Maasin executed another quitclaim and waiver renouncing whatever claims they have against PEFTOK for the period ending March 15. On the remaining 1/3 of the land is an apartment which was being leased to the spouses Roberto and Natividad Valderama. who have built their homes on the land. However they also claimed that the waiver and quitclaim were prepared and readied by PEFTOK and were further forced to sign for fear that they will not get their salaries come payday. former Pres. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Fidel Sabellina. Manila. *May 29. Morales. Claro Mendez. Albano told Macalde that she had already sold the property. identifying 244 sites in Metro Manila as areas for priority development. 1995 affirmed. * Petitioner (PEFTOK) answers in saying that the quitclaims signed by the security guards suffer no legal infirmity. Macalde.  “legitimate  tenants  within  the   urban zones who had been residing on the land for ten years or more. which they do not understand.” Valderama vs. In a letter dated 21 Mar 1991. shall not be dispossessed of the land and shall be allowed right of first  refusal  to  purchase  the  same…” * 14 May 1980. Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. They also sought the issuance of an alias writ of execution for their entitlement to full benefits as provided  in  the  labor  arbiter’s  decision. Macalde conveyed to the Valderamas in writing.  6.. Felizmenio. Issue: Whether the signed waivers effectively waives the claims of the security guards against PEFTOK. parents of Salvacion Macalde rented a lot in Tondo.  including  Albano’s  property. There is no voluntariness in the execution of the waivers in question. 470 SCRA 168 The case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Furthermore. 1998.  Under  Sec. Or worse. Claro Mendez. Held: Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Gravador. No. Salanguit. * 11 Jun 1978. 2284 was issued amending Proc. That waiver of the claim in dispute is not prohibited by law. Macalde complained to Albano about the sale of the land to another despite her prior offer to buy the land on Nov 1990. Pres. decision of the NLRC dated Feb. where their house occupied 2/3 portion of the property. She also requested that Albano rescind the sale of the land insofar as the portion occupied by their house was concerned. She further suggested that they discuss the price as  well  as  other  terms  and  conditions  of  the  sale. to bar all claims they may have against PEFTOK before June 30. Flores. *November 1990. Eduardo Abugho. and the Macalde siblings leased the property from Albano. Macalde on her behalf and in behalf of her siblings conveyed their desire to buy the property in a letter dated 9 Nov 1990. the same being written in English. and Leonardo Daluperi.  Albano’s   grandchild received the letter but Albano did not respond. In 1977.  “They  are  commonly  frowned  upon  as  contrary  to   public policy and ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of  the  workers’  legal  right. 1989.

DM Consunji now seeks the reversal of the decision of the CA. The decision of the case was made in favor of Maria. DM Consunji vs. The  preferential  right  of  the  Macaldes’  is  deemed  to   not have been waived because the waiver of such right requires some note or memorandum or any private or public document for the waiver to be effective. 2001 This case was filed by DM Consunji Inc. *DM Consunji claimed that by being the complainant in a criminal case for Simple Negligence resulting to Homicide against the 17 . Morales. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. 1517. The Macaldes asserted that they had the preferential right to buy the property under P. Both Albano and Valderama rejected Macalde’s  offer. Yu.R. she refused to do so due to financial constraints. She however. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. filed a complaint for damages against his employer.. seeking the reversal of the CA decision that affirmed the decision of the RTC of Pasig which granted Jose  Juego’s  widow  the  right  to  claim  damages  against  DM  Consunji. *In  Pacana  vs. cancellation of the title and reconveyance. CA.R. land her home occupies. April 20. A. The Valderamas on the other hand said that the Macaldes had waived their preferential right to buy the property since they failed to exercise their right when Albano first offered the property to them. G. failed to present documentary evidence to this end. Philex Mining Corporation “The  exception  is where a claimant who  has  already  been  paid  under  the  Workmen’s  Compensation   Act may still sue for damages under the Civil Code on the basis of supervening facts or developments occurring after he opted for the first  remedy. Resolution in CA-G. Issue: Whether  the  Macaldes’  right  of  first  refusal  to  purchase   the land where their ancestral home stands was waived by Salvacion  Macalde’s  alleged  verbal  refusal  when   Albano offered to sell the lot to the Macaldes. On appeal by DM Consunji. CV No. to annul the sale of the land. Flores. Felizmenio.  That  she  had  committed  a  mistake  of  fact  because  she  didn’t   know what damages could be recovered from the death or her husband or that she may also recover more from the Civil Code than from the ECC. 48899 is affirmed. No. Issue: Whether  Maria  Juego’s  right  to  claim  damages  was  waived  by   her  receipt  of  benefits  under  the  Workmen’s  Compensation   Act. 137873. In this case Albano and Valderama failed to present sufficient. an exception was held in Floresca vs.  Cebu  Autobus  Company  it  was  ruled  that  “an injured worker has a choice of either to recover from the employer the fixed amounts set by the Workmen’s  Compensation  Act  or  to   prosecute an ordinary civil action against the torfeasor for higher damages but he cannot pursue both courses of action simultaneously. Jose Juego. Held: Petition denied. competent and credible evidence that the Macaldes had waived their rights.”  However. Salanguit. Madarang. Later in the case Albano said in a testimony that she had repeatedly offered to sell the property to Salvacion Macalde and that at the end. Such verbal offer may not be sufficient basis to support the alleged waiver. J.”   *Maria alleged that she only learned about the negligence of the employer after she had applied for and received the benefits under ECC. No. *Maria. *Albano answered in saying that the property was not within the coverage of the law and that the Macaldes had been notified of her intention to sell the property but that they had ignored the offer. *Macalde filed a case against Albano and Valderama.D. a construction worker of DM Consunji fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower in Pasig that caused his death. Gravador. his widow. Facts: * 22 Nov 1990. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.

1990. she knew of the choices of remedies available to her and yet she chose to claim and receive the benefits from ECC. In other words. This falls under the category of an implied repeal. seeking to nullify the decision of the Commission of Audit embodied in its 7th Endorsement denying his claim for reimbursement under Sec. 103982.. --. Bello III. the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987. J. employer. *The failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when two statutes cover the same subject matter. 699.. Drilon Opinion  No. Flores. Director II of NBI.  That   from 2 Jan 1991.831.  “the  issuance  of  the   Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abrogate in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code. Felizmenio. where he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses. decrees. returned the petitioner’s  claim  to  Lim  stating  that  in  a  5 th Endorsement by the Chairman of COA. Gravador. 699 of the RAC has been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987. On 11 May 1990. the Department head may in his discretion authorize the payment  of  the  necessary  hospital  fees.”  Lim  then  forwarded  the  claim  to  the  relevant   authorities but finally in 16 Jan 1992.  27.Digested by: De Guzman. This lack of knowledge or mistake of fact negates the waiver. There is no showing that Maria knew of the remedies before she applied for claims before the ECC.All laws. they are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that one law cannot be enforced without nullifying the other. A. 699 of the RAC. as amended. 699 of the Revised Administrative Code.R. Yu. the total amount of PHP40.7 Apr. and every month thereafter. then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws. was hospitalized for cholecystitis from 26 Mar. December 11. he requested reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits under Sec 699 of the RAC. Castillo. solely for the reason that the same section was not restated or re-enacted in the administrative Code of 1987. *Administrative  Code  or  1987  “Sec. “…. including the particular Sec. the RTC of Pasig is to determine whether the award decreed in its decision is more than that of the ECC. Sec. denied the claim on the ground that Sec.  73. In a 4th Endorsement however. Facts: *Petitioner. the payments already made to the private respondent under the ECC should be deducted therefrom. This choice resulted in a waiver of election that bars her from any action. No. or portions thereof. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  Repealing Clause. If so. orders.  1991  stating  that.”  This  is  an  example  of  a  general  repealing  provision.” Said claim was forwarded by Lim to relevant authorities. Petitioner re-submitted his claim to Lim with a copy of then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Respondent is ordered to give due course to the  petitioner’s  claim  for  benefits.  S. Held: Petition granted. suit or proceeding inconsistent with the elected remedy.In  case  of sickness caused by or connected directly with the performance of some act in the line of duty.  Maria  couldn’t  have  been  ignorant  of  the  facts. That she only learned after the prosecutor issued a resolution on 6 Feb 1991. Madarang. 1992 This is a petition for certoriari. COA failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the 18 . Salanguit. There are two kinds of implied repeal. Issue: Whether or not the Administrative Code of 1987 repeal Sec. in a memo to NBI Director Alfredo Lim. REPEAL OF LAWS Mecano vs COA. G. Held: Remanded. waived the other. Morales. by her choice of one remedy. rules and regulations. COA Chairman Eufemio Domingo in his 7th endorsement. the claimant. that there may be a civil liability.  699.

at the legal interest rate. Salazar. unconscionable and exorbitant…  we  find  the  interest  rate  at  5. In this case. June 29. Flores. implied repeal by the enactment of a statute revising or codifying the formal laws on the whole subject matter is only possible if the revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole subject. Issue: Whether the 72% per annum interest rate on the loan of the petitioners be sustained.. Bulacan in favor of the defendant to secure the payment of a PHP60. therefore rendering it legally inexistent. it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to the same matter.B. In fact. what appears clear is the intent to cover only those aspects of government that pertain to administration.A. 73. Held: Decision of the CA is affirmed subject to the modification that the interest rate of 72% per annum be reduced to 12% per annum. Yu. No.  or   66%/annum. *Plaintiffs contend that the CA erred in ruling that the loan obligation secured by a real estate mortgage with an interest rate of 72% per annum or 6% per month is not unconscionable. with an interest rate of 6%/mo. Bulacan RTC Branch 16 for annulment of mortgage. Facts: *22 Aug 1986. G.5%/mo. Gravador. 2001 This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA in C.000 loan is excessive. two codes on the matter of the claim are in an irreconcilable conflict.No. Morales.  and  will  not  be   decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. Madarang. payable within 4mos. Circular No..  The  stipulation  is  void…. “We  agree   that the stipulated rate of interest at 5. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject. Castillo. but also clear and convincing…” Solangon vs. payable within a year at the legal interest rate. Salanguit. plaintiffs mortgaged a parcel of land in Sta.” In this case. 905. iniquitous. the SC said that. and hence contrary to morals. G. This action was initiated by the plaintiffs to prevent the closure of the mortgaged property. the situation of the petitioners is much worse in that they are required to pay the stipulated interest of 72% per annum.R. there is no more maximum rate of interest and the rate will just depend on the mutual agreement of the parties. A. *27 May 1987 plaintiffs again mortgaged the same parcel of land in favor of the defendant to secure the payment of a PHP136.000 loan.1991). given that the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates has already been repealed or rendered ineffective by C. S. 37899. Maria. Medel v. CA. Circular No.5%/mo. 125944. On the other hand.000 loan. Felizmenio.B.. “Repeals  by  implication  are  not  favored. *29 Dec 1990 plaintiffs again mortgaged the same parcel of land in favor of the defendant to secure the payment of a PHP230. payable within 4mos.R. there cannot be a conflict because the provision on Sec. affirming the decision of Malolos. 19 . Even if C. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. unless the repugnancy between the two is not only irreconcilable.512 loan. to be a complete and perfect system in itself. 905 repealed the Usury law. if not against the law. organization and procedure (Opinion No. stipulated upon by the parties in the promissory note iniquitous and unconscionable. In a similar case. *Court of Appeals maintain that since Central Bank Circular No.Digested by: De Guzman. 905 repealed the Usury Law. on the P500. 699 of RAC has not been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987. there is nothing in the circular that grants lenders the authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. J.

in the instant   case.Digested by: De Guzman. Cesar Lledo (respondent) Facts: 20 Facts: Atty. Adelfa Thornton left home with her child without notifying Richard Thornton. A.   seeks   only   the   return   of   his   father’s   personal   contributions to the GSIS and not the retirement benefits. Castillo. they should be construed together. A law cannot be deemed repealed unless it is clearly manifested that the legislature so intended it JUDICIAL DECISIONS De Roy v CA Felisa De Roy and Virgilio Ramos (petitioners) v CA and Luis Bernal. continues to govern cases of employees dismissed for cause and their claims   for   the   return   of   their   personal   contributions. Lledo v Lledo Carmelita Lledo (complainant) v Atty. 186. It was pointed out that the primordial consideration is the welfare of the child. J. Issue/s: Is Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No.  Court’s  decision  did  not  provide  that  Cesar   is entitled to a refund of his retirement premiums.;  thus. Flores. The inevitable conclusion then is that Section 11(d) of Commonwealth Act No. Richard Thornton admonished her wife for her irresponsibility to Sequeira. Felizmenio.   Cesar   Jr. Salanguit. However. Morales. et al (respondents) .  this  petition  for  review  of  the  CA’s   decision. as a general rule. Madarang.. GSIS Regional Manager then explained that the request for a refund of retirement premiums is disallowed under the Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil  Service. Also.   Atty. repeals by implication are not favored. 186 impliedly repealed? Were the later enactments intended to substitute the earlier ones? Held: None of the subsequent laws expressly repealed Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. Gravador. However. legal technicality   (in   this   case. as amended. it was mentioned that. 186.  Furthermore. thus. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu. When statutes are in pari materia.  Cesar  Lledo  was  dismissed  due  to  Carmelita  Lledo’s  filing  of  an   administrative case against him.   the   use   of   the   word   “exclusive”)   is   not   the   main priority. Issue/s: Did RA 8369 impliedly repeal BP 129 and RA 7902 insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writ of habeas corpus in custody of minor case is concerned? Held: Petition is granted.   Cesar’s   dismissal should not deprive him of the money that belongs to him in the first place. Thornton v Thornton Richard Brian Thornton for and in behalf of the minor child Sequeira Jennifer Delle Francisco Thornton (petitioner) v Adelfa Francisco Thornton (respondent) Facts: Richard Thornton (American) and Adelfa Thornton (Filipino) were married and had a child (Sequeira). With such. as amended. he did not find the child so he petitioned again for habeas  corpus  (Court  of  Appeals)  which  was  denied  due  to  the  court’s   claimed  lack  of  jurisdiction. The Court holds that the capacity to issue writ of habeas corpus is not exclusive to family courts. Richard Thornton filed a petition for habeas corpus (Family Court in Makati City) which was dismissed for the reason that the child was just in Basilan.

It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself overruled. Flores. On the last day of 15 day period in submitting appeals. The firewall of a burned out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop of the respondents. The decision was affirmed by CA. thus. Furthermore. Castillo. 1986. v Japzon  that  15  day  for  reconsideration  can’t  be  extended  basing  on  a   Resolution promulgated in May 30. Gravador. This therefore should apply in the case. Morales. Felisa De Roy and Virgilio Ramos have been warning the respondents beforehand. Salanguit. Thus. as brought up by the petitioner to the respondent. this appeal. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. Madarang. A. Felizmenio. Yu. thus. there is no law requiring publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be considered binding and effective. cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. and a different view is adopted. SC finds that CA did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied  petitioners’  motion  for  extension  of  time. Pesca v Pesca Lorna Guillen Pesca (petitioner) v Zosimo Pesca (respondent) Facts: CA reversed the decision of the RTC of Caloocan City which has declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent to be null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent. thus. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. this special civil action for certiorari to review the resolutions of the CA Issue/s: Did  the  CA  err  in  dismissing  the  petitioners’  motion  for  time   extension? Is the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. PRESUMPTION AND APPLICABILITY OF CUSTOM Martinez v Van Buskirk SD Martinez and Carmen Ong de Martinez (plaintiffs and appellees) v William Van Buskirk (defendant and appellant) Facts: The horses of a cochero wounded the plaintiff and her child.Digested by: De Guzman. The interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. petitioners filed a motion to extend time (February 27. Psychological incapacity is already explained in Santos v CA and in Republic v CA and Molina. J. v Japzon be made to apply in this case considering that the decision is not published in the Official Gazette? Held: The Court resolved to deny the instant petition for lack of merit. that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith. The court of first instance of Manila found the defendant guilty of negligence. 21 . RTC however found the petitioners guilty of gross negligence. In Santos.  It  was   said  that  CA   correctly applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc. 1986) which was then denied by the appellate court in a resolution.. this petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Issue/s: Did the CA err in reversing the decision of the RTC? Do the decisions of the Court have the force of law? Held: The CA did not err in reversing the decision of the RTC. psychological incapacity refers to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.

they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have. therefore. (n) Alonzo v. of twenty-four hours. 1623.. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor. These are the justifications  for  this  exception. one of the coheirs. Yu. But the Intermediate Appellate Court Reversed the decision declaring that Article 1088 requires a written notice and no written notice has been issued. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. When the laws speak of years. Flores. Padua Issue: How should Article 1088 be correctly interpreted and applied? This is Article 1088 of the Civil Code: Art. the 30 days of redemption has not yet started (citing Art.  The  Court  sated  “The  co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing was given them. however. 22 . as the case may be. Gravador. NCC 10-12 Art. it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each. any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale. days or nights. the co-heirs had actual knowledge of the sale. unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners. cannot be held to be of themselves unreasonable or imprudent Cocheros had been in the habit of leaving the horses and assisting in unloading the merchandise. and nights from sunset to sunrise. 10. provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. Madarang. Fact: The Padua siblings (five brothers and sisters) inherited a parcel of land from their parents. of thirty days. without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption. Celestino and Eustaquia. months. Two of them. If months are designated by their name. sold their undivided share to the petitioners in 1963 and 1964. In 1976. Such is the manner described by the defendant on the day of the accident. And there is no doubt either that the 30-day period began and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question and the filing of the complaint for redemption in 1977. A. The trial court dismissed the complaint citing that though there was no written notice. ) Held: The Court reversed the decision of the respondent court and reinstated  the  decision  of  the  trial  court. Castillo. Salanguit. it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. or by the vendors. Morales. J. 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition. months. then. SC reversed the judgment on the principle that acts the performance of which has not proved destructive or injurious and which have been acquiesced in by society for so long time that they have ripened into a custom. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. Issue/s: Whether the cochero is guilty of negligence Held: The Cochero is not guilty of negligence.” LEGAL PERIODS NCC 13. enclosed the land they bought and lived there. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws. days. sought to redeem the area sold to the petitioners. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property. Teclo Padua. The petitioners.

. 1977. or by order of the court. Rudy Geo Armigos. Morales. Salanguit. unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which case it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific month contains. (7a) Revised administrative code Sec. In Armigos computation.   1955 (thirty days after the defendants received the judgment) and the appeal was made on December 21. the  first  day  shall  be  excluded. Gravador. "day. Yu. Felizmenio. He filed for appeal on June 9. Flores. or by any applicable statute. The decision was served to the defendants of November 21. How to compute time. the time shall not run until the next working day. the day of the act. a Sunday. event or default after which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included. "month" of thirty days. The reglementary period for perfecting an appeal is 15 days. Court of Appeals Issue: Did the petitioner perfected his appeal within the reglementary period? Facts: The petitioner. Tecson Issue: Should a year be computed as calendar year or as based on Civil Code’s  computation  of  a  year  as  having  365  days? Facts: On November 14.”   In   applying   this   rule. The rules above are the basis for the decisions in the following cases: Armigos v. the day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of performance included. the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment on Price Stabilization Corp." to a day of twentyfour hours. 1955. and the last day included. In computing a period. as thus computed." from sunset to sunrise. 1955. the first day shall be excluded. Namarco (successor of Price Stabilization Corp) appealed for the revival of the judgment. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Legal Periods.  and  the  last  day  included”  and  the  old   Rule   28   (now   Rule   22)   of   the   Rule   of   Court   which   stated   that   “In   computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court. If the last day of the period. 1965. 1977 and perfected his appeal on June 24. National Marketing Corporation (Namarco) v. Held: The Court ruled against the petitioner. 1977. vs. Miguel Tecson and Alto Surety and Insurance Co. J. Rule of Court Rule 22: COMPUTATION OF TIME Section 1. Miguel Tecson moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction and prescription. 1965. or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits. or by order of the court. Castillo. Madarang. A. On December 21."Year" shall be understood to be twelve calendar months.. his appeal is still within the reglementary period. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules. Article 1144(3) states that an action upon  judgment  “must  be  brought  within  ten  years  from  the  time  the   right  of  action  accrues”. or by any applicable statute. The years 1960 and 1964 23 . 31.   the   Court   considered the day as synonymous with the date and found no cogent reason to adopt a different view. received the decision on the complaint Mata filed against him on June 8. and "night. falls on a Saturday. unless it is a Sunday or a legal holiday in which event the time shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Sunday or a holiday.Digested by: De Guzman. . Inc. The rule stated in the Article 13 of the Civil Code to the effect that “In  computing  a  period. The last day of the period so computed is to be included.  The  decision  became  final  on  December  21.

the last day fell on a Sunday. Judge Alejandro Boncaros. Dizon Issues: The petitioners Notice of Appeal should not have been dismissed since the appeal was filed within the time provided. The motion was dismissed for it was already beyond the 30-day reglementary period. Castillo. Morales.  or  record  on   appeal  is  not  filed  within  the  period  of  time  herein  provided…”  and  the   petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal within the time provided. Section 23: Perfection of appeal. Held: The Court denied the petitioners appeal citing Article 13 of the Civil Code.  appeal  bond. 1965. The 24 . both had leap years so that 365 days in ten years would be equal to 3. Boncaros Issue: Did the petitioner file their Motion for Reconsideration within the 30-day reglementary period? Facts: The petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents regarding the ownership of a parcel of land. the first day shall be excluded. Madarang. and the last day included. 1986 (the date their petition for relief was denied by Judge Baltazar Dizon). so the last day was moved to the first working day immediately after. 1979.” Nature of the Case  Appeal from a decision of the Court of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Facts  Lazaro Rayray seeks the annulment of his marriage to defendant Chae Kyung Lee who is formerly a resident of Pusan. the perfection of the appeal shall be upon expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. Held: The denial for Petition for Relief was Reversed and Set Aside because Section 13. Gravador. A.  Summons were served by publication. Rule 41 states that an appeal can only be dismissed  “where  the  notice  of  appeal. dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the case. The presiding judge of the case. upholding the decision  of  the  lower  court. In cases where appeal is taken.Digested by: De Guzman. Held: The Court dismissed the case for lack of merit. Go v. Court of Appeals but in this case. Salanguit. Flores. Felizmenio. Korea. 1979. But the respondent Equitable filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal and was granted. The petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal seeking relief from the Court of Appeals but were denied. Yu. Rayray (plaintiff-appellant) v Chae Kyung Lee (defendant-appellee) Related Provisions  NCC 14 – “Penal  laws  and  those  of  public  security  and  safety   shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.” Additional info: The petitioners cited De las Alas v.. The same filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 17. The copy of the decision was received by the petitioner on July 17. K. subject to the principles of public international law and  to  treaty  stipulations.  Cited  Article  13  of  the  Civil  Code:  “In computing a period.650 days and this would fall on December 19. APPLICABILITY OF PENAL LAWS Lazaro B. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Quiqui v. J. Plaintiff moved that the defendant be declared in default for not filing an answer. Facts: The petitioners filed their notice of appeal thirteen days from March 21.

” Nature of the Case  Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila Facts 25  Issues  Whether or not the court has jurisdiction  Whether or not the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant is substantially valid Held  Decision is affirmed Ratio  The court has jurisdiction o the   case   is   on   the   annulment   of   plaintiff’s   marriage   to   the defendant which is within the jurisdiction of our courts o the   court   acquired   jurisdiction   by   the   plaintiff’s   submission thereto of his complaint o Jurisdiction depends upon the nationality or domicile of the parties. one of the parties is domiciled in. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. A. Salanguit.. (2) that the facts proven do not warrant the relief prayed for. o Exhibit A is not signed and it was obtained only after the alleged wedding o Defendant did not say that she had been married before. and those which have for their object public order. or a national of. Madarang.   their   acts or property. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated. which certified the case to the Supreme Court. at least. BINDING EFFECT Manuela Barretto Gonzales (plaintiff and appellee) v Augusto C. case was heard on the merits and the decision was rendered dismissing   the   plaintiff’s   complaint   upon   the   ground: (1) that the court could not nullify a marriage contracted abroad. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens  of  the  Philippines. Morales. not the place of celebration of marriage  Court has jurisdiction over the res. the forum o Plaintiff is a citizen of the Philippines. Yu.   making   his   status   subject   to   the   court’s   jurisdiction  The marriage of the plaintiff and defendant is substantially valid . Gravador. J. domiciled therein. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. provided. Gonzales (defendant and appellant) Related Provisions  NCC 15 – “Laws  relating  to  family  rights  and  duties. but admitted to have lived with several other men o There is no showing of evidence that Korean laws permit bigamy or polygamy thus it is assumed that the foreign law is identical to the lex fori or in this case the Philippine Law o Exhibit D states that defendant had no previous marriage o The   court   can’t   believe   the   plaintiff’s   testimony   because he lied regarding his status before in this very court L.”  NCC 17.  or  to  the   status. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. Felizmenio. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  even  though  living  abroad. par 3 – “Prohibitive   laws   concerning   persons.

”  NCC 17. Salanguit. Yu. Castillo. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated.” Nature of the Case  Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Facts  Significant dates 26    Issues  Whether or not the Reno divorce acquired by the party is recognized in the Philippines Held  Judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila is reversed and defendant is absolved from the demands made against him . but they are in unity in trying to secure the courts of this jurisdiction to recognize and approve of the Reno divorce Ratio  Reno divorce is not recognized o Entire conduct of the parties clearly indicates a purpose to circumvent the laws of the Philippine Islands regarding divorce and to secure for themselves a change of status for reasons and conditions not authorized by our law o The matrimonial domicile of the couple is in the Philippines thus the residence acquired by the husband in Nevada to secure a divorce did not confer jurisdiction upon the court of that state to dissolve the bonds of matrimony in which he entered in 1919 Pastor B. J. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.  Escańo.Digested by: De Guzman. A. 1927 – absolute divorce is decreed as secured in Reno.  or  to  the   status.   Plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the Philippines and residents of Manila Significant dates o January 19. Madarang. Nevada by the husband o November 28. Gravador.. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines.   their   acts or property. Felizmenio. 1919 – they were married in Manila and lived together until the Spring of 1926  Four children were born  They had mutual agreement to allow the plaintiff for her support and that of her children (P500 monthly subject to increase if necessary). Tenchavez (plaintiff-appellant)  v  Vicenta  F. and the title of certain properties to be put in her name o November 28. 1927 – husband went through the forms of marriage with another citizen of these Islands and now has three children o August 1928 – husband went back to the Philippines Wife requests that Philippine courts confirm and ratify the decree of divorce Court of First Instance found against the defendant and granted judgment as prayed for by the plaintiff and intervenors Parties in this action are in dispute over financial matters. Flores. par 3 – “Prohibitive   laws   concerning   persons. even  though  living  abroad.  et  al   (defendants-appellees) Related Provisions  NCC 15 – “Laws  relating  to  family  rights  and  duties. and those which have for their object public order. Morales.

Gravador. 1954 – Vicenta married an American. 1958 – Vicenta acquired an American citizenship o July 30. 1950 – she filed a verified complaint for divorce in the State of Nevada the ground of extreme cruelty. just freedom of plaintiff from supporting his wife and acquiring properties to the exclusion of wife Thus. 1948 marriage is valid o Both parties were above the age of majority o Both consented to the marriage o Marriage was performed by a Catholic Priest in the presence of competent witnesses o The very act of Vicenta suing for divorce implies admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding  Their marriage is subsisting and undissolved under the Philippine   law. Morales.;   Vicenta’s   divorce   and   second   marriage   is   not   valid o The Civil Code does not admit absolute divorce 27 . Flores. Salanguit. Madarang. A. 1948 – Mamerto  Escańo  received  a  letter   disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor and one Pacita Noel o June 1948 – the newlyweds were already estranged o June 24. J.Digested by: De Guzman. 1950 – decree of divorce was rendered final and absolute o 1951 – Escańos  filed  a  petition  with  the  Archbishop  of   Cebu  to  annul  their  daughter’s  marriage  to  Pastor o September 13. and finally. 1950 – Vicenta applied for a passport indicating in her application that she was single and that her purpose was to study and that she was domiciled in Cebu. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1948 – Vicenta   Escańo   (27)   exchanged   married vows with Pastor Tenchavez (32) without the knowledge of her parents (duly registered with the local civil register) o February 26. Felizmenio. this appeal  Issues  Whether  or  not  Vicenta  and  Pastor’s  marriage is valid  Whether or not their marriage is subsisting and undissolved  Whether  or  not  Vicenta’s  divorce  and  second  marriage  is  valid Held  Decision under appeal is hereby modified o Pastor is entitled to a legal separation o Vicenta is sentenced to pay Pastor for damages and attorneys’  fees o Pastor   is   sentenced   to   pay   the   Escańos   by   way   of   damages  and  attorneys’  fees  Tenchavez falsely charged which caused them unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages Ratio  February 24. 1955 – Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance  of  Cebu  against  the  Escańos  whom  he  charged   for dissuading their daughter from him  Falsely  charged  the  Escańos  which  caused  them   unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages  The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation. o February 24. Russell Leo Moran o August 8. Castillo. Yu. entirely mental in character o October 21.. that she intended to return after two years o August 22.

A. 1962 – Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. arrived in Manila with 3 other Gatchalians (Gloria and Francisco who are daughter and son of Santiago and Johnson who is the son of Francisco) o July 6. and valid there as such. 1990 – secretary of justice indorsed the recommendation of NBI to the commissioner of immigration for investigation and immediate action o August 15. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. Santiago testified that he has five children o June 27.  except  those  prohibited…” Nature of the Case  Petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the resolution/ temporary restraining order of the RTC of Manila. Madarang. Branch 29 28 . J. 1961 – Board of Special Inquiry (BSI) admitted the Gatchalians as Filipino citizens. Yu. 9 setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners (BOC) on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of Board of Special Inquiry o July 6. 1960 – Santiago Gatchalian. Marciana Gatchalian  Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board (CEB). Castillo. among others. grandfather of William Gatchalian. et al (petitioners) v Hon. 1990 – acting director of NBI recommended that respondent Gatchalian along with other applicants covered by warrant of exclusion be charged with violation of Immigration Act of 1940 o August 1. o Vicenta’s   marriage   and   cohabitation   with   Russell   Moran entitles Techavez to a decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery Board of Commissioners. Felizmenio.. 1990 – William Gatchalian filed Petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the resolution/ temporary restraining order of the RTC of Manila. shall also be  valid  in  this  country. Salanguit. Flores. sibling of Johnson. 1990 – petitioner commissioner Domingo of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation issued an order commanding the arrest of respondent William Gatchalian (appeared and was released upon posting cash bond o August 29. Joselito Dela Rosa (respondents) Related Provisions  Article 26 of the FC – “All   marriages   solemnized   outside  the   Philippines. 1973 – commissioner reaffirmed the July 6 decision o June 7. Gravador. 1961 – William Gatchalian (12). respondent Gatchalian (final and executory) o 1973 – respondent Gatchalian filed a motion for rehearing o March 14. William was issued Identification Certificate by the immigration authorities o January 24. 1973 – BSI recommended to the commissioner the reversal of July 6 decision of BOC and the recall of warrants of arrest issued therein o March 15. Morales. Branch 29 Facts  Significant dates o July 12. in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. was recognized by the Bureau of Immigraon as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother. 1962 – new BOC reversed the decision of the latter and ordered the exclusion of.

Salanguit. 5434 o There are quasi-judicial agencies whose decisions are directly appealable to this Court o Bureau of Immigration is not among those agencies whose decisions aew directly appealable to the Court of Appeals o As the BOI is not of equal rank as the RTC. the decision shall constitute conclusive proof of such party’s  citizenship  in  any  other  case  or  proceeding 29   Issues  Whether or not RTC have jurisdiction over judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies  Whether or not Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments or orders of quasi-judicial agencies. 1962  Whether or not William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen Held  William Gatchalian is declared a Filipino citizen Ratio  RTC have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and Court   of   Appeals   to   issue   “writs   of   certiorari. Felizmenio. 1990 – Judge Dela Rosa denied the motion to dismiss Thus. BSI. Madarang. this petition ensued mandamus. 129) o Only those quasi-judicial bodies under Republic Act no.   quo   warranto. hence. par 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. Gravador. 129) o But considering the voluminous pleadings. Flores. Metro Manila for injuction with writ of preliminary injunction. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. o September 4. this court (SC) deem it proper to decide the controversy right at this instance Doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship. alleged that petitioners acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in the institution of deportation proceedings against William o September 7. 1962 decision is res judicata (the thing has been decided)  Whether or not the arrest of respondent follows as a matter of consequence based on the warrant of exclusion issued on July 6. A. J. it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand o Exception to the rule (Burca v Republic): where the citizenship (material issue) is definitely resolved by a court or administrative agency (Solicitor General or his authorized representative) after a full-blown hearing.   habeas   corpus   and   injunction…”   (under Sec 21.)  Which court could take cognizance of the proceedings instituted by respondent Gatchalian  Whether or not the July 6. Yu. not the Court of Appeals (under Sec 21. its decisions may be appealable through a special civil action for certiorari by the RTC (under Sec 21.   prohibition. board of commissions (BOC.. and the citizenship is affirmed by this Court. 1990 – petitioners file a motion to dismiss such allegation that the judge has no jurisdiction over the BOC or BSI o September 6. 129) The said exclusive appellate jurisdiction of Court of Appeals does not extend to all quasi-judicial agencies (under Section 9. Morales. etc. 129) RTC is the competent court which could properly take cognizance of this case.     . 1990 – respondent Gatchalian’s  wife  and   minor children filed before the RTC of Valenzuela. par 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. par 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. par 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg.

Salanguit. Gravador. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. Santiago Gatchalian had been declared a Filipino citizen o Applicants have not satisfactorily proven that they are the children and/or grandchildren of Santiago Gatchalian o Petitioner’s   alleged   cause   of   action   and   deportation   against herein respondent arose in 1962. Castillo. (plaintiff-appellees) v Donaldson. it is presumed that Philippine laws apply Having declared that the assailed marriages of Santiago and Francisco Gatchalian. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  wills. became a registered voter. engaged in business in the Philippines. the other was not so authenticated  Significant dates o February 5. as of July 20. 1960.. 1990 (28 years after)  Such could not now be validly enforced due to inaction (under Sec 39 of the Immigration Act stating that deportation proceedings should be instituted within 5 years nor after 10 years under Article 1144 par 3 of the Civil Code) o Significant dates  1961 – William   Gatchalian’s   admission   as   a   Filipino citizen in the Philippines  July 1. (defendants-appellants) Related Provisions  NCC 17 – “The  forms  and  solemnities  of  contracts. William follows the citizenship of his father – a Filipino   Germann & Co. Germany by Max Tornow conferring upon Kammerzell attorneys of powers 30 . J. is a taxpayer o Philippine law. Morales. 26 of the Family Code)   Santiago married Chu Gim Tee in China and Francisco Gatchalian married Ong Chiu Kiok in China Marriages are valid even though there are no showing of any China laws because there being no proof of China law.  and   other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country  in  which  they  are  executed.  Court finds it devoid of merit (under Section 37. 1900 – an instrument was executed in Berlin. if for investigation only renders such null and void for being unconstitutional William Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen o Santiago Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen. A. Sim & Co. 1973 – he married Ting Dee Hua  Had 4 children. however the warrant of arrest was issued only on August 15. Madarang. par a of Immigration Act of 1940) o Warrant of arrest issued by COI to be valid must be for the sole purpose of executing a final order of deportation. adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid where celebrated is valid everywhere (Art.” Nature of the Case  An incident of want of personality of the plaintiff's attorney Facts  Both Tornow (resident of Berlin) and Kammerzell (resident of Manila) are citizens of Germany  first-named instrument was authenticated by a notary with the formalities required by the domestic laws. following the lex loci celebrationis. Flores. Yu.

Amna A. 31  Issues  Whether or not Fernando Kammerzell had the power of attorney for Max Leonard Tornow Held  Yes. Madarang. and prohibition but was yet again dismissed. real property granted to it by Art 143 of PD 1083. 182434. who. A. Radia and Urgent Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Cancel and Reset the Continuation of Trial Until After the Resolution of the Pending Incident claiming that the SDC does not have jurisdiction for hearing the case at hand. Also it argue that a regular civil court not an SDC has the jurisdiction to hear the case. o October 27. Marawi City. Salanguit.R. against petitioner Sultan Jerry Tomawis and Mangoda Radia. Flores.   1713   because   it   is   not   considered   an   act   “of   strict   ownership”  but  only  for  the  administration  of  business. or possession of. September 6. claimed that he inherited it from his late father. No. his motion was denied with finality! . prohibition.February 21. 2010 Nature: petition for certiorari. This was dismissed. in turn. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. He then appealed to the CA and filed a petition for certiorari. they were informed that their land was leveled and the small houses were removed without their permission upon the orders of Tomawis. These were also dismissed.Tomawis denied the  sisters’  claim  of  ownership  and  filed  a   motion for dismiss. That they had been unlawfully deprived of their possession of the land. mandamus. March 5. 2008. Gravador. That in 1996. That Tomawis assumed ownership of the said property on the claim that he bought the same from Mangoda Radia. Balindong.Digested by: De Guzman. with the same general authority with reference to its conduct which his principal would himself possess if he were personally directing it . G. They alleged that they were the absolute owners of the lot subject of the complaint. 2005. Felizmenio. Fernando Kammerzell had the power of attorney Ratio  There is no reason why the general principle that the formal validity of contracts is to be tested by the laws of the country where they are executed should not apply  The institution of the suit of this case is not considered to fall under   Art. and mandamus under Rule 65 seeks to nullify the Orders dated July 13. Mangompia. Yu. Castillo. 2008 Facts: .Petitioner asserts that Sec 19 (2). Tomawis later on filed several motions including Urgent Motion to Dismiss with Prayer to Correct the Name of Defendants to Read Sultan Yahya "Jerry" M.. in relation to Sec 33 (3) of BP 129 removed from the SDCs jurisdiction civil actions that involve the title to. Jalilah A. Morales. he filed another motion to dismiss on the same grounds as his previous motions to dismiss. Pumbaya. J. Musor filed with the SDC an action for quieting of title of a parcel of land located in Banggolo. In other words. . 1997. Tomawis v. 1900 – a general power for suits was executed in Manila by virtue of a general power for suits conferred upon Kammerzell to recover a sum claimed to be due for freight under a charter party The main object of the instrument is clearly to make Kammerzell the manager of the Manila branch of the plaintiff's business. and February 6. On January 29. the former repealed the latter statute. and Ramla A. 2005. and Tomawis actions had cast a cloud of doubt on their title. Tomawis & Mangoda M.

Held: No.The civil personality of the child shall commence from the time of his conception. It is held that a general law and a special law on the same subject should be read together and in harmony. And that therefore. NATURAL PERSONS BIRTH NCC . is committed when there is an arbitrary exercise of power owing from passion.Article 5. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF PERSONALITY 1. A.Art. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. for all purposes favorable to him. FC . 164. Art. provided. II . Issue: Whether or not the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. (55a. the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. . For civil purposes. Salanguit. Castillo. Madarang.. that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. Felizmenio. (29a) NCC . In addition. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it. implied repeals are not favored. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. Birth determines personality. BP 129 was enacted to reorganize only existing civil courts and is a law of general application to the judiciary. provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. prejudice. 256.D. 258a) RPC . However.Art. PD 1083 is a special law that only applies to Sharia courts. there is no express repeal and as a general rule. J. or personal hostility. Such is not the case  in  the  lower  court’s  ruling  for its decision is in fact well founded.Art. Morales. Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife.Art.Digested by: De Guzman. IV. Flores. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer: 32 . It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. subject to the requirements of Article 41 of the Civil Code. 41. SDC no longer have jurisdiction for such kind of cases.Section 12. PERSONS AND PERSONALITY B. Yu. Commencement of Civil Personality. In contrast. it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. P. Gravador. Grave abuse of discretion on the other hand. 603 . Intentional abortion. (30a) 1987 Consti. 40. A general law does not repeal a special law.

4th. if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman. 257. Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor. 9th and 14th Ammendments. but unintentionally. 2. Unintentional abortion. shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1. J. Thus Geluz filed a petition for review by certiorari. Felizmenio.Ct 705. 5th. if the woman shall have consented. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so. CA 2 SCRA 801 Nature: Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the court of first instance of Manila.ed. 410 US 113. shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same. 3. upon any physician or midwife who. Geluz v. Flores. without using violence. shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The penalty of reclusion temporal. without the proper prescription from a physician.Art. 1. Both abortions were performed by Dr. And then something about fetus being a person and its rights that I do not as of yet understand waaaaa I  can’t  understand  the  rest  of  the  case  yet. Facts: . Gravador.Art. That she was unable to  get  abortion  in  Texas  because  her  life  didn’t  appear  to  be threatened by her continued pregnancy and that she could not afford to go to other jurisdictions that allow abortion under safe conditions.Digested by: De Guzman. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the husband had consented to aborting the fetus. Issue: whether or not the husband of a woman who has voluntarily procured her abprtion could recover damages from the physician who caused it. respectively. 259. That the Texas statutes were vague and that they abridge her right for personal privacy protected by the 1st. Geluz. this now becomes the basis of the plaintiff in filing an action for damages. RPC . Court of Appeals and RTC both decide in favor of the plaintiffs. ordering Geluz to pay damages and attorney’s  fees  to  the  Villanuevas. — The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period. taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill. The penalty of prision mayor if.. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. 2d 147 Facts: . 35 L. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant and that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent licensed physician under safe and clinical conditions. and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence. 33 . RPC . Any pharmacist who.Petitioner  Jane  Roe  is  contesting  the  constitutionality  of  Texas’   state criminal abortion legislation which prohibits abortions except with respect to those procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Castillo. Yu. 258. A third abortion was committed but this time without the consent of the husband. If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them. Roe v Wade. he shall act without the consent of the woman. A.Nita Villanueva had twice become pregnant by her legal husb and but that in both instances. RPC . Madarang. Salanguit. 93 S.Art. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. Morales. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives.  waaah   I’ll  try  to  send   the finished version as soon as I can.000 pesos.

. Gravador. 34 . plaintiff became pregnant and had to stop schooling. Although married.  but  because  of  the  husband’s  indifference  to  his   wife’s  previous  abortions. Icao succeeded in having carnal intercourse with plaintiff several times by force and intimidation and that despite efforts. Upon leaving the hospital. It appeared that his primary concern was in obtaining a large amount of money from the doctor as exemplified by his exaggerated claim for damages amounting to 50. He also employed his friend Dr.  it  could  be  implied  that  he  is   unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affections thus no grounds for moral damages are present. . although yet unborn. it has the right to support from its progenitors.Digested by: De Guzman. J. Motion was granted. Morales. the defendant decamped and married another woman. Facts: .. does it mean that the child is thus not entitled to support from his/her father(respondent)? Held: No. defendant frequented on the plaintiffs house. On Feb 1931. It is also generally held in the prevailing American jurisprudence that recovery for damages cannot be had for the death of an unborn child. De Jesus vs. The damages that the parents can resort to are those that have been inflicted to them by virtue of the loss of their child. the eve of his departure to China and Japan. is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it. he placed in her hands a note to a padre that read: “The  baby  due  in  June  is  mine  and  I  should  like  for  my  name  to  be   given  to  it.”  While  abroad.The parties are neighbors and had close confidential relations.  defendant also exchanged correspondence by way letters to the plaintiff.000. Salanguit..Syquia and Antonia were engaged in an amorous relationship that resulted in the conception of a child that was later born on 17 Jun 1931. The award given by the lower courts based on Article 2206 of the Civil Code does not cover the case of an unborn fetus that does not have personality. Antonia and her baby was taken by Syquia to a house at 551 camarines St. Icao 34 SCRA 134 Nature: Appeal from an order of the court of first instance in Zamboanga dismissing a complaint for damages and another order denying amendment of the same plea. Felizmenio. Quimiging v. Therefore. In this case. A. A conceived child. This was dismissed on the grounds that the original complaint averred no cause of action. During the early months of pregnancy.Plaintiff moved to amend the same complaint to allege that a baby girl has been born due to the intercourse. Facts: . Issue: Considering that the plaintiff failed to mention in her complaint that a child has actually been born. Flores. damages and atty’s  fees. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. In addition the plaintiff is entitled to further damages as being forced to yield to a married man’s  lust  is   a violation of her rights. Yu. they would only be limited to moral damages. Held: No. Talavera to attend at the birth and made arrangements for the hospitalization of Antonia. When Antonia showed signs of a second pregnancy. Hence she claimed support of P120/mo. Madarang.icao in his defense moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action since she did not allege that a child has actually been born. manila and lived there together for about a year as a regular family. Sequia 58 Phil 866 Nature: Appeal from a judgement of the court of first instance of manila of plaintiffs from the decision that denied part of the relief they sought and defendant from the decision that required him to recognize Ismael Loanco and to pay for his maintenance. Castillo.

died 35 pay to any employee in case of death of the employee’s   legitimate   dependent   (parents.7 days 2. its identity as the child which the defendant intended to acknowledge is clear. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.[4] . BEREAVEMENT LEAVE—The Company agrees to grant a bereavement leave with  Claim  was  based  on  the  death  of  Hortillano’s  unborn  child   which. Bulacan . In case the employee is single. Montaño granting bereavement leave and other death benefits to Rolando P.   spouse.00) in case of death of the employees legitimate dependents (parents. this benefit covers the legitimate parents. Allan S. SP No. Madarang. as was initially intended. Salanguit. J.550.2 Provincial/Outside Metro Manila .. according to the Certificate of Fetal Death. and children). affirming the Resolution dated 20 November 2007 of respondent Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Atty. A. brothers and sisters) based on the following: 2. employee of Continental Steel and member of Union filed for a claim for Paternity Leave. pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement concluded between Continental and Union: ARTICLE X: LEAVE OF ABSENCE xxxx Section 2.Digested by: De Guzman. DEATH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE—The Company shall grant death and accidental insurance to the employee or his family in the following manner: xxxx 4.   children.g. Flores.3 DEPENDENTS—Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php11. Felizmenio. Yu. Hortillano. Though in the end it was not given the name Cesar Syquia Jr. The fact that it is yet unborn is no impediment to the acquisition of rights. Montaño This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 101697. Castillo.1 Within Metro Manila up to Marilao.R. Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent. assailing the decision dated 27 February 2008 and the Resolution dated 9 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. brothers and sisters only with proper legal document to be presented (e.11 days xxxx ARTICLE XVIII: OTHER BENEFITS xxxx Section 4. The words of recognition contained in the note to the padre is clear. A child upon being conceived becomes a bearer of legal rights and is capable of being dealt with as living persons. Gravador. spouse. death certificate). Morales. Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Issue: Whether or not the note to the padre written by the defendant to the mother during her pregnancy proves acknowledgement of paternity? Held: Yes. Hortillano. grounded on the death of his unborn child. Facts:  9 January 2006.

41-42 of the Civil Code.  CA  affirmed  Atty.  Marife.  Continental’s  reliance  on  Article’s  41-42 is misplaced since Article 40 provides that a conceived child acquires personality only when it is born. 20092 (the First Assailed Resolution) and December 16.  The  case  has  its  roots  in  the  COMELEC’s   36 .. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu. Atty.Digested by: De Guzman. 20093 (the Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. the Union and Continental Steel submitted for voluntary arbitration the issue of whether Hortillano was entitled to bereavement and other death benefits with Atty. Madarang. J. Salanguit.  was  already  on  her   38th week or 9th month Continental granted paternity leave but not bereavement leave and other death benefits consisting of the death and accident insurance Seeking  to  reverse  Continental’s  denial  of  the  bereavement   and other death benefit. filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11. Castillo. 489 Continental filed a Petition for Review of Certiorari with CA 27  February  2008. and Article 42 states that civil personality is extinguished by death. Article 41 defines when a child is considered born. Continental averred that only one with civil personality could die and the unborn child never died because it never acquired juridical personality A fetus which died before delivery is not a person at all and could not be considered a dependent since it never needed support nor did it acquire a right to be supported 20 November 2007. gave death benefits to their employees with similar case  Invoked Article 1702 of the Civil Code which states that all doubts in labor legislations and labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety of and decent living for the laborer o Continental – CBA did not specify death of unborn child. the Assailed  Resolutions). a fetus without legal personality  Relying on Arts. Montaño issued a Resolution entitling Hortillano to bereavement leave with pay and death benefits amounting to P16. during  labor. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Gravador. 9 October 2006. NCR. sister companies of Continental. Montaño’s  Resolution  is  Affirmed. These articles do not provide a definition of death. Felizmenio.  CA  denied  Continental’s  MR          Issue: Can  Hortillano’s  unborn child be considered dependent considering that she died before delivery and did not acquire civil personality? Held: Petition is DENIED. Flores.  Hortillano’s  wife. Morales. The decision of CA affirming Atty.  Montaño’s  resolution 9  May  2008. the Union filed a Notice to Arbitrate before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the DOLE. with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Arguments of the two parties: o Union – the CBA did not specify that the dependent should have been born alive first so his death can be covered  Other cases in MKK Steel Corp and Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. Montaño as the chosen arbitrator. A. 09-228 (PL) (collectively.

morals. public   order   or   public   policy’   are   inexistent   and   void from the beginning. Salanguit. or disregards decency or morality x x x o It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: ‘The   contracting   parties   may   establish   such   stipulations. provided they are not contrary to law. in theaters. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Gravador. obscene publications and exhibitions. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals. 201. Madarang. good customs. or both such imprisonment and fine. and indecent shows. terms and conditions as they may deem convenient. gays. 7941. the editors publishing such literature. refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under Republic Act (RA) No. Morales. That bec of negative societal attitudes.   obscene   publications   and  exhibitions  and  indecent  shows’  as  follows:  Art. Yu. and the owners/operators of the establishment selling the same. discrimination. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the org has no substantial membership base  17 August 2009 – Ladlad filed for registration again o Ladlad argued that LGBT community 1. Castillo.  (b) Those who. morals. Immoral doctrines. J. and outlined its platform of governance  11 November 2009 – Comelec dismissed the petition on moral grounds o said that definition of the LGBT sector makes it clear that Ladlad tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs and cited the Bible and Koran o ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil   Code   which   defines   nuisance   as   ‘Any   act. Flores. shall be imposed upon:  1. is a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged bec of their sexual orientation and gender identity 2. 37 . as amended. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. And that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the SC in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.   object   or   purpose is contrary to law.Digested by: De Guzman. bisexuals. condition of property. LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation 4. o Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community. public order or public policy. the Revised Penal Code. or anything else which x x x (3) shocks. or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs)  2006 – Ladlad filed for registration with the COMELEC.  2. clauses. Facts:  Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians. establishment. cinematographs or any other place. defies. good customs. That LGBTs are victims of exclusion..   omission. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides   that   ‘Contracts   whose   cause. COMELEC o Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of individual members and org supporters. published with their knowledge in any form. A. penalizes   ‘Immoral   doctrines. fairs. business. otherwise known as the Party-List System Act. and violence 3. (a) The authors of obscene literature.

Salanguit. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Morales. which are prescribed by virtue hereof.  4 January 2010 – Ang Ladlad filed this petition praying the Court annul the assailed resolutions and direct Comelec to grant their application for accreditation and the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory injunction against COMELEC which will begin printing the final ballots on 25 January 6 January 2010 – Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was ordered to file its Comment on behalf of COMELEC until 12:00 noon of 11 January. OSG filed for extension until 16 January. scenes. established policies. (3) offend any race or religion.  3. filed Motion to Intervene 2 February – motion granted        Issue: Is  Comelec’s  decision  to  deny  Ang  Ladlad  accreditation  valid? Held: The  Court  granted  the  petition  and  set  aside  Comelec’s resolutions. 19 January – Motion to Intervene granted 26 January – Epifanio Salonga Jr. exhibit indecent or immoral plays. Yu. Those who shall sell. Opined  that  the  denial  of  Ladlad’s  petition  based  on  moral   grounds violated the standards and principles of the Constitution. morals. sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. including ints proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage has secular purpose 38 . it being understood that the obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays. Flores. Felizmenio. engravings. whether live or in film.  Ang Ladlad has complied with the requirements for the party-list system  Government action. (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence. acts or shows.Digested by: De Guzman. J. acts or shows. public order. decrees and edicts. Castillo. OSG filed a comment supporting Ladlad 2 February 2010 – COMELEC filed its own Comment through its Law Dept. lust or pornography. 12 January 2010 – TRO was issued directing Comelec to cease and desist from implementing the Assailed Resolutions 13 January – Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes. the youth will be exposed to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith o When Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the nations. o Should the petition be granted. Madarang. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. its application for accreditation under the party-list system will remain just that.  Comelec  is  also  directed  to  grant  the  petitioner’s   application for party-list accreditation.. good customs. give away or exhibit films. lawful orders. Gravador. prints. scenes. A. and (5) are contrary to law. (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs.

by contract and by will. 1946. Rizal and QC  Background story: Pedro Fragante died before his application for certification was finalized. Intestate of Fragrante This is a petition for review of a judgment of the Public Service Commission. the estate of Pedro O. Felizmenio. Salanguit.  If  they  are. Madarang. the Public Service Commission. Yu. Fragante should be considered an artificial or juridical person for the purposes of the settlement and distribution of his estate which. Petitioner is questioning the right of Intestate to acquire the certificate considering that Fragante has died. J. authorizing the Intestate to maintain and operate an ice plant with a daily productive capacity of 2 ½ tons in San Juan and to sell ice from the plant in San Juan and Mandaluyong. Gravador. Castillo. Dumlao v. Facts:  May 21. Inc. During the process of applying for certification. as amended. Issue: Should  the  estate  of  Pedro  O.Digested by: De Guzman. copartnerships. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. The  Court  considered  Fragante’s  estate  as  an  extension  of  his  person. Quality Plastic Products. of course.  the  decision   should be affirmed. A. Otherwise.  Within the framework of the constitution. Dissenting Opinion: The question can be restated into whether or not Fragante’s  heirs  are  citizens  of  the  Philippines. through Deputy Commissioner Fidel Ibañez. associations.. issued a certificate of public convenience to the Intestate Estate of the deceased Pedro Fragante. include the exercise during the juridical administration thereof of those rights and fulfillment of those obligations of his which survived after his death. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragante is the excutor or administrator of his estate. Flores. particularly the proviso thereof expressly and categorically limiting the power of the commission ton issue certificates of public convenience or certificates of public convenience and  necessity  “only  to  citizens  of  the  Philippines  or  of  the  United   States or to corporations. he has already incurred P35. (32a) Limjoco v.  Comelec’s  Resolutions  have  not  identified  any  specific   overt immoral act performed by Ang Ladlad  Moral disapproval is not enough to justify exclusion of homosexuals from party-list system  Comelec’s  reference to purported violations of the penal and civil law are mere allegations and need proof beyond reasonable doubt  No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or parties about homosexual behavior DEATH NCC 42: Civil personality is extinguished by death.000 in expenses. The citizenship of the special administrator of the estate should also be investigated.  Fragante  be  considered  “citizen  of   the  Philippines”  within  the  meaning  of  section  16  of  the  Public  Service   Act. among others. The effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is determined by law. 39 . or joint-stock companies constituted and organied under the laws of the Philippines”? Held: Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. the same should be reversed. Morales.

03 plus interest to Quality Plastic Products.  QP  alleged  that  Oria’s  heirs  knew  of  the  suit  and  were   estopped  to  question  the  court’s  jurisdiction  over  Oria.  11 October 1988 – Court required comment from the respondents on the petition but denied the application for TRO  Backstory: o 28 August 1988 – Vitaliana Vargas (Vitaliana) died 40 . Gravador.  the  court  acquired   jurisdiction over Oria. In case the defendants failed to pay before the decision becomes final.  1 March 1963 – the  Dumlao’s. o and to declare said writ and orders as null and void. also void. Santiago Laurencio. Velez These are petitions for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. Felizmenio. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.  24 September 1962 – the land was levied and sold at a public auction  20 November 1962 – lower court confirmed the sale  Backstory: o 23 April 1959 – Oria’s  death o 13 June 1960 – case filed o QP  did  not  know  about  Oria’s  death o 24 June 1960 – summons and copies of complaint served to the principal in the bond. Castillo.  Lower court held that it acquired jurisdiction over Soliven and other defendants because of their voluntary appearance. Sr. Issue: Does the court have jurisdiction over Oria considering that he no longer had civil personality during the action case against him? Held: The  Court  reversed  and  set  aside  the  lower  court’s  decision  and   declared its judgment in the case against Pedro Oria as void for lack of jurisdiction. Yu. Flores. who acknowledged by signing for himself and his codefendants. Quality Products will be authorized to foreclose the bond. Eugenio. T-662 rendered a judgment ordering defendants Vicente Soliven.  testamentary  heirs  in  Oria’s   will sued QP for the annulment of judgment against Oria and the execution against his land. Madarang. Inc.Digested by: De Guzman. v.667. Pedro Oria. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  Oria has not been validly served with summons since he had no more civil personality and his juridical capacity which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations was lost through death. A. 29. Facts:  28 February 1962. Facts:  5 October 1988 – petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for restraining order/injunction seeking o to enjoin Judge Velez from proceeding with the Habeas Corpus (HC) case. Salanguit. Soliven.  The  defendants’  failed  to  pay  the  amount  and  Quality   Products (QP) ordered the foreclosure of the surety bond and the sale at public auction  of  Oria’s  land. o the respondent Sheriff from enforcing and implementing the writ and orders of the said judge dated 28.. and Juana Darang to pay P3. Since  Oria’s  counsel  appeared  for  him. The ground for annulment was lack of jurisdiction over the deceased. Marcelino Sumalbag.  therefore. Branch 20. J. the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in Civil Case No.  The  execution  sale  of  Oria’s  land  is. and 30 September 1988.

person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. o 27 September 1988 – Vitaliana’s  brothers  and   sisters (Vargases). And proceeded to award the rightful custody of the body to the Vargases. filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC of Misamis Oriental alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence and confined by the petitioner in his palacial residence o 28 September 1988 – the court issued the writ of habeas corpus. 19. A. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court. 5. but the writ was returned unsatified.  The court did not lose jurisdiction over nature and subject matter of the case and may entertain the case thru the allegations in the body of the petition on the determination as to who is entitled to the custody of the dead as well as the burial and interment. Gravador. o Petitioner filed to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction o Vargases were granted leave to amend their petition.  Therefore. J. Issue: Does the court have jurisdiction over a dead person? Held: The  Court  affirmed  the  lower  court’s  decision  and  dismissed  the   petitions. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. o 17 January 1989 – the court rendered decision on its jurisdiction over the case. They alleged that Eugenio is interferring with their legal duty to bury their sister o 21 October 1988 – petition to dismisss was submitted for resolution o 17 November 1988 – the court denied the motion to dismiss.. Jurisdiction in civil cases.— Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction 1. Morales. Yu. Flores. unaware of her death. 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation.  After the Vargases learned of Vitaliana’s  death. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital relations 6. He said that Vitaliana died of heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy. Petitioner refused to surrender the body reasoning that a corpse cannot be the subject of HC proceedings. Madarang.  their   petition for HC was amended and not dismissed to avoid multiplicity of suits.Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo. something which the Phil Law does not recognize.  Writ of HC became moot and academic due to the death of Vitaliana but the issue of custody remained  Eugenio is a common law spouse. He claimed legal custody of the body as her common law husband o 29 and 30 September 1988 – the court issued two orders directing the delivery of the corpse to a funeral parlor in CDO and its autopsy. Cited Sec. Felizmenio. 129: Sec. tribunal. custody over the body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to the Vargases  41 . Salanguit.

Joaquin Sr. Also.around 30 years old. The case is important for the right of succession of Ramon Joaquin. with the corpse of the late President? Do they pose a threat to the people of the Philippines? Does the President have the power to not allow a Filipino to return to his/her country? Held: The court denied the Marcos family of their motion for reconsideration. Flores. ROC Rule 131 Sec. Castillo. 42 . Morales. the three daughters were killed. Salanguit. Lastly. the President has power more than that listed in the Constitution. Joaquin v. the world would appreciate a lot the act of mercy. the threat to the government of the return of the Marcoses has not ceased. and it is the duty of the President to promote and protect the welfare of the people. natural child of Angela and adopted child of the deceased spouses. Paras stresses that the dead still has certain rights. Marcos. and his wife. At the same time. Navarro Facts: Durig the battle for the liberation of Manila.. and of Antonio Navarro.Digested by: De Guzman. in his first marriage. Pilar (32 or 33 yrs. 3 (ii): That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. Minutes later. son of Joaquin Sr. NCC 42. Antiviral (the two are between 23 and 25 yrs old) and Joaquin Jr (and his wife.. filed for a motion for reconsideration regarding the denial of the court of their return to the Philippined and the return and burial of the corpse of Mr. shall prove the same. it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other. Sarmiento pointed out the change in the position of the two families and insisted that emotions should not be allowed to overpower the use of reason. Marcos. as a Filipino citizen. the last one should be given to him. Manglapus Facts: The petitioners. Issues: Can the family of Mr. aged 67. J. the President has no power to prevent the Marxoses to bury the corpse in the country. Three days later Joaquin Sr. Madarang. Yu. Since the first two eighrs have already been deprived to Mr. as to which of them died first. the family of the late Pres.ols). Gravador. NCC 43. die and be buried in his homeland. The President has also spoken of her disagreement with the petition of the Marcoses. especially those who are trying to escape. and his son decided to leave the said building for safer haven but Angela was not convinced and so they left her. Angela Joaquin de Navarro. and reconciliation will be achieved faster if the President will allow the return of the Marcoses and the corpse. Joaquin Jr. Civil personality is extinguished by death. by contract and by will. Cruz also argued that the death of Marcos also signalled the death of the threat he may have with him. Dissenting Opinions: Cruz emphasized that the death of Marcos has not plunged the country in grief nor has it disprove the indifference of the people to the late President. Marcos v. There were many refugees in the said building and it was set on fire. If there is a doubt.. Joaquin Navarro Sr. Marcos. in the absence of proof. has the right to return. A. Felizmenio. was also shot. Adela Conde) sought refuge in the ground floor of the German Club. together with their children. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. the alleged threat is unproved. was then shot. Marcos return to the Philippines. The effects of death upon the rights and obligayions of the deceased is determined by law. Concepcion. aged 70. The court ruled that there is a lack of compelling reasons to reconsider the case. Marcos. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. This time. the German Club collapsed presumably killing the people inside. Padilla argues that Mr. the Japanese started shooting inside the building.

Sec. province. Sec. and there are no (2) particular circunstances from which it can be inferred. The following are grounds for such rejection or disapproval: 1. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 43 of NCC. 43 .The Securities and Exchange Commission may reject the articles of incorporation or disapprove any amendment thereto if the same is not in compliance with the requirements of this Code: Provided. The following are juridical persons: (1) The State and its political subdivisions. Art. their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law. RTC ruled that Angela died before her son while the CA ruled that it was the other way around. 3. or contrary to government rules and regulations. Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. That the percentage of ownership of the capital stock to be owned by citizens of the Philippines has not been complied with as required by existing laws or the Constitution. Private corporations are regulated by laws of general application on the subject. the survivorship is presumed from the strength and age of the sexes. supplemented by the provisions of this Code. institutions and entities for public interest or purpose. (3) Corporations. Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all kinds. Castillo. institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose mentioned in No. partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality. If nothing has been specified on this point. 2 of Article 44. insofar as they are applicable. the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region. 4. 46. Issue: Who died first? Held: The Court reversed the decision and hold that the distribution of the   descendents’estates   should   be   made   in   accordance with the decision of the RTC. illegal. That the articles of incorporation or any amendment thereto is not substantially in accordance with the form prescribed herein. their property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them. . Upon the dissolution of corporations. 47. according to the following rules. 1 and 2 of the preceding article are governed by the laws creating or recognizing them. 17. 68 Sec. That the Commission shall give the incorporators a reasonable time within which to correct or modify the objectionable portions of the articles or amendment. Francisco Lopez is the sole witness. Yu. in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization. . Salanguit. Art. Applicable Provisions: Rule 123. Madarang. Juridical Persons NCC Art. 45.Digested by: De Guzman. Morales. separate and distinct from that of each shareholder.A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. partner or member. Felizmenio. immoral. That the Treasurer's Affidavit concerning the amount of capital stock subscribed and/or paid if false. Section 69 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that when two people perish in the same calamity. 4. city or municipality which during the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same. Grounds when articles of incorporation or amendment may be rejected or disapproved. J. 2. Flores. (2) Other corporations. Corporation defined. 2. (36 and 37a) Art. Corporations created by special laws or charters. created by law. and it is not (1) shown who died first. Gravador. 2. Batas Pambansa Blg.. having the right of succession and the powers.Corporations created by special laws or charters shall be governed primarily by the provisions of the special law or charter creating them or applicable to them. A. (38a) Art. attributes and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence. Partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose are governed by the provisions of this Code concerning partnerships. That the purpose or purposes of the corporation are patently unconstitutional. 44. . as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions.

population or income of the original municipality or municipalities at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements prescribed herein. convent. The plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner of the said properties and asks that it be restored to the possession thereof and that the defendant render an account of the property which he had received and which was retained by him. Morales. The defendant. even in case of failure to comply with the requirements of Article 1772. public utilities. The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more islands. He administered it as such under the orders of his superiors until November 1902. first paragraph. but the present petition insists that in spite of this insurmountable obstacle Andong strives on.a town that is not supposed to exist yet. and hence. building and loan associations. who were the lawful owners of the said property. trust companies and other financial intermediaries. is anyway insisted to some as actually alive and thriving. as certified by the provincial treasurer. The requirement on land area shall not apply where the municipality proposed to be created is composed of one (1) or more islands. The creation of the putative municipality was declard void ab initio by the Court four decades ago. The answer of the defendant. Salanguit. and other corporations governed by special laws shall be accepted or approved by the Commission unless accompanied by a favorable recommendation of the appropriate government agency to the effect that such articles or amendment is in accordance with law. it legal personality should be given judicial affirmation. a population of at least twenty-five thousand (25. the latter made a demand on this defendant for the delivery to him of the church. property.00) for the last two (2) consecutive years based on the 1991 constant prices. by a written document. banking and quasi-banking institutions. Gravador.000. took possession of the church on July 1901. and other property of the church. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Office of the President Facts: Andong. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money. Flores. . with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. the Roman Catholic Church is a juridical entity and the defendant should not and can not be   permitted   to   deny   the   plaintiff’s   right   to   the   possession   of   the   property. or industry to a common fund. 1767. His successor.Digested by: De Guzman. admitted that he was in the possession and administration of the property described therein with the authority of the municipality of Lagonoy and of the inhabitants of the same. NCC Art. with the costs of this instance be against the appellant. Barlin v. Ramirez Faxts: The defendant. A. Felizmenio.000) inhabitants as certified by the National Statistics Office. Sec. having been appointed by the plaintiff parish priest. Madarang. The partnership has a judicial personality separate and distinct from that of each of the partners. of at least Two million five hundred thousand pesos (P=2. refused to make such delivery.. Issues: Who is the real owner of the property in question? Is the Roman Catholic Church a juridical entity? Held: The court held that the property be delivered. and cemetery. insurance companies. That the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area. (1665a) Art. having been then appointed. in addition to the general denial of the allegations of the complaint. Yu. Ramires. (b) The territorial jurisdiction of a newly-created municipality shall be properly identified by metes and bounds. Castillo. and a contiguous territory of at least fifty (50) square kilometers as certified by the Lands Management Bureau: Provided.500. Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession. Camid v. educational institutions. Yes. 442 of the Local Government Code of 1991: Requisites for Creation. and for other relief.(a) A municipality may be created if it has an average annual income. No articles of incorporation or amendment to articles of incorporation of banks. J. 44 . 1768.

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
(c) h The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund of the municipality concerned, exclusive of special funds, transfers and non-recurring income. (d) Municipalities existing as of the date of the effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and operate as such. Existing municipal districts organized pursuant to presidential issuances or executive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall henceforth be considered as regular municipalities. E.O. No. 107, which established Andong, was declared null and void ab initio in 1965 by this Court in Pelaez, along with 33 other E.O.s Issues: Is Andong a municipality and a juridical entity? Is the DILG to be blamed for this issue? Held: The case is not a fit subject for the special civic actions of certiorari and mandamus, as it pertains to the de novo appreciation of factual actions. Thus, the petition is dismissed. Also, the Certification issued by the DILG does not pretend to bear the authority to create or revalidate a municipality. The annulment of this will really do nothing to the recognition of Andong. Note: Even where a decision has been rendered by a Department Secretary, an alter ego of the President under the doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, an appeal to the President is still proper where the law expressly provide for exhaustion. Juasing Hardware v. Mendoza Facts: Juasing Hardware, alleging to be a single proprietorship due organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, filed a complaint for the collection of a sum of money against Pilar Dolla. Dolla failed and refused to pay, despite repeated demands, the purchase prices of items, materials and merchandise which she bought from the plaintiff. Solla stated that she has no knowledge  about  the  plaintiff’s  legal  personality  and  capacity  to  sue  as   alleged in the complaint. RULE 3 Revised Rules of Court Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party plaintiff. The term "defendant" may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the crossdefendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) party defendant. RULE 10 Revised Rules of Court S Sec. 4. Formal amendments. A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party. Issues: Is the Juasing Hardware a juridical entity with legal capacity to bring an action in court considering that it is a sole proprietorship, not a corporation or partnership? Did the lower court commit a grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the case and refuse the admission of the Amended Complaint filed by Juasing Hardware? Held: There is no law authorizing sole proprietorship to bring suit in court. The complaint should have been filed in the name of the owner. Also, the defect of the complaint in the instant case was merely formal and not substantial. The substitution of the plaintiff would not constitute a change in the identity of the parties. With this, the petition is granted. The lower court is ordered to admit the Amend Complaint. C. RESTRICTIONS ON CIVIL CAPACITY 1. PRESUMPTION OF CAPACITY Catalan v. Basa This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA which affirmed the judgment of the RTC in Lingayen dismissing the 45

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, and damages. Facts:  October 20, 1948 – Feliciano Catalan was discharged from active military service o The Board of Medical Officers of the Department of Veteran Affairs found that he was schizophrenic and unfit to render military service  September 28, 1949 – Feliciano married Corazon Cerezo  June 16, 1951 – Feliciano allegedly donated one-half of his real property in Pangasinan to his sister Mercedes Catalan o BIR issued a tax certificate to Mercedes for the land o Half of the property remained with Feliciano  December 11, 1953 – People’s  Bank  and  Trust Co. (BPI) filed Special Proceedings No. 4563 before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to declare Feliciano incompetent  December 22, 1953 – court issued its Order for Adjudication of Incompetency for Appointing Guardian for the Estate and Fixing Allowance of Feliciano  December 23, 1953 – court  appointed  bank  as  Feliciano’s   guardian  Nov. 22, 1978 – Feliciano and Corazon donated lots to their son, Eulogio  March 26, 1979 – Mercedes sold the land he received from Feliciano to her children Delia and Jesus Basa (deed of sale was registered Feb. 20, 1992)  June 24, 1983 and Feb. 14, 1983 – Feliciano and Corazon donated more of their land to their children  April 1, 1997 – BPI filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, and damages against the Basas o Alleged that the donation is void ab initio since Feliciano never donated the property to Mercedes and even if he did, the donation will still be void since Feliciano was not of sound mind and was, therefore, not capable of giving consent  Aug. 14, 1997 – Feliciano died and his heirs became the complainants  Dec. 7, 1999 – lower court found that the evidence is not enough to prove that Feliciano was not of sound mind on the time he executed the deed o Complaint was dismissed  Petitioners went to CA o Affirmed  the  lower  court’s  decision Issue: Whether or not Feliciano was capable of giving consent to the deed considering that he was not of sound mind Held: The SC affirmed the findings of the CA and the trial court  A study of the nature of schizophrenia will show that Feliciano could still be presumed capable of attending to his property rights o A person suffering from schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property  Petitioners failed to show proof that at the date of donation, Feliciano had lost total control of his mental faculties; thus, unless proved otherwise, he is presumed to have been capable of giving consent A. MINORITY Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 20092 (the First Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 20093 (the 46

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed  Resolutions).  The  case  has  its  roots  in  the  COMELEC’s   refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act. Facts:  Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs)  2006 – Ladlad filed for registration with the COMELEC. The application for accreditation was denied on the ground that the org has no substantial membership base  17 August 2009 – Ladlad filed for registration again o Ladlad argued that LGBT community 5. is a marginalized and under-represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged bec of their sexual orientation and gender identity 6. That LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence 7. That bec of negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation 8. And that Ang Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the SC in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC o Ladlad laid out its national membership base consisting of individual members and org supporters, and outlined its platform of governance  11 November 2009 – Comelec dismissed the petition on moral grounds o said that definition of the LGBT sector makes it clear that Ladlad tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs and cited the Bible and Koran o ANG LADLAD collides with Article 695 of the Civil   Code   which   defines   nuisance   as   ‘Any   act,   omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which x x x (3) shocks, defies; or disregards decency or morality x x x o It also collides with Article 1306 of the Civil Code: ‘The   contracting   parties   may   establish   such   stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Art 1409 of the Civil Code provides   that   ‘Contracts   whose   cause,   object   or   purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public   order   or   public   policy’   are   inexistent   and   void from the beginning. o Finally to safeguard the morality of the Filipino community, the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes   ‘Immoral   doctrines,   obscene   publications   and exhibitions and  indecent  shows’  as  follows:  Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:  1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;  2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the 47

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;  (b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.  3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. o Should the petition be granted, the youth will be exposed to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith o When Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual orientations and transgender identities is beneficial to the nations, its application for accreditation under the party-list system will remain just that.  4 January 2010 – Ang Ladlad filed this petition praying the Court annul the assailed resolutions and direct Comelec to grant their application for accreditation and the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory injunction against COMELEC which will begin printing the final ballots on 25 January  6 January 2010 – Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was ordered to file its Comment on behalf of COMELEC until 12:00 noon of 11 January. OSG filed for extension until 16 January. OSG filed a comment supporting Ladlad  2 February 2010 – COMELEC filed its own Comment through its Law Dept.  12 January 2010 – TRO was issued directing Comelec to cease and desist from implementing the Assailed Resolutions  13 January – Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a Motion to Intervene or to Appear as Amicus Curiae. Opined  that  the  denial  of  Ladlad’s  petition  based  on  moral   grounds violated the standards and principles of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  19 January – Motion to Intervene granted  26 January – Epifanio Salonga Jr. filed Motion to Intervene  2 February – motion granted Issue:  Is  Comelec’s  decision  to  deny  Ang  Ladlad  accreditation  valid? Held:  The  Court  granted  the  petition  and  set  aside  Comelec’s   resolutions.  Comelec  is  also  directed  to  grant  the  petitioner’s   application for party-list accreditation.  Ang Ladlad has complied with the requirements for the party-list system 48

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
 Government action, including ints proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like concubinage has secular purpose  Comelec’s  Resolutions  have not identified any specific overt immoral act performed by Ang Ladlad  Moral disapproval is not enough to justify exclusion of homosexuals from party-list system  Comelec’s  reference  to  purported  violations  of  the  penal   and civil law are mere allegations and need proof beyond reasonable doubt  No law exists to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions or parties about homosexual behavior Mercado vs. Espiritu 37 Phil 215 Facts: This is an appel to the judgment of the Court of First Instance wherein the plaintiffs were ordered to keep perpetual silence in regard to the litigated land and to pay the costs of the trial. April 9, 1913 - a complain was submitted by the plaintiffs, Domingo and Josefa Mercado, against Luis Espiritu( later died and so the defendant became his son, Jose) Arguments of the plaintiffs: The plaintiffs alleged that they and their sisters Concepcion and Paz were the children and sole heirs of Margarita Espiritu (sister of Luis); That Margarita died in1897, leaving as her paraphernal property a tract of land which hereditary portion has been held by the plaintiffs since then through their fayjer Wenceslao; that in 1910, Luis induced and fraudulently succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sign a deed of sale of the land; that 1/2 of the land belongs to Margarita, and one fourth of the land is to the plaintiffs while the other hquarter is to their sisters; and that Luis has received the produce of the land since 1901 (until he died). They hold that the contract of the sale is null and void and prayed that the defendant deliver and restore to the plaintiffs the shares of the land together with the produce thereof. The defendant's rebuttal: He denies each and all of their argument and argues that in 1894, Margarita sold a portion of the land to Luis; that in 1901, Wenceslao sold under pacto de retro to Luis the remainder of the land; that also in the same year, the plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be of legal age (together with their sisters) executed the notarial instrument ratifying the said sale under pacto de retro of the land that had belonged to their mother. He rendered by ordering that the plaintiffs be ordered to keep perpetual silence with respect tot the land and to pay the said inestate estate P1,000 for losses and damages and the costs of the trial be charged against them. Ley 6, Title 19, Partidas 6: If he who is a minor (1) deceitfully says or sets forth in an instrument that he is over 25 years old, and this assertion is believed by another person who takes him to be of about that age, (2) in an action at law he should be deemed to be of the age he asserted, and should not (3) afterwards be released from liability on the plea that he was not of said age when he assumed the obligatopn. The reason for this is that the law helps the the deceived and not the deceiver. Issue/s: Is the notarized document ratifying the sale of the land null and void considering that the plaintiffs were said to be minors at the time when it was signed? 49

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Held: It would be improper and illegal to hold that Luis had any need to to forge or simulate the notarized document. Also, the plaintiffs have absolutely no right to recover the said parcel of land as its ownership was conveyed to Luis by means of a singular title of purchase and sale; and to other portion they could have redeemed before 1910 upon the payent or the return of the sum which Wenceslao had received as a loan under the security of the pledged property; bit after the execution of the notarized document, Luis definitely acquired the ownership of said parcel of land, There is no legal ground or wellfounded reason why the document should be rejected. The document were they claimed to be of legal age and signed it is perfectly valid. The sale of real estates by minors who pretend to be of legal age is valid, and they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfilment of the obligations contracted by them or to have them annulled. Lastly, there are no proofs that the plaintiffs have suffered positive and actual losses and damages in their rights and interests as a result of the execution of the document. With these, the Court ruled that the ruling of the Court of First Instance is affirmed with the costs against the appellant. Bambalan vs Maramba and Muerong Facts: Isidro Bambalan y Calcotura was the owner of the parcel of land in question and that the plaintiff is his sole heir. A document signed by the plaintiff is presented to the court as a proof that the land has been conveyed in favor of the defendants, as payment for his mother’s  loan  of  P200  to  the   defendants. The plaintiff was also a minor at the time he signed the document. Issue: Whether or not the plaintiff sold the land to the defendants. Held: No. The document transferring the ownership of the land from the plaintiff to the defendant is void because at the time he signed it, he was a minor and it also does not appear that he intended to sell the land. Thus the land is not bound by the contract between the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff cannot be held estopped because in the first place, the defendants knew that he was a minor at the time the contract was executed. Braganza, et al (petitioners) vs De Villa Abrille (respondent) Nature of the Case  Petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts  From October 30, 1944 – Rosario Baraganza and sons (Rodolfo and Guillermo) were required by Fernando de Villa Abrille to pay P10,000 plus 2% interest o Braganza et al, received, as a loan from Villa Abrille, P70,000 in Japanese war notes so they promised in writing (Exhibit A) to pay him  March 1949 – Villa Abrille sued them for not paying o Branganza et al claimed that they only received P40,000 and that Guillermo (16) and Rodolfo (18) were minors when they signed the promissory note (Exhibit A)  The court rendered judgment which the CA affirmed o There can be no question about the responsibility of Rosario Braganza because the minority of her consigners does not release her from liability o Rodolfo and Guillermo are liable  They did not confess in the promissory note that they were not yet of legal age  They pretended to be of legal age when in fact they’re  not Issues  WON Rodolfo and Guillermo are liable Held 50

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
 CA decision is modified Ratio  Rodolfo and Guillermo are not liable o Being minors, Rodolfo and Guillermo Braganza could not be legally bound by their signatures in Exhibit A  The written contract is unenforceable due to non-age o However, they are not entirely absolved from monetary responsibility  They shall make restitution to the extent that they may have profited by the money they received  Besides, the funds were used for their support Sian Suan and Gaw Chiao v. Alcantara This is a petition for review on certiorari a decision of the CA. Facts:  August 3, 1931 – Rufino Alcantara and sons Damaso and Ramon executed a deed of sale conveying Sia Suan five parcels of land o Roman Alcantara was 17 years, 10 months, and 22 days old  August 27, 1931 – Gaw  Chiao  (Sia  Suan’s  husband)   received  a  letter  from  Ramon’s  lawyer,  Francisco  Alonzo,   informing him that Ramon was a minor and is, therefore, disavowing the contract o Gaw Chiao contacted Ramon and Ramon executed an affidavit ratifying the deed of sale in the office of Jose  Gomez,  Gaw  Chiao’s  lawyer  Ramon received P500 from Gaw Chiao  Sia Suan sold one of the lots to the Azoreses  August 8, 1940 – an action was instituted by Ramon for the annulment of the deed of sale as regards his undivided share in the two parcels of land they sold o Action was against Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao and his father and sibing including Azores  Court of First Instance of Laguna absolved all defendants  Ramon  appealed  to  CA  which  reversed  the  trial  court’s   decision o Deed of sale is not binding against Ramon because he was a minor o The fact that appellees took no step nine years to protect their interet beyond requiring the appellant to execute a ratification of the sale while still a minor strongly indicates that the appellees knew of his minority when the deed of sale was executed Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale was not binding against Ramon Alcantara since he was a minor the time he signed the contract Held: SC  reversed  CA’s  decision  and  absolved  the  appellants  from   complaint  Since  appellee’s  conveyance  to  the  appellants  was   admittedly for and in virtue of a pre-existing indebtedness, it should produce its full force and effect  It does not matter even though the appellant informed the spouses about his minority a month after the sale because his previous misrepresentation had already estopped him from disavowing the contract  The information just serves to prove that the spouses did not know that Ramon was minor CRIMINAL LIABILITY Revised Penal Code 51

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. 2. A person under nine years of age. 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.chan robles virtual law library 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned. PD 603 Art. 189. Youthful Offender Defined. - A youthful offender is one who is over nine years but under twenty-one years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. 52

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
A child nine years of age or under at the time of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall be committed to the care of his or her father or mother, or nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. The same shall be done for a child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Article 192. The provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code shall be deemed modified by the provisions of this Chapter. Art. 190. Physical and Mental Examination. - It shall be the duty of the law-enforcement agency concerned to take the youthful offender, immediately after his apprehension, to the proper medical or health officer for a thorough physical and mental examination. Whenever treatment for any physical or mental defect is indicated, steps shall be immediately undertaken to provide the same. The examination and treatment papers shall form part of the record of the case of the youthful offender. Art. 191. Care of Youthful Offender Held for Examination or Trial. - A youthful offender held for physical and mental examination or trial or pending appeal, if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be committed to the care of the Department of Social Welfare or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the province or city which shall be responsible for his appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That in the absence of any such center or agency within a reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the provincial, city and municipal jail shall provide quarters for youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court may, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare or other agency or agencies authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other suitable person who shall be responsible for his appearance whenever required. Art. 192. Suspension of Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender. - If after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him the court shall determine the imposable penalty, including any civil liability chargeable against him. However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the government, or duly licensed agencies or any other responsible person, until he shall have reached twenty-one years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare or the agency or responsible individual under whose care he has been committed. The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation and supervision by a representative of the Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other officer as the Court may designate subject to such conditions as it may prescribe. Art. 193. Appeal. - The youthful offender whose sentence is suspended can appeal from the order of the court in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases. Art. 194. Care and Maintenance of Youthful Offender. - The expenses for the care and maintenance of the youthful offender whose sentence has been suspended shall be borne by his parents or those persons liable to support him: Provided, That in case his parents or those persons liable to support him can not pay all or part of said expenses, the municipality in which the offense was committed shall pay onethird of said expenses or part thereof; the province to which the municipality belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered cities shall pay 53

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
two-thirds of said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part of the internal revenue allotments applicable to the unpaid portion shall be withheld and applied to the settlement of said indebtedness. All city and provincial governments must exert efforts for the immediate establishment of local detention homes for youthful offenders. Art. 195. Report on Conduct of Child. - The Department of Social Welfare or its representative or duly licensed agency or individual under whose care the youthful offender has been committed shall submit to the court every four months or oftener as may be required in special cases, a written report on the conduct of said youthful offender as well as the intellectual, physical, moral, social and emotional progress made by him. Art. 196. Dismissal of the Case. - If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the youthful offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member of the community, even before reaching the age of majority, upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare, it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge. Art. 197. Return of the Youth Offender to Court. - Whenever the youthful offender has been found incorrigible or has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his rehabilitation programs, or should his continued stay in the training institution be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the committing court for the pronouncement of judgment. When the youthful offender has reached the age of twenty-one while in commitment, the court shall determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with the next preceding article or to pronounce the judgment of conviction. In any case covered by this article, the youthful offender shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and detention effected under the provisions of this Chapter. Art. 198. Effect of Release of Child Based on Good Conduct. - The final release of a child pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall not obliterate his civil liability for damages. Such release shall be without prejudice to the right for a writ of execution for the recovery of civil damages. Art. 199. Living Quarters for Youthful Offenders Sentence. - When a judgment of conviction is pronounced in accordance with the provisions of Article 197, and at the time of said pronouncement the youthful offender is still under twenty-one, he shall be committed to the proper penal institution to serve the remaining period of his sentence: Provided, That penal institutions shall provide youthful offenders with separate quarters and, as far as practicable, group them according to appropriate age levels or other criteria as will insure their speedy rehabilitation: Provided, further, That the Bureau of Prisons shall maintain agricultural and forestry camps where youthful offenders may serve their sentence in lieu of confinement in regular penitentiaries. Art. 200. Records of Proceedings. - Where a youthful offender has been charged before any city or provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge and the charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the case shall be destroyed immediately thereafter. Where a youthful offender has been charged and the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to this Chapter, all the records of his case shall be destroyed immediately after such acquittal, dismissal or release, unless civil liability has also been imposed in the criminal action, in which case such records shall be destroyed after satisfaction of such civil liability. The youthful offender concerned shall not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty of perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to 54

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made of him for any purpose. "Records" within the meaning of this article shall include those which may be in the files of the National Bureau of Investigation and with any police department, or any other government agency which may have been involved in the case. Art. 201. Civil Liability of Youthful Offenders. - The civil liability for acts committed by a youthful offender shall devolve upon the offender's father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. Civil liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. Art. 202. Rehabilitation Centers. - The Department of Social Welfare shall establish regional rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. The local government and other non-governmental entities shall collaborate and contribute their support for the establishment and maintenance of these facilities. Art. 203. Detention Homes. - The Department of Local Government and Community Development shall establish detention homes in cities and provinces distinct and separate from jails pending the disposition of cases of juvenile offenders. Art. 204. Liability of Parents or Guardian or Any Person in the Commission of Delinquent Acts by Their Children or Wards. - A person whether the parent or guardian of the child or not, who knowingly or willfully, (1) Aids, causes, abets or connives with the commission by a child of a delinquency, or (2) Does any act producing, promoting, or contributing to a child's being or becoming a juvenile delinquent, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred pesos or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 3. Section. 5. Minor or incompetent persons. A minor or a person alleged to be incompetent, may sue or be sued, with the assistance of his father, mother, guardian, or if he has none, a guardian ad litem. INSANITY FC. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: (1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife; (2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; (5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to 55

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
be incurable; or (6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a) NCC Art. 1327. The following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated minors; (2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to write. (1263a) Art. 1328. Contracts entered into during a lucid interval are valid. Contracts agreed to in a state of drunkenness or during a hypnotic spell are voidable. (n) Rules of Court RULE 101 Sec. 1. Venue; Petition for commitment. - A petition for the commitment of a person to a hospital or other place for the insane may be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province where the person alleged to be insane is found. The petition shall be filed by the Director of Health in the all cases where, in his opinion, such commitment is for the public welfare, or for the welfare of said person who, in his judgment, is insane, and such person or the one having charged of him is opposed to his being taken to a hospital or other place for the insane. Sec. 2. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date for the hearing thereof, and copy of such order shall be served on the person alleged to be insane, and to the one having charge of him, or on such of his relatives residing in the province or city as the judge may deem proper. The court shall furthermore order the sheriff to produce the alleged insane person, if possible, on the date of the hearing. Sec. 3. Hearing and judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof, in open court on the date fixed in the order, that the commitment applied for is for the public welfare or for the welfare of the insane person, and that his relatives are unable for any reason to take proper custody and care of him, the court shall order his commitment to such hospital or other place for the insane as may be recommended by the Director of Health. The court shall make proper provisions for the custody of property or money belonging to the insane until a guardian be properly appointed. Sec. 4. Discharge of insane. - When, in the opinion of the Director of Health, the person ordered to be committed to a hospital or other place for the insane is temporarily or permanently cured, or may be released without danger he may file the proper petition with the Court of First Instance which ordered the commitment. Sec. 5. Assistance of fiscal in the proceeding. - It shall be the duty of the provincial fiscal or in the City of Manila the fiscal of the city, to prepare the petition for the Director of Health and represent him in court in all proceedings arising under the provisions of this rule. US vs. Vaquilar Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicting him of the crime of rape. Facts: Estelita Ronaya, 14 yrs old, was hired as a househelper by the mother of the accused. The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with his mother in the same house at Barangay San Nicholas, Villasis, Pangasinan. Policarpio was then married and had two children. On March 16, 1976, 11:00 o'clock in the evening, the accused called the complainant to help him close the door of the store and as the latter complied and went near him, he suddenly pulled the complainant inside the store and said, "Come, let us have sexual intercourse," to which Estelita replied, "I do not like," and struggled to free herself and cried. The accused held a bolo measuring 1-1/2 feet including the handle which he pointed to the throat of the complainant 56

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
threatening her with said bolo should she resist. Then, he forced her to lie down on a bamboo bed, removed her pants and after unfastening the zipper of his own pants, went on top of complainan. After the sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the complainant not to report the matter to her mother or anybody in the house, otherwise he would kill her. The accused plead not guilty and has put in his defense his alleged schizophrenic condition. Issue: Should the accused be absolved of his crime due to his insanity. Held: No. In People vs. Formigones, the Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least discernment; that there be a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will. For this reason, it was held that the imbecility or insanity at the time of the commission of the act should absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, because mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability. In this case while it was said that the accused did have a schizophrenic condition one or two years before he has committed the crime, the testimony of Dr. Jovellano confirmed that the accused was conscious and that he had not lost all of his mental faculties at the time he committed the act. People vs. Rafanan Nature: An appeal of a judgment sentencing the accused to life time imprisonment. Facts: The accused was charged with two counts of parricide, one for killing his wife and another for his child. The commission of these crimes is not denied. The defendant did not testify but several witnesses were introduced in his behalf, testifying that the defendant appeared to them to be insane at the time he committed the crimes and subsequent to that. They also testified that he had been complaining of pains in his head and stomach prior to the killing. Issue: Should the accused be exempted from criminal liability on the grounds that several testimonies had confirmed that he looked “crazy”  at  the  time  he  committed  the  crime? Held: No. It was apparent that in most of the testimonies, the word “crazy”  was  used  to  describe  an  act  unnatural  or  out  of  the   ordinary. This is far from the legal definition of the word “insane.”  In  People vs. Foy,  the  court  said  that  “heat  of  passion   and feeling produced by motives of anger, hatred, or revenge, is not insanity. The law holds the doer of the act, under such conditions, responsible for the crime, because a large share of homicides committed are occasioned by just such motives as these. Also, the doctrine in United States vs. Carmona says that,  “In  the  absence  of  proof  that  the  defendant  had  lost  his   reason or became demented a few moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime, it is presumed that he was in a normal condition of mind. It is improper to conclude that he acted unconsciously, in order to relieve him from responsibility on the ground of exceptional mental condition, unless his insanity  and  absence  of  will  are  proven.”  In  this  case  the   conduct of the accused after he was confined in jail as described by his fellow prisoner is consistent with the actions of a sane person. A health examiner also stated that he made a slight examination of the defendant in the jail and that he did not notice whether defendant was suffering from any mental derangement  or  not.  Therefore,  the  accused’  inability  to  prove   57

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
that he had indeed lost his sanity at the time he committed the crime leads the court to presume that he was sane and thus liable. The trial Court finds that the monomania of Vicente does not imply incapacity to execute a bond such as the one concerned. Issue/s: Is Vicente really insane? Does Vicente's monomania affect his judgment and was he not in sound mind when he executed the bonds? Can he be relieved of the ruling of the Court of First Instance? Held: The facts of the case cannot conclude that on Dec. 1908, when Villanueva subscribed the obligation now contested, he did not possess the necessary capacity to give efficient consent with respect to the bond which he freely executed. Therefore, the judgment was reaffirmed. Hernandez v. San Juan Santos Petition for review pm certiorari of a decision of the CA Facts: Lulu is the only daughter of Felix Hernandez and Maeia San Juan Hernandez. Her mother died due to complications of childbirth. Then, his father left her in the care of her maternal uncle Sotero. Eventually, Felix remarried and had three kids. Meanwhile, Lulu inherited real properties from her uncle. In 1957, she went to live with her father and his new family. (she was then 10 yrs. old) Due to her "violent personality", she stopped schooling. In 1968, when she reached the age of majority, she was given full control of her estate. Her father continued to exercise actual administration since she did not even finish elementary school. Upon his death in 1993, petitioners took over his role. From 1968 - 1993, Felix and the petitioners took various "projects" in her properties. In 1974, Felix "purchased" one of her properties to develop Marilou Subdivision. In 1995, Lulu signed a SPA believing 58

Standard Oil Co. v. Codina Arenas Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila Facts: On August 28, 1909, the Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced all the five debtors to pay jointly and severally to the company the sum of P3305.76, together the interest therein at 1% per month from Dec. 15, 1908, until complete payment should have been made of the principal, and to pay the costs. While the judgment was on the course of execution, Elisa Torres de Villanueva, wife of Vicente Sixto Villanueva, appeared and alleged that: 1. On July 24,1909, Vicente was declared to be insane by the Court of First Instance 2. she was appointed guardian 3. she was authorized by the Court to institute the proper legal proceedings for the annulment of several bonds given by her husband while in a state of insanity 4. she was not aware of the proceedings had against her husband and was only by chance informed thereof 5. when his husband gave the bonds, he was alreadt insane She prayed that her husband be relieves from the suit and reopen the trial for the introduction of evidence in behalf of him with respect to his incapacity. The Court granted the petition and the trial was reopened for the intro of evidence. The Court then decided that on Dec., 1908, when Vicente executd the bond, he understood perfectly well the nature and consequences of his act. And so, the decision of the Court on the case against him was reaffirmed.

Digested by: De Guzman, Gravador, and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu, J., Flores, Castillo, Felizmenio, Madarang, Morales, Salanguit, Yu, A.
she was authorizing Ma. Victoria to stand on her behalf in a court when she was actually authorizing her to sell the property to Manila Electronic Co. Thereafter, Cecilio asked her to authorize him to lease her property in Montalban, Rizal to oxford Concrete Aggregates. In Sept. 1998, Lulu sought the assistance of her maternal cousin, Jovita San Juan – Santos. She confided that she was made to live in the basement and received measly allowance for food and medications. She was then overweight, unkempt and smelled of urine. Due to her poor hygiene she was found to have TB, rheumatism and diabetes. Then, the San jUan family demanded an inventory and accounting of all her properties. And it was ignored. Oct. 1998, Jovita filed for guardianship in the RTC. Her half-siblings intervened. Natividad denied that Marilou Subdivision was owned by Lulu. The Hernandez also alleged that Lulu is literate and fully understands the consequences of her acyions. Moreover, the sale of the land to Felix was on 1974 and it is already barred by the statute of limitations. In Sept. 2001, Lulu was proven to be of weak physical and mental capacity. Thus, Jovita was appointed guardian. Hernandez family moved for a reconsideration but it was denied. July 2002, they appealed to the CA yet on Dec. 2004, it was denied again. Then, the petition is now filed to the SC. In Nov. 2003, Lulu was abducted from the apartment she was staying then. It was later found out that the Hernandez have her and claimed that she went there voluntarily for she was maltreated by Jovita. On Dec. 2003, Jovita filed for a writ of habeas corpus. On April 2005, CA granted the petition for the wirt. Hernandez filed for a reconsideration but it was denied in July 2005. Then filed it again to the SC. Issue/s: Is Lulu an incompetent? Does she require a guardian? Held: The petition of the Hernandez family is denied. They are also ordered   to   give   accurate   and   faithful   account   of   Lulu’s   properties   within 30 days. If warranted, the proper complaints should also be filed against them for any criminal  liability  regarding  Lulu’s  properties   and her abduction. Ratio: Section 2, Rule 92 Rules of Court Meaning of word "incompetent." - Under this rule, the word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write, those who are of unsound mind, even though they have lucid intervals, and persons not being of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes, cannot, without outside aid, take care of themselves and manage their property, becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation. Notes: While it is true that the determination of the right to the custody of minor children is relevant in cases where the parents, who are married to each other, are for some reason separated from each other, it does not follow that it cannot arise in any other situation. The ward has no right to possession or control of his property during his or her competency. DEAF-MUTISM NCC Art. 807. If the testator be deaf, or a deaf-mute, he must personally read the will, if able to do so; otherwise, he shall designate two persons to read it and communicate to him, in some practicable manner, the contents thereof. (n) 59

deaf and dumb who are unable to read and write. except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. Salanguit. 1490.Under this rule. and persons not being of unsound mind. Morales. Yu. 31.Digested by: De Guzman. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made. take care of themselves and manage their property. (1458a) 60 . A. The deprivation of the office. J. Art. even though they have lucid intervals. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. the same case must be dismissed. 41. 2. This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. weak mind. the word "incompetent" includes persons suffering the penalty of civil interdiction or who are hospitalized lepers. 151. but that the same have failed. deaf or dumb. unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made. profession or calling shall produce the following effects: 1. Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage. and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty. — The penalties of perpetual or temporal special disqualification for public office. (133a) NCC Art. except: (1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements. between the spouses during the marriage shall be void. without outside aid. disease. Felizmenio. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. 820. CIVIL INTERDICTION Revised Penal Code Art. prodigals. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be. employment. Flores. 2. may be a witness to the execution of a will mentioned in Article 805 of this Code. 87. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other.. Meaning of word "incompetent. Castillo. Family relations include those: (1) Between husband and wife. Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or more. and not bind. FAMILY RELATIONS FC Art. cannot. direct or indirect. profession or calling affected. (2) Between parents and children. Gravador. Their accessory penalties. becoming thereby an easy prey for deceit and exploitation. but by reason of age. (n) PRODIGALITY Rules of Court Sec. (3) Among brothers and sisters. and able to read and write. or (2) When there has been a judicial separation or property under Article 191." . those who are of unsound mind. (217a) Art. Art. (222a) Art. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of such disqualification. 150. and other similar causes. Madarang. whether of the full or halfblood.

Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. (5) The jurisdiction of courts. Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the same mother. three from his uncle. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) The civil status of persons. (6) Future legitime. A. (915) Art. 1973. as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. A series of degrees forms a line. Thus. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be made. the child is one degree removed from the parent. a person is two degrees removed from his brother. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends. The direct line is either descending or ascending. Yu. Madarang. who is the brother of his father. Each generation forms a degree. A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants. 966. ascent is made to the common ancestor. J. of Filipino mothers. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. they are deemed. (3) Any ground for legal separation. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Gravador. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. 61 . Thus. but who come from a common ancestor. and three from the great-grandparent. (1814a) Art. and so forth. two from the grandfather. which may be either direct or collateral. 963. (918a) Art. unless by their act or omission.. Flores. Salanguit. 2035. 965. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. Morales. (916a) Art. Felizmenio. In the collateral line. 964. and [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.Digested by: De Guzman. Section 4. The following are citizens of the Philippines: [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. Art. under the law. A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. In the direct line. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3). four from his first cousin. excluding the progenitor. In the line. (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation. Castillo. (920a) ALIENAGE ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP Section 1. to have renounced it. Section 3. [3] Those born before January 17. Section 5. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship. [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. or the same mother. Section 2. but not the same father. (917) Art. but not the same mother. (4) Future support. 967.

. and he has even served as councilor of Parańaque  Tambuting contended that the residency requirement is not the same as citizenship  COMELEC   ruled   that   Cordora’s   complaint   against   Tambunting is dismissed because Cordora failed to substantiate his charges against Tambunting o Tambuting having traveled with an American passport is not sufficient to prove that he is an American citizen COMELEC   then   dismissed   Cordora’s   motion   for   reconsideration. He has imbibed the Filipino culture. Castillo. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003  Tambunting stated that he had resided in the Philippines since birth. Flores. 2000  Tambuting refuted   Condora’s   claims   by   presenting   a   copy   of   his birth certificate showing that he was born of a Filipino mother and an American father  Tambunting took an oath of allegiance on Nov. J. this petition The present petition seeks to prosecute Tambunting for knowingly making untruthful statements in his certificates of candidacy   Issues  WON COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared that there is no sufficient evidence to support probable cause that may warrant the prosecution of Tambunting for an election offense Ruling  Petition is dismissed Ratio  There   was   no   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   the   COMELEC’s   ruling o On  Tambunting’s  citizenship  Tambunting possessed dual citizenship prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before the 2001 election  (Mercado v Manzano) Dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any elective local position  Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance 62 . has spoken the Filipino language. 2003 pursuant to Republic Act No. Madarang. Morales. Certiorari and Mandamus. and has been educated in Filipino schools. Hawaii on December 2. Gravador. Felizmenio. 2000 o Upon departure from the Philippines on June 17. 18. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2001  Cordora maintained that such travel dates confirmed that Tambuting acquired American citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu. Facts  Cordora asserted that Tambunting made false assertions in his Certificates of Candidacy o Tambunting lacked the required citizenship and residency requirements  Cordora presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that Tambuting claimed that he is an American o Upon arrival in the Philippines on December 16. Gaudencio Cordora (petitioner) v Commission on Elections and Gustavo Tambunting (respondents) Nature  Special civil action in the Supreme Court. thus. Salanguit. Yu. A.Digested by: De Guzman.

a relative. This same rule shall be observed when under similar circumstances the power conferred by the absentee has expired. 63 . any competent person may be appointed by the court. (181a) Art. (3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy. the spouse present shall be preferred when there is no legal separation. his absence may be declared. at the instance of an interested party. Flores. (184) Art. In the appointment of a representative. or if the spouse present is a minor. 383. Yu. (182) Art. and without leaving an agent to administer his property.Digested by: De Guzman. If the absentee left no spouse. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. by the rules concerning guardians. who may present an authentic copy of the same. Felizmenio. the judge. the judge shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interests of the absentee and shall specify the powers. Dual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. 382. (183a) Art. Morales. obligations and remuneration of his representative. Salanguit. 381. (2) The heirs instituted in a will. for the purpose of election laws. but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries even after their naturalization. regulating them.  The act of taking an oath of allegiance is an implicit   renunciation   of   a   naturalized   citizen’s   foreign citizenship. Gravador. J. The following may ask for the declaration of absence: (1) The spouse present. 385. Madarang. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news. A. 384. according to the circumstances. may appoint a person to represent him in all that may be necessary. Castillo. or a friend.. includes the twin elements of the fact of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return there permanently. his whereabouts being unknown. When a person disappears from his domicile. The appointment referred to in the preceding article having been made. and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property.  Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003  In section 2 and 3. the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se. and is not dependent upon citizenship  ABSENCE NCC Art.  The twin requirements (of swearing an Oath of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship involving natural born Filipinos who became naturalized citizens of another country and thereafter ran for elective office in the Philippines) do not apply to Tambunting cause he is a natural born Filipino and he never became a naturalized citizen of another country o On  Tambunting’s  residency  Cordora’s   reasoning   that   Tambunting   failed   to   meet the residency requirement is wrong because residency.

If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. or a representative. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation.Digested by: De Guzman. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. In the record that is made in the Registry of the real estate which accrues to the coheirs. A. without judicial authority. The wife who is appointed as an administratrix of the husband's property cannot alienate or encumber the husband's property. or that of the conjugal partnership. upon the opening of a succession to which an absentee is called. showing by a proper document that he has acquired the absentee's property by purchase or other title. his representatives or successors in interest. Whoever claims a right pertaining to a person whose existence is not recognized must prove that he was living at the time his existence was necessary in order to acquire said right. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. he shall recover his property in the condition in which it may be found. Castillo. (187a) Art. An administrator of the absentee's property shall be appointed in accordance with Article 383. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes. but he cannot claim either fruits or rents. Felizmenio. 389.. make an inventory of the property. (2) When the death of the absentee is proved and his testate or intestate heirs appear. Without prejudice to the provision of the preceding article. (185) Art. (190) Art. and has been missing for four years. (194) Art. In these cases the administrator shall cease in the performance of his office. (196a) Art. 390. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. These rights shall not be extinguished save by lapse of time fixed for prescription. and the property shall be at the disposal of those who may have a right thereto. The provisions of the preceding article are understood to be without prejudice to the action of petition for inheritance or other rights which are vested in the absentee. (4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the condition of his death. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 393. (n) Art. 394. Yu. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane. If the absentee appears. 395. (n) Art. 391. Flores. (2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war. J. (195) Art. Madarang. Morales. 392. 387. assigns. and the price of any property that may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith. except for those of succession. the 64 . as the case may be. 386. Gravador. including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. (186a) Art. (188a) Art. his share shall accrue to his co-heirs. After an absence of seven years. 388. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. (3) When a third person appears. Salanguit. he shall be presumed dead for all purposes. The administration shall cease in any of the following cases: (1) When the absentee appears personally or by means of an agent. unless he has heirs. They shall all. or an aeroplane which is missing. or without appearing his existence is proved.

the administration of which has been intrusted to them. Jose Viudez and Andres Sebastian. Those who may have entered upon the inheritance shall appropriate the fruits received in good faith so long as the absentee does not appear. (5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.. take part in the sale. prosecuting attorneys. with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. (2) Agents. in any manner whatsoever. 396. subject to the exemptions provided by law. even at a public or judicial auction. this provision shall apply to judges and government experts who. (3) Executors and administrators. unless the consent of the principal has been given. A. this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers. (6) Any others specially disqualified by law. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (1911a) Miguela Villanueva.Digested by: De Guzman. at first. clerks of superior and inferior courts. Yu. (1459a) Art. the property of the State or of any subdivision thereof. present and future. (2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees. 1491. Morales. Madarang. The following contracts are rescissible: (1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof. (5) Justices. Felizmenio. 2236. or institution. et al (petitioners) v Court of Appeals Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts  Disputed lots (Lot No. (3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them. or while his representatives or successors in interest do not bring the proper actions. The debtor is liable with all his property. Castillo. (1291a) Art. judges. 1381. circumstance of its being subject to the provisions of this article shall be stated. the property of the estate under administration. and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice. or of any government-owned or controlled corporation. for the fulfillment of his obligations. Salanguit. (4) Public officers and employees. the property of the person or persons who may be under his guardianship. 210-D-2) were originally owned by the spouses Celestino Villanueva and Miguela Villanueva  Jose Viudez and Andres Sebastian of Philippine Veterans Bank swayed Miguela Villanueva into executing a deed of sale of the lots  Villanueva later found out that the original titles of the lots were cancelled and that new ones were issued in the name of. 210-D-1 and Lot No. (197) Art. (198) INSOLVENCY AND TRUSTEESHIP Art. the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions. the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them. (4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase. Gravador. but later to PNB after the lots wee foreclosed 65 . Flores. either in person or through the mediation of another: (1) The guardian. J. if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number.

afterwards a petition for liquidation was filed May 26. Madarang. he deposited P10.00) payable in cash within 15 days from receipt of approval of the offer Mid-April 1985 – Ong returned to the country and immediately verified his offer with the PVB now under the control of CB.00 August 1985 – Negotiations with Villanueva were stalled by the filing of liquidation proceedings against PVB October 1984 – Ildefonso Ong offered to purchase two pieces of land that had been acquired by PVB through foreclosure. 1984 – PVB  approved  Ong’s  offer  while  he  was   still abroad o Conditions imposed: Purchase price is at P110.000. Yu. 1985 – Ong formally informed Central Bank of his desire to pay provided the bank should execute the corresponding deed of conveyance. and that the court ruled that the principle of estoppel bars Miguela from questioning the transaction with Viudez Nevertheless.416.417. she averred that she is the lawful and registered owner of the subject lots which were mortgaged in favor of the PVB thru the falsification committed by Jose Viudez in collusion with Andres Sebastian October 31. J.000.000.00 pursuant to the written advice of the vice president of the PVB    April 3. she offered P60. 1987 – Ong sent the last of his follow-up letters that went unheeded May 26.00 with a 20% downpayment and the balance payable in 5 years on a quarterly amortization basis Villanueva’s  subsequent  offers  were  rejected  but  still  she  sent   her sealed bid of P110. 1989 – Presiding Judge Enrique Inting issued an order allowing the purchase of two lots at the price of P150.000.000. Castillo. the court allowed her to purchase the lots if only to restore their status as conjugal properties.00 Central Bank liquidator of the PVB moved for the reconsideration of the order July 26.      Miguela Villanueva sought to repurchase the lots from PVB after being told that the lots were to be sold at auction PVB told Villanueva that she can redeem the lots at P110. 1989 – Miguela Villanueva filed her claim with the liquidation court.00 representing the balance of the purchase price of the litigated lots. Felizmenio. 1985 – PVB was placed under receivership pursuant to Monetary Board Resolution June 7. An employee of PVB received the amount conditioned upon approval by the CB liquidator October 23.00 (less deposit of P10. 1985 – PVB was place under liquidation. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1991 – trial court rendered   judgment:   that   Ong’s   right to the lot was no longer enforceable as he failed to exercise it within the prescribed 15-day period..00 to back-up his offer November 23. A. where he was informed that the same has already been approved April 16. this petition for review on certiorari by the petitioners 66                . Flores. Gravador.000.Digested by: De Guzman. CA reversed the decision of the trial court CA   declared   that   Ong’s   failure   to   pay   the   balance   within   the   prescribed period was excusable because the PVB neither notified him of the approval of his bid nor answered his letters manifesting his readiness to pay the balance This. Morales. but the letter was not answered May 21. Salanguit. 1987 – Ong’s  payment  for  the  balance  were  accepted   by CB June 8. 1987 – Ong tendered the sum of P100. 1983 – efforts of Miguela Villanueva to acquire the property began. 1987 – Ong filed an action for specific performance against the Central Bank June 15.

hence. Salanguit. a daughter above twenty-one but below twenty-three years of age cannot leave the parental home without the consent of the father or mother in whose company she lives. Spouses as parties. Issues  Whether or not the CA erred in its decision that Ong is better entitled to purchase the disputed lots Ruling  CA erred when it held that Ong had a better right than the petitioners to the purchase of the disputed lots  The petition is granted Ratio  April 3. observe mutual love. disposable only by public auction. Section 14.Digested by: De Guzman. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article. Madarang. A. respect and fidelity. which thus became final as to them for their failure to appeal GENDER Consti Art II. (41a) NCC 50 For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations. DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE OF PERSONS NCC 51 When the law creating or recognizing them. or when she exercises a profession or calling. Felizmenio. Husband and wife shall sue or be sued jointly. 403. J. Morales. or any other provision does not fix the domicile of juridical persons. as well as the petitioners. NCC Art. 4. cf. Yu. except to become a wife. NCC 110 FC 68 The husband and wife are obliged to live together. (321a) 1997 Rules of Procedure Rule 3 Sec. (109a) 67 .00 payment of Ong was disapproved on the ground that the subject property was already in custodia legis. and hence. illiquid and cannot operate profitable  The PVB was then prohibited from doing business in the Philippines  Insolvency of a bank and the consequent appointment of a receiver  restrict  the  bank’s  capacity  to act  Ong’s   offer   to   purchase   the   subject   lots   became   ineffective   because   the   PVB   became   insolvent   before   the   bank’s   acceptance of the offer came to his knowledge. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1986 – PVB was placed under receivership pursuant to the MB Resolution after a finding that it was insolvent. except as provided by law. (40a) FC 68-69. the same shall be understood to be the place where their legal representation is established or where they exercise their principal functions. the purported contract of sale between them did not reach the stage of perfection  The P100. are deemed to have fully accepted the judgment. subject to the approval of the liquidation court  Since it is only Ong who appealed in the decision of the trial court. The State recognizes the role of women in nationbuilding. and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.. and render mutual help and support. the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.000. or when the father or mother has contracted a subsequent marriage. Flores. the PVB and the Central Bank. Gravador. Castillo.

In case of disagreement. (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent.. or a child of the petitioner. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic. the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership. (110a) NCC 110 The husband shall fix the residence of the family. (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent. Yu. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner. whether in the Philippines or abroad. a common child. to engage in prostitution. Madarang. (58a) (repealed by the Family Code) FC 55 A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner. for judicial separation of property or for authority to be the sole administrator of the absolute community. However. Consequently. FC 69 The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by adoption. parental or property relations. or a child of the petitioner. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (216a. Salanguit. Gravador. the court shall decide. (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. being the foundation of the nation. family relations are governed by law and no custom. (9a) FC 101 If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family. Castillo. (178a) FC 149 The family. (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion. or (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. J. or connivance in such corruption or inducement. even if pardoned. A. subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose. Flores. (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner. a common child. Morales. 218a) 68 . (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years. The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital.Digested by: De Guzman. (7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage. Felizmenio. For purposes of this Article. practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect.

incumbent Rep and candidate for the same position. and the land on which it is situated. 1995 – COMELEC en banc denied  Imelda’s  MR   declaring her unqualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Rep  May 11.Digested by: De Guzman. 1995 – Imelda filed her Certificate with the Comelec’s  head  office  in  Manila o Also  answered  Montejo’s  petition  saying  that  the  entry   of 7 months in her Original Certificate was the result of an honest misinterpretation o Said that Montejo wanted to remove her as an opponent  April 24. came up with a Resolution: o Finding  respondent’s  Petition  for  Disqualification   meritorious o Striking  off  petitioner’s  Corrected/Amended  Certificate   of Candidacy o Canceling her original Certificate of Candidacy o Petitioner studied and worked for some years after graduation in Tacloban City. 1995 – COMELEC issued a resolution allowing Imelda’s  proclamation  should  the  results  of  the  canvass  show   that she obtained the highest number of votes o COMELEC reversed itself and issued a 2nd Resolution directing  that  Imelda’s  proclamation  be  suspended  if   she wins the election  May 25. she continuously lived in Manila  May 8. (223a) Romualdez-Marcos v. filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the COMELEc o Mrs. by a vote of 2 to 1.. Yu. for election purposes.Certiorari. changing the entry 7 months to since childhood o The Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte informed her  that  her  amendment  to  the  Certificate  won’t  be   accepted because it was filed out of time o Deadline of filing was March 20  March 31. Morales. Felizmenio. Salanguit. Madarang. The Comelec Resolutions are set aside. Comelec is directed to order 69 . FC 152 The family home. 1995 elections What is the difference between residence and domicile Held: Mrs. constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family. Flores. Facts:  1987 Constitution mandates that an aspirant for election to the House  of  Representativess  be  “a  registered  voter in the district in which he shall be elected. Commission on Elections This is a Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1995 – Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte  March 23. 1995 – Imelda submitted a Supplemental Petition stating that she won the elections Issue: Whether or not Imelda was a resident. is the dwelling house where they and their family reside. Castillo. she abandoned her  domicile  and  can’t  re-establish it merely by expressing her intention to live there again  March 29. J. Gravador. Marcos is qualified to run for a seat in the House of Reps. 1995 – the 2nd Division of the Commission on Elections. A.  Marcos  lacked  the  Consti’s  one  year  residency   requirement o Avers  that  Tacloban  is  not  the  petitioner’s  domicile  of   origin since she did not live there until she was 8 years old and when she left the place in 1952. 1996 – Imelda filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy. and a resident thereof for a period not  less  than  one  year  immediately  preceding  the  election”  March 8. of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9. 1995 – Cirilo Roy Montejo.

referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. Article 26 of the Executive Order No. Bernarda asserts that she is a co-owner of the properties.Digested by: De Guzman. she argued that ownership of her share was transferred to her brother under the guise of a simulated contract to defeat any claims by her estranged husband. A.. 29 as amended by E.   Bernarda   Osmena’s   older   brother. Madarang. She argued that  the  lots  were  her  mother’s  and  were  part  of  the  inheritance  that  she   and her siblings received upon his mother’s   death. 209 is hereby amended to read as follows: 70 lots  were  placed  in  his  brother’s  name  for  he  is  the  only  Filipno  citizen   in the family at the day the properties were purchased.     Upon   Ignacio’s   demise. Costs against Bernarda A. Both the trial court and the CA recognized the validity of the said documents. With regard to the ancestral house. Effect and Retroactivity EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. domicile and residence are considered synonymous  When Mrs. J.   Ignacio. Yu. CA ruled that Bernarda is a co-owner of the litigated house to the extent of shares she inherited from 2 of her siblings. She also said that she was never been charged rent by her brother for her continued residence in the same. No affirmative relief is available. Salanguit. One can have two or more residences. Intro to the Family Code Osmena v.     She   said  that   the   Issue: whether the CA erred in giving credence to the deed of sale and in holding that Nicasio and Jose are owners of the lots. Is acquired by living in a place  Domicile can exist without actually living in the place. O 227 Sec. the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte. she gained a new residence but she did not lose her domicile of origin V. Morales. Held: The Court agrees that the deed of sale is a legal and binding document. Chiong Tan Sy executed a last will and testament in which she enumerated her properties (2 parcels of land and one ancestral house in one of the lands). The titles to the lots were in   the   name   of   Nicasio   and   Jose   Osmena’s   father. Flores. Nicasio and Jose predicate the claim to the disputed properties on the transfer   certificates   of   title   covering   the   lots   issued   in   their   father’s   name and a deed of sale signed by Bernarda. Osmena Petition for review on certiorari Facts: Before her death. Also.  Residence in the civil law is a material fact. there is still an intention and desire to return. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Marcos and left her Tacloban. The Curt leaves the parties where they have placed themselves. Gravador. The important thing about domicile is the intention to stay there permanently even if residence is also established in another place. covering her share in the ancestral house. 1. Petition is denied.  For the purposes of election. even if a person leaves his domicile to seek for greener pastures for example. Castillo. Marcos married former Pres. .   Nicasio   and   Jose   transferred the title to their own name. The trial court enjoined Bernarda from utilizing the the lot for her orchid business and ordered her to leave the house immediately.

"Art. Against this presumption no evidence shall be admitted other than that of the physical impossibility of the husband's having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twenty days of three hundred which preceded the birth of the child. 4. Madarang. the Filipino spouses shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." Sec. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. at the time of the celebration. Salanguit. A marriage contracted by any party who. All marriage solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. and valid there as such. 36. J. 209 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. Art. Children born after one hundred and eighty days following the celebration of the marriage. in such a way that access was not possible. 36. 105. This Executive Order shall take effect upon the effectivity of the Family Code of the Philippines. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage." Sec. in the case of marriages celebrated before the effectivity of this Code and falling under Article 36. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. except those prohibited under Articles 35(1). shall also be valid in this country. However. Article 36 of Executive Order No. such action or defense shall have taken effect. 26." Sec. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage shall not prescribe. (2) By the fact that the husband and wife were living separately. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu. 37 and 38. A marriage contracted by any party who. 39. (4). (3) By the serious illness of the husband.. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe. . 2. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. and before three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. 209 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. Gravador. During the pendency of legal separation proceedings the court shall make provision for the care of the minor children in accordance with the circumstances and may order the conjugal partnership property or the income therefrom to be set aside for 71 . Family Code Title VIII. Flores. 36. (108a) Art. 255. Felizmenio. This physical impossibility may be caused: (1) By the impotence of the husband. Morales. Article 39 of the Executive Order No. (5) and (6). 39. at the time of the celebration. A.PATERNITY AND FILIATION CHAPTER 1 LEGITIMATE CHILDREN Art. 3. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Art.

there must be judicial declaration of nullity of marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. for ethnic reasons. Atienza claims that Brillantes is already married with Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children. 40. shall also be charged to the conjugal partnership. The retroactive effect of procedural laws is 72 . Under FC. well cared for. Castillo. He also denied having been married with Ongkiko though he admits having children with her. Ongkiko abandoned him 19 years ago. in whole or in part. Yu. leaving his children and giving him full custody. Thereafter. Should the wife commit adultery at or about the time of the conception of the child. Morales. Facts: Atienza alleges trhat he has 2 children with Yolanda De castro who all live in Makati. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. 256. that the child is that of the husband. A. 162. or by both spouses through a common agreement.Digested by: De Guzman. Flores. Brillantes   argued   that   FC   doesn’t   apply   to   him   because   his   first   marriage took place in1965 and thus governed by NCC. and in default thereof said minor children shall be cared for in conformity with the provisions of this Code. Judge Brillantes Administrative Matter in the SC. They had their second marriage in Manila but again neither party applied for a marriage license. One day. Gravador. only for securing their future or the finishing of a career. Also. 257. Gross immorality and impropriety. their support. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.. Issue:  Brillantes’’  immorality  and  impropriety. his second marriage took place in 1991. Art. the child is prima facie presumed to be illegitimate if it appears highly improbable. Salanguit. which was disputed by De Castro. Held: Art. made provision for the care of said minor children and these are. Madarang. The value of what is donated or promised to the common children by the husband. 40 is applicable regardless of the date of the marriage under Art. He stays in said house whenever he is in Manila. Respondent alleges that Atienza was not married to De Castro and that   the   filing   for   administrative   action   was   related   to   Atienza’s   claim for the Bel-Air residence. 40. Brillantes has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Art. Art. J. Felizmenio. the wife's adultery need not be proved in a criminal case. He alleges that his first marriage with her was not valid for lack of marriage license. Lupo Atienza v. rt. when they have not stipulated that it is to be satisfied from the property of one of them. For the purposes of this article. he saw Brillantes sleeping on his bed and found out that the latter is already cohabiting with De Castro. Brillantes prevented Atienza from visiting her children and even alienated the affection of his children for him. He claims that when he married De Castro he believed he is single because his first marriage was solemnized without a license. but the Court shall abstain from making any order in this respect in case the parents have by mutual agreement. but there was no physical impossibility of access between her and her husband as set forth in Article 255. in the judgment of the court. he alleges that Brillantes was responsible for his arrest after he had a heated argument with De Castro inside her office.

May 16. Carolina filed a complaint praying that Adrian be declared an acknowledged illegitimate son and be given his share in   Fiscal’s   estate. WHEREFORE. Respondent failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for membership in the legal profession.   RTC   dismissed   the   complaint   since the father had not acknowledged or recognized Adrian in writing. Alejo Petition for review on certiorari Facts: The late Fiscal Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary of 23 yrs. not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected.1994. Salanguit. 1991. except in the following cases: (1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child. an action for recognition of an illegit child must be brought with the lifetime of alleged pareny with no distinction on whether the former was still a minor when the latter died. A public figure is also judged by his private life. Yu. The son was born Sept. or agency of the government. because that right had already vested prior to its enactment.     July   16. Flores. FC Art. (Carolina Alejo). Felizmenio. 1981 and named Adrian Bernabe. Gravador. instrumentality. in which case the latter may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority. 3. wheteher or not petition for certiorari is fatally defective for failure to include CA as respondent Held:   FC   cannot   take   Adrian’s   right   to   file   an   action   for   recognition. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. whether or not CA erred in the ruling that Adrian had 4 yrs from attainment of majority to file an action for recognition. 172. Brillantes employed deceit to cohabit with a woman. A. Issues: whether or not Alejo has a cause of action to file a case against Ernaestina. The petition is denied and the ruling of RTC and CA is affirmed. 1993 while his wife Rosalina died on Dec. 18. Fiscal died Aug. Bernabe v. 285. Ratio: Under FC. CA ruled that Adrian should be allowed to prove that he was the illegitimate son. leaving Ernestina as sole surviving heir. On the other hand. J.Digested by: De Guzman. his rights are governed by Art. or . Madarang. Castillo. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: (1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment.. No vested right may attach to procedural laws. Any law student knows that a marriage license is necessary before one can get married. 13.   1995. he is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all leave and retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment in any branch. Because he was born in 73 1985. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents. Morales. the action for recognition should have been filed during the lifetime of the father to give him the opportunity to either affirm  or  deny  the  child’s  filiation. (2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the child.

. Eight yrs later. The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173. Plagata. Atty. As soon as Tarciano met the other conditions. J. Yu. In the absence of the foregoing evidence. 173. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Roca Facts: Sabrina Tarroza sold her 358-square meter lot in Zamboanga to her son Tarciano Roca yet he did not for the meantime have the registered title transferred to his name. Tarciano was to clear the lot of structures and occupants and secure the consent of his estranged wife.     And within 6 mos. Gravador. the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action. Then Tarciano executed an absolute deed of sale. 267a) Art. except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172. The law that applies to this case is the FC 74 . 175. children of Tarciano filed an action for annulment for sale and reconveyance of the land against the Fuentes before the RTC. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. Fuentes were to take possession of the lot and pay him an additional amount. 28. Morales. Plagata notarized the affidavit in Zamboanga. Upon his compliance with these conditions. Flores. Tarciano died. (265a. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Atty. The CA ruled that the annulment entitled the spuses to reimbursement of what they paid Tarciano plus legal interest computed from the filing of the complaint until the final payment. Salanguit. Fuentes spouse would become owners of the lot without any further formality and payment. They met and signed the agreement that the sale was to take effect in six months. Jan. (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. alleged that he went to Rosario in Manila and had her sign an affidavit of consent. They claim that the sale was void since Rosario did not give her consent to it since her signature had been forged. Fuentes v. a new title was issued and the spuses immediately constructed a building on the lot. Felizmenio. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children. in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent.Digested by: De Guzman. Issues: was the signature forged? Was the filing for nullity already prescribed? Is rosario the only one who can annul the sale? Held: The signature was forged and so it meant that there was no consent from Rosario. to whom the agreement was left to. 1990. to the sale. Art. Rosario. followed by his wife Rosario nine months after. A. In these cases. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. RTC dismissed it. Castillo. If Tarciano was unable to comply with these conditions. Tarciano offered to sell the land to the Fuentes spouses. The agreement required the spouses to pay Tarciano  a  down  payment  for  the  transfer  of  the  lot’s  title  to  him. Six yrs latrer. 266a. Madarang.

Should the wife fail to exercise this right. may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. during the marriage. the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature. 69. except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. However. or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. 51. Salanguit. 173. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties. 73. ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent. The foregoing rules in Chapters 2 and 3 hereof shall likewise govern summary proceedings filed under Articles 41. insofar as they are applicable. A. Ratio: NCC Art. consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. The  concept  of  “marriage” FC Article 1. the certificate of title be reinstated to Tarciano. In case of disagreement. VI.. Repeal/Amendment Art. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Madarang. Yu. 96. which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision. she or her heirs. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. Castillo. Art. the husband's decision shall prevail. consequences. In the absence of such authority or consent. 124. The children of Tarcianno is ordered to pay the Fuentes with legal interest.Digested by: De Guzman. 124 and 127. after the dissolution of the marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. when such consent is required. not the NCC as the CA claims. indemnify the spouses for introducing useful improvements. Its nature. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. 75 . Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution. Flores. The passage of time does not erode the right to bring an annulmet of sale. Felizmenio. In case the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that the regime of conjugal partnership gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Gravador. B. and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. and RTC is directed to receive evidence and determine the amount of indemnity. 253. 52. except that the marriage settlements may to a certain extent fix the property relations during the marriage. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. The wife may. Morales. Marriage and Personal Relationship between Spouses A. 105. The deed of sale and transfer of certificate of title is void. Vs. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. FCC Art. J. NCC Art. the provisions in this Chapter shall be of supplementary application. The Court denies the petition and affirms with modification the ruling of the CA. and within ten years from the transaction questioned. subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy.

family relations are governed by law and no custom. court interpreter. except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.. Gravador. but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (a)That a person is innocent of crime or wrong. consequences. 3.  II  Section  12. The Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be given the opportunity to examine the sincerity and  centrality  of  respondent’s  claimed  religious  belief  and  practice.  The  State  recognizes  the  sanctity  of   family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. 149. Immorality.     But   as   a   member   of   the   Jehovah’s   Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. Art. and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. (52a) RULE 131 Burden of Proof and Presumptions Sec. (e)That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. (g)That a thing delivered by one to another belonged to the latter. She admitted that she has been living with Quilapio without the benefit of marriage for 20 yrs   and   that   they   have   a   son.     The   rehearing   should   be   concluded  30  days  from  the  OCA’s  receipt  of  this  decision. thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. her husband having died the year before. (d)That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Flores. 76 . XV Section 2. FC Art. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. J. being the foundation of the nation. as an inviolable social institution. (c)That a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. A. (f)That money paid by one to another was due to the latter. is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. The family. Escritor said that when she entered the judiciary. Castillo. Facts: Estrada wrote a letter to Judge Caoibes Jr. They alledgely have a son of 18-20 yrs of age. He filed the charge as he believes that she is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court. Morales. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Consequently. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. requesting for an investigation of rumors that Escritor. Escritor Administrative matter in SC. FC Article 1. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted. is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. Marriage. (b)That an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent.;   to   present   evidence   on   the   state’s   compelling   interest”to   override   Escritor’s  religious  belief  and  practice  and  to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to respondent’s   religious   freedom. she was already a widow. Felizmenio. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Issues: Will Escritor prevail with her plea of religious greedom? Held: The case is remanded to the Office of the Court Administrator. is living with a man not her husband. ’87  Consti  Art. Estrada v. Salanguit.Disputable presumptions.Digested by: De Guzman. Madarang. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature. Yu.

(p)That private transactions have been fair and regular. or an aircraft with is missing. (r)That there was a sufficient consideration for a contract. 77 . Yu. or the delivery of anything. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. (2)A member of the armed forces who has taken part in armed hostilities. Castillo. J. Madarang. has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly. and has been missing for four years. However. or exercises acts of ownership over. the spouse present must institute a summary proceedings as provided in the Family Code and in the rules for declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. he is considered dead for all purposes. (k)That a person in possession of an order on himself for the payment of the money. The absentee shall not be considered dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.Digested by: De Guzman. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient for the purpose of contracting a subsequent marriage. In case of disappearance. (n)That a court. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1)A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. (4)If a married person has been absent for four consecutive years. (s)That a negotiable instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration. (m)That official duty has been regularly performed. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. except for those of succession. (y)That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and ordinary nature habits of life. where there is a danger of death the circumstances hereinabove provided. (j)That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. (h)That an obligation delivered up to the debtor has been paid. (q)That the ordinary course of business has been followed. (o)That all the matters within an issue raised in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it. (w)That after an absence of seven years. otherwise. (t)That an endorsement of negotiable instrument was made before the instrument was overdue and at the place where the instrument is dated.. the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage if he or she has well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already death. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft. or judge acting as such. (l)That a person acting in a public office was regularly appointed or elected to it. Gravador. (v)That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. (3)A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years. Flores. Salanguit. and in like manner that all matters within an issue raised in a dispute submitted for arbitration were laid before the arbitrators and passed upon by them. Morales. (u)That a writing is truly dated. A. whether in the Philippines or elsewhere. (x)That acquiescence resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in was conformable to the law or fact. it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. are owned by him. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. in any case. before marrying again. Felizmenio. (i)That prior rents or installments had been paid when a receipt for the later one is produced. that things which a person possess.

contains correct reports of such cases. the older is deemed to have survived. the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes. these rules shall govern in the absence of proof to the contrary: (1)A child born before one hundred eighty days after the solemnization of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred. purporting contain reports of cases adjudged in tribunals of the country where the book is published. the male is deemed to have survived. J. Salanguit. Flores. (cc)That in cases of cohabitation by a man and a woman who are not capacitated to marry each other and who have acquire properly through their actual joint contribution of money. if the sex be the same. (aa)That a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.If both were under the age of fifteen years. and the sex be different.If both were above the age sixty. A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. battle. Yu. (ff)That the law has been obeyed. work or industry. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. or conflagration. Felizmenio. 3. such contributions and their corresponding shares including joint deposits of money and evidences of credit are equal.If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty. (jj)That except for purposes of succession. (ee)That a thing once proved to exist continues as long as is usual with things of the nature. (dd)That if the marriage is terminated and the mother contracted another marriage within three hundred days after such termination of the former marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. (ii)That a trustee or other person whose duty it was to convey real property to a particular person has actually conveyed it to him when such presumption is necessary to perfect the title of such person or his successor in interest. the younger is deemed to have survived. 2. purporting to be printed or published by public authority. 4. property or industry. the former is deemed to have survived. (z)That persons acting as copartners have entered into a contract of copartneship. such as wreck. (bb)That property acquired by a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other and who live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under void marriage. when two persons perish in the same calamity. the older. (hh)That a printed or published book. 78 . (gg)That a printed or published book.. Morales. Gravador. according to the following rules: 1. (2)A child born after one hundred eighty days following the celebration of the subsequent marriage is considered to have been conceived during such marriage. was so printed or published. Madarang.If both be over fifteen and under sixty. even though it be born within the three hundred days after the termination of the former marriage. has been obtained by their joint efforts. and it is not shown who died first. Castillo.

Madarang. Muslim Code Article 14. Felizmenio. Yu. and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression. and the other between those ages.If one be under fifteen or over sixty. as to which of them died first. Thus. Sermonia vs.Digested by: De Guzman. the latter is deemed to have survived. (5a) New Civil Code Art. as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other. And that the mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. 220. Flores. Eloisa took refuge  in  her  parents’  home  and  claimed  for  support  from  his  husband. Because of this. (kk)That if there is a doubt. A. The enforcement of that obligation is a vital concern of the state that the law will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home. the Facts: Bigamy is an illegal marriage committed by contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved. Nature. whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other. shall prove the same. After a month of living together. J. Petitioner continued to refuse to do any act other than legal and valid cohabitation. Its nature. every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage. Castillo. Morales. Gravador. And that to grant support in an independent suit is equivalent to granting divorce and if the court lacks the power to decree a divorce. Salanguit. consequences and incidents are governed by this Code and the Shari'a and not subject to stipulation. all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family.. the authority of parents over their children. In case of doubt. they shall be considered to have died at the same time. With regards to the first argument the court has held that the governing the obligation and duties of husband and wife in the Philippines is not the same with that in Spain. except that the marriage settlements may to a certain extent fix the property relations of the spouses. the community of property during marriage. the legitimacy of children. Immediately thereafter. the Spanish court had held that neither spouse can be compelled to support the other outside of the conjugal abode unless by a final judgment granting a divorce. the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. It carries the imposable 79 defendant got exasperated and started maltreating his wife. in the absence of proof. they established their residence at 115 Calle San Marcelina. Campos-Rueda Facts: Eloisa Goitia Y De La Camara and Jose Campos-Rueda were legally married on 7 Jan 1915 in Manila. Issue: WON the husband can be compelled to give support to the wife. This obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband. A judgment for separate maintenance is a calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of society. or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgement rendered in the proper proceedings. Court of Appeals . Held: Yes.   Defendant’s  counsel  argue  that  in  a  previous  case  (Don  Ramon  Benso)   in Spain. defendant demanded that his wife perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genitals. Marriage is not only a civil contract but a social institution. 5. it also follows that it lacks the power to decree a divorce. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Goitia vs.

Felizmenio. Madarang. The court found evidence that the first wife had died during the Spanish era and that before 1900. Lourdes Unson on February 15. filed a complaint against the children of the second marriage praying for the annulment of the document and that the real properties be re-partitioned among the plaintiffs alone. Prosecution said that the prescriptive period began when complainant discovered the subsequent marriage in July 1991. He died on 1942. Lucio Perido had no legal impediments to marry Baliguat. the case should have been filed by 1990. The fifteen year prescriptive period commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended paty. J. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. this crime prescribed in fifteen years. Perido Facts: Lucio Perido married twice in his lifetime. Morales. Salanguit. Issue: Are the children from the second marriage illegitimate? Held: No. This being a notice to the whole world constitutes a constructive notice of the subsequent marriage to his first wife. Held: No. A.  The  children  belonging  to  the  first   marriage however. inspecting or verifying the marriages enlisted in the NCO routinely to make sure that no second or third marriages are contracted is too difficult a task to even be considered. Castillo. Flores. or their agents. He moved to dismiss the complaint claiming that the second marriage was made in public and that the contract became a public record when it was duly registered with the Office of the Civil Register in 1975. Being punishable in an afflictive penalty. the court held that it was not conclusive to show that he wasn’t  actually  married  with  Baliguat. . 1975 while his prior marriage to Virginia C. 80 Lastly if he did not really intend to keep his second marriage (as is allegedly proven by his filing of the marriage contract to be public document) then he should have just told his wife in the first place. penalty of prison mayor.. Thus if the prescriptive period for the offense of bugamy were to be counted from the date of registration.Digested by: De Guzman. Thus children from the second marriage are legit.  The  court  also held the presumption that a man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. Perido vs. the prosecution of violators would almost be impossible. Other acts are also undertaken   in   order   that   the   offender’s   legal impediments in contracting another marriage be concealed. In addition. Sermonia was charged with bigamy before the RTC of Pasig for contracting marriage with Ma. The reason being that the properties belonged to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage and that all five children of with Marcelina Baliguat are illegitimate. Gravador. Yu. On 26 May 1992. Issue: WON the rule on constructive notices can be applied in the case in order that the defendant may be absolved of the crime of Bigamy. The children and grandchildren of the first and second marriages executed a document partitioning among themselves their late father/grandfather’s  real  properties. With respect to the civil status of Perido in the titles issued to him on 1923. Jose C. the authorities. So following the prescriptive period. when the first child in the second marriage was born. A bigamous marriage is generally entered into by the offender in secrecy from the spouse of the previous subsisting marriage. Nievera remained valid and subsisting. The principle of constructive notice cannot be applied to the crime of bigamy.

246. was tending to her sari-sari store when Leticia Romano Malabago arrived and sat at the benches outside the store. He listened while his mother and grandmother were conversing.  Appellant  fled  to  Dodong  Opulentisima’s  house. Malabago Revised Penal Code Art. While the prosecution evidence is based solely on the testimony of Guillerma. J.   Accused   plead   not   guilty saying that at the time the crime was committed he was in the poblacion of Dipolog City. Salanguit. Parricide – Any person who shall kill his father. or child.  but  the  latter called the police and so Malabago was fetched and brought to the police station. her inconsistencies were minor and did not prejudice her credibility. whether legitimate or illegitimate. mother. Felizmenio.  the  accused  Pedro  Malabago. accused mother-in-law. he claimed his son Allandel as defense witness and that his mother-in-law only disapproved of their marriage that’s   why   she’s   testifying   against   him. The evidence does not show that the accused deliberately and consciously planned this particular mode of attack to ensure the killing of his wife.  Leticia’s  husband. Facts: On 5 Jan 1994 at about 7:00PM Guillerma Romano.   Appellant   was   found   guilty   and was sentenced to death.  Guillerma  heard  a   loud sound and she thought that the appellant had slapped Leticia but when   she   looked   out   the   store   window. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. or child. the lower courts had erred in appreciating the existence of treachery and refused to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Parricide is committed when (1) a person is killed. He and Leticia began arguing. Go vs Court of Appeals Facts: During the marriage of Hermogenes and Jane Ong. The prosecution did not also dispute the claim of the appellant to voluntary surrender. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with   the   victim. Flores. The spouses tried 81 . People vs. or descendants.  Suddenly. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant. (3) the deceased is the father. Issue: WON the accused is guilty of parricide and assuming he is. Held: Accused is GUILTY. video coverage services were availed from the petitioners. Sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua. Yu. The case was then raised to higher court saying that among other things. shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.Digested by: De Guzman.   came and interrupted the conversation. or any of his ascendants. Leticia’s   14yr   old   son   appeared   and   sat   on   the   bench across her. this time hitting the lower left side of her face. whether legitimate or illegitimate.   she   saw   her   daughter’s   face   full of blood with a slash along the right ear. assuming that he was guilty of Parricide.. from her lips down to her neck. mother. The appellant then again struck his wife with a bolo. Guillerma turned away but heard the couple’s   quarrel   about   money   and  the  husband’s  jealousy  of  someone. was there treachery and has the CA erred in not considering his voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. Madarang. Upon investigation. The victim fell to the ground lifeless. the police found the bolo in the pineapple   plantation   near   the   appellant’s   house. or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Allandel. After  a  few  minutes. Castillo. Morales. Thus there is a lack of aggravating circumstance and the presence of a mitigating circumstance. or his spouse. But the court found that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of treachery. A. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused. The unembroidered facts reveal that appellant hacked his wife in the midst of a sudden and unscripted argument. Gravador.   Guillerma’s   testimony   established   the   relationship   between Pedro and Letecia as husband and wife and this was not contested or challenged but was in fact confirmed by the accused in his testimony.

Felizmenio. Lourdes. he left 4 parcels of land..   petitioner’s   failure to present it is no proof that no marriage took place. only Nancy Go entered into the contract.  upon  the  couple’s   return. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit. to claim the videos before they left for the US for their honeymoon. Claiming that when his wife entered into the contract. born on July 21.000. The  Go’s  then  appealed  the  decision  claiming  that  they   shouldn’t  be  liable  for  various  reasons  but  that  at  the  end  Alex  Go   questions the decision of the RTC holding him jointly and severally liable for the damages. Gravador. Yu. Spouses filed a complaint for specific performance and damages before the RTC. Castillo. 1943. and Felix  When Patricio died in 1940. it was found out that the tape had been erased and could no longer be delivered.   and in this case. but since the petitioners were still unable to process the videos the parties agreed  to  deliver  the  videos  2  months  later.Digested by: De Guzman. Kalibo. Aklan     Arturio Trinidad. Flores. Arturio was able to prove that Inocentes and Felicidad were validly married and that he was born during the subsistence of their marriage Ratio  Arturio was able to prove that Inocentes and Felicidad were validly married o Although the marriage contract is considered the primary   evidence   of   the   marital   union. Morales. However. Arturio demanded from the defendants that the above-mentioned parcels of land be partitioned into three equal shares and that he be given the 1/3 individual shares of his late father Defendants refused and asserted that the plaintiff was never the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad for the reason that Inocentes was  single  when  he  died  in  1941.  before  plaintiff’s  birth  Issues  WON Arturio Trinidad has proven by preponderant evidence the marriage of his parents  WON has adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he is the son of the late Inocentes Trinidad Held  Yes. claimed to be the legitimate son of the late Inocentes Trinidad When Inocentes and Anastacia died. which eventually granted the  Ongs’  petition  for  rescission  of  agreement  and  a  payment  for   damages amounting to PhP 552. all in Barrio Tigayon. A. J. Alex Go is absolved from any liability in the case. Issue: WON Alex Go should be held liable for a contract his wife had entered into. she was acting alone. Madarang. as other forms of relevant evidence may take its place 82 . Held: No. Trinidad vs CA Nature:  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts  Patricio Trinidad and Anastacia Briones were the parents of 3 children: Inocentes.  or  engage  in  business  without  the  consent  of  the  husband”. Arturio lived with the defendants Arturio got married in 1966 to Candelaria Gaspar After the marriage. survived by the above named children.   occupation. Art 73 of the Family  Code  provides  that  “the  wife  may  exercise  any  profession.

filiation shall be proven by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child. de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo Jacob and was appointed Special Administratix for the various estates of the deceased by virtue of a reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased  On the other hand. o To prove the fact of marriage. two witnesses were presented by petitioner: Isabel Meren (present during the nuptial) and Gerardo (old barangay captain who used to visit Inocentes and Felicidad) o Arturio also presented his baptismal certificate in which Inocentes   and   Felicidad   were   named   as   the   child’s   father and mother Arturio was able to prove that he was born during the subsistence  of  Inocentes  and  Felicidad’s  marriage o Filiation may be proven by the following: record of birth   appearing   in   the   Civil   Register….   Arturio   consistently   used   Inocentes’   surname without objection from private respondents – a presumptive  proof  of  his  status  as  Inocentes’  legitimate   child. the birth and the baptismal certificates of children born during such union. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. In support of his claim. Pedro Pilapil claimed to be the legally adopted son of Alfredo and his sole surviving heir. his baptismal certificate  and  Gerardo’s  testimony  as  well o Furthermore. Madarang. and marriages were either lost. burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of said municipality o In place of marriage contract.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. authentic document or possession of status. the following would constitute competent evidence: testimony of a witness to   the   matrimony. Gravador. Flores. and in the absence of a record of birth. Yu. Felizmenio. Tomasa Vda.. plus the fact the he had so lived with the defendants as shown by the family pictures only show that it is only when Arturio demand for the partition of his share that provoked the ire of the only living defendant (Lourdes Trinidad) thus she disowned him as his nephew De Jacob vs CA Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts  On one hand. J. 1956 o Thus. Morales. and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents o Arturio secured a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of births. legitimate filiatiion may be prove by other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws o Arturio presented a certification that records relative to birth were either destroyed during the last world war or burned when the old town hall was razed to the ground on June 17. A. he presented 2 family pictures.   couple’s   public   and   open   cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock. deaths.   in   the   absence   of such. Castillo. he presented an Order issued by Judge Jose Moya granting the petition for adoption filed by deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil  Pedro questioned the validity of the marriage between appellant Tomasa and his adoptive father Alfredo Issues 83  .

  WON the marriage of Tomasa and Alfredo is valid WON Pedro is the legally adopted son of deceased Jacob  Pedro’s  adoption  has  not  been  sufficiently  established o The  issue  of  authenticity  of  Judge  Moya’s  signature  on   the questioned Order of Adoption  Judge  Moya  can’t  recall  having  ever  issued  the   Order of Adoption  He positively declared that the signature over his name in the aforementioned order was not his o No proof was shown that Dr. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.   “anatomically   male   but  feels.  thinks. Jacob and petitioner o There were testimonies from Adela Pilapil (present during the marriage ceremony) and Msgr. Morales. Jacob and Tomasa lived together as husband and wife for at least five years.Digested by: De Guzman.  and  acts  as  a  female”  And so he underwent psychological examination. Flores. Madarang. J. he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok  From then on. Yu. Felizmenio. Salanguit.. A. and breast augmentation. and no presenting of evidence that shows cause to deny the petition 84 Held  Yes. Florencio Yllana (solemnized the marriage) o There were photographs of the wedding ceremony o There was an authorization issued by the Archbishop ordaining the union of Tomasa and Alfredo o And finally. hormone treatment.  Tomasa  and  Alfredo’s  marriage  is  valid  No. On January 27. not causing any harm to anybody if petition is granted. Gravador. there was the Affidavit of Monsignor Yllana stating the circumstances of the loss of the marriage certificate . Pedro is not legally adopted by Jacob Ratio  It has   been   sufficiently   proven   that   Tomasa   and   Alfredo’s   marriage is valid o The contents of a document may be proven by competent evidence other than the document itself. he lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married  He sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely. and his sex from male to female  The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Rommel on the grounds of upholding the principles of justice and equity. provided that the offeror establishes its due execution and subsequent loss o The fact of a marriage may be shown by extrinsic evidence other than the marriage certificate. 2001. Jacob had treated Pedro as an adpted childs Silverio vs Republic Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts  Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate  He alleged that he is a male transsexual. Castillo. Due execution and loss of marriage certificate constitutes a condition sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence of its contents o Tomasa as secondary evidence presented as secondary evidence a reconstructed Marriage Contract in 1978 o It has been established that Dr. An affidavit to this effect was executed by Dr.

A. o Finally. while playing tong-its with 3 others. or extremely difficult to write or pronounce  New first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community  The change will avoid confusion o The petition was filed in the wrong venue for the reason that proceedings of this nature are primarily . 2002. To correct means that there was an error in the  first  place. For instance. Gravador.    But the Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari in the CA CA then alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. to grant the changes sought by the petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter many laws. tainted with dishonor. rendering its decision in favor of the Republic Petitioner moved for reconsideration thus this petition administrative (should have filed in the local civil registrar). insofar as clerical/typographical errors are involved provides that corrections can be made administratively. 412. amended by RA 9048. without any judicial order. on marriage and family relations. Morales.   a   person’s   first   name   can’t   be   changed   on   such   aforementioned ground No. Castillo. a change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is not allowed Ratio  A   person’s   first   name   can’t   be   changed   on   the   ground   of   sex   reassignment o RA 9048 provides grounds for which change of first name may be allowed  If the name is ridiculous. o Rommel failed to show any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is not allowed o Art. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. not judicial. Flores. This particular case however is not one such error.  the  petitioner’s  birth   certificate contains no error. Madarang. saw Victoriano punching and kicking his wife. Anna Liza 85  Issues  WON   a   person’s   first   name  can   be  changed on the ground of sex reassignment  WON a change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is allowed Held   No. People vs Dela Cruz Nature  Appeal seeking the reversal of the CA decision which affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC convicting appellant Victoriano dela Cruz of the crime of parricide Facts  There are two versions of the story  Version of the prosecution o Between 3:30 and 4:00 pm on August 18. Joel Song.  In  this  instant  case. Salanguit. it will allow the union of a man and another man who has undergone sex reassignment. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. J. Yu. and so no correction is necessary.

Version of the defense (as testified by Victoriano) o Around 6:30 pm on August 18. Anna then.   He   then   noticed   that   there was blood   spurting   out   of   Anna’s   mouth. Victoriano then dragged Anna inside the house by pulling the latter’s   hair. it is clear that Victoriano was not performing a lawful act at the time of the incident o To be exempted from criminal liability.   Joel   accompanied the couple to the hospital where Anna eventually died of hemorrhagic shock as a result of a stab wound in the trunk. together with their daughter. 2002.   There   were   shoutings inside and.Digested by: De Guzman. he said that he does not usually drink and that he consumed hard liquor at the time of the incident. Gravador. breaking it in the process. in front of their house. Victoriano then pushed her aside so he could go out. seeing him in that condition. there is the presence of the requisites for circumstancial evidence to sustain a conviction o Immediately preceding the killing. Madarang.   then   slammed   the   door. the following elements must concur  A person is performing a lawful act  With due care  He causes an injury to another by mere accident  Without any fault or intention of causing it 86  Issues  WON Victoriano can be held guilty of parricide beyond reasonable doubt Held  Yes. she fell on a jalousie window. Morales. however. he attested that he loved his wife and that he did not intentionally hurt her. he came home very drunk. suddenly. Flores. Caparas dela Cruz.. He then asked for   Joel’s   help   to   bring   the   wife   to   the   hospital. Yu. Castillo. Lastly. J. Victorianoo slapped Anna and dragged her inside the house. Victoriano physically maltreated Anna o It was Victoriano who violently dragged Anna inside the house o Anna sustained injuries in different parts of the body due to the physical abuse of Victoriano o Location and extent of the wound indicated Victoriano’s  intent  to  kill  the  victim o Victoriano is certainly the lone assailant o The act of carrying the body of a wounded victim and bringing her to the hospital does not manifest innocence  Besides. When he helped   her   stand   up. Victoriano is guilty of parricide beyond reasonable doubt . Victoriano and Anna came out of the house. started nagging at him. Victoriano was turned over to the police officers for investigation. Salanguit.   Furthermore. Felizmenio. the best proof would be the marriage certificate  Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction provided that o There is more than one circumstance o The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven o The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt  In this case. A. Victoriano   asked   for   Joel’s   help.   he   noticed   that   Anna’s   back   was   punctured by a piece of shattered glass. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Ratio  The key element in parricide – other than the fact of killing – is the relationship of the offender to the victim  In the case of the parricide of a spouse.

Castillo. Felizmenio. Poras This is an appeal from the November 8. Pasong Tamo. the defense failed to show that independent proof that  Victoriano’s  intoxication is not habitual. and her panty was lowered to her knees  There was blood on the rear end of her panty 87 Ratio  A permanent appointment in the civil service is issued to a person who has met the requirements of the position to which the appointment is made in accordance with law and the rules issuant pursuant thereto  The possession of the required CES eligibility is that which will make an appointment in the career executive service a permanent one  And because petitioner lacked the proper CES eligibility and therefore had not held the subject office in a permanent . Facts:  Characters: o AAA – 13 years old victim o BBB – aunt of AAA o CCC – AAA’s  godmother’s  daughter o DDD – victim’s  brother o FFF – victim’s  deceased  mother  and  common-law wife of Poras o Jennifer – AAA’s  school  friend  Victim’s  version  of  story: o She lives in Barangay Pingkian. 1994 – evening. Madarang. Poras asked her to drink coffee which she refused at first but Poras became angry  She fell asleep after drinking the coffee and woke up to see Poras beside her  Poras was moving on top of her and touching her private parts  The strap of her bra had been removed. People vs. not subsequent to a  plan  to  commit  a  felony. there could not have been any  violation  of  petitioner’s   supposed right to security of tenure inasmuch as he had never been in possession of the said right at least during his tenure Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Facts Issues  WON Amores is entitled to the permanent seat as Deputy Director of LCP despite his lack of CES eligibility  WON  petitioner’s  separation  from  service  violated  his  right  to   security of tenure Held   Amores is not entitled to the permanent seat as Deputy Director No. J. Yu.  and  that  the  accused’s  drunkenness   affected his mental faculties Amores vs CSC capacity. A.Digested by: De Guzman.. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2006 decision of the CA which found Poras guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. Flores.  1994 o Poras first raped her when she was in Grade II o November 26.  And lastly. Salanguit. Gravador. Morales. QC with the appellant and CCC and her siblings ever since her mother’s  death  on  January  31.

Felizmenio. Cosidon. 1994 – AAA told BBB about the incident o December 4. She pushed Poras and Poras put on his briefs and shorts  Poras threatened to kill her if she tells anybody  CCC was no longer on the mattress where they slept when AAA woke up but was lying outside of the mat where they slept  Poras sleeps alone in his room  She did not reveal the incident to DDD because he might side with Poras o December 2.Digested by: De Guzman.  he. 1994 – BBB reported the incident to the police which told her to bring AAA to Camp Crame for medical examination o Medico-Legal Report:  According to Dr.  Prosecution  faileed  to  prove  Poras’  guilt  beyond reasonable doubt of the crime rape. included in rape. as the evidence on record shows the presence of all the elements of this crime. Flores. the doctor said that these lacerations could have happened even before November 27. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.000 for damages  CA – affirmed  RTC’s  decision  but  with  the  modification  that   Poras be held liable for rape under Article 335 as the rape was committed prior to the enactment of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 o Relied on the evaluation made by the RTC regarding AAA’s  credibility as the trial court had the unique opportunity  to  observe  the  witnesses’  attitude. Castillo. Salanguit.  FFF.Appelant was sentenced to imprisonment minimum of 6 months (arresto mayor) and maximum of 4 years and 2 months 88 . Madarang. J. Dr. 1994  Poras’  version: o He  was  FFF’s  common-law husband o Before  FFF’s  death. Gravador. . SC convicts him instead of the lesser acts of lasciviousness. A. Cosidon.. BBB for prosecution  o Poras for his own defense  Regional Trial Court – convicted Poras of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA a total of P100. Yu.   and demeanor o Victim’s  testimony  proved  that  Poras  had  sex  with  her   while she was unconscious o Totality of established circumstances constituted an unbroken chain of events leading to a fair and reasonable conslusion that Poras raped AAA o Minor  inconsistencies  in  AAA’s  testimonies   strengthened her credibility bec they eliminated the chance of a rehearsed testimony o Poras’  uncorroborated  alibi  and  denial  cannot  prevail over  the  victim’s  positive  testimony Issue: Is the circumstancial evidence enough to convict Poras of rape/ Did the prosecution present enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable  doubt  Poras’  guilt? Held:  No. he was at the La Loma Cockpit Arena  and  slept  at  his  friend’s  place  Witnesses presented: o AAA.  he  stayed  at  a  friend’s  house  at  QC o FFF’s  children  asks  him  for  money  continually  but  he   refused to give them anything since they were already of age o On the day of the crime.  conduct. Morales. and her 5 children lived together o After  FFF’s  death. there was laceration in  the  victim’s  vagina  at  3  and  9  o’clock   positions  Laceration could have been caused by a hard object such as a finger or a fully erect penis  On cross examination.

Rule 133. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.  Ruptured hymen is not equal to rape  It only proves that AAA has had prior sexual experience  Insertion of finger in the vagina did not constitute rape in 1994. Gravador.000 for damages Rape is a painful accusation to make but can be done by a person w/ malice in her mind Bec of the private nature of rape that justifies the acceptance of lone testimony of a credible victim to convict. the result of the medical examination did not in any  way  support  AAA’s  claim  that  the  appellant  had   sex with her. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: There is more than one circumstance. of the Rules on Evidence allows the court to rule on the basis of circumstantial evidence: Sec. 1994.Digested by: De Guzman. and that these lacerations could have been present even before November 27. althoug innocent. it is not easy for the accused. 4. and The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. only in 1997 89      . Cosidon testified that the deep-healed lacerations  on  the  victim’s hymen could have also been caused by a finger. Morales. o A related rule is that the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proved leads to no other logical conclusion than the guilt of the appellant. or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Section 4. to disprove his guilt Rape – committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force or intimidation. moving on top of her. saw blood stains on her panty  Poras threatened to kill AAA if she tells anyone  The examining physician found deep-healed lacerations  in  AAA’s  vagina  The circumstantial evidence failed to clearly establish an unbroken chain leading to the fair and reasonable conclusion that Poras raped AAA o First. Castillo. Salanguit.[35] o Circumstances from which RTC and CA based their decision:  Poras made AAA drink coffee which made her fall asleep  AAA saw Poras lying beside her. (prision correccional) and to pay the victim a total of P52. A. when sufficient. Dr. there must be at least proof beyond reasonable doubt of the entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum of the female organ In this case. Madarang. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu. and touching her private parts when she woke up  AAA’s  panty  has  been  lowered  to  her  knees. Flores.   and the strap of her bra had been removed  Poras put on his briefs and shorts after AAA pushed her  AAA felt pain in her private parts. no direct evidence exists showing the required penetration o AAA could not have seen Poras insert his penis into her vagina bec she was unconscious o Without direct evidence. J.. Circumstantial evidence. or when she is under 12 years old or is demented Full penetration is not required to sustain conviction of rape.

o Fifth. vaginal canal.  Lewd – oscene. Borromeo cooperated in the execution of the document. Facts:  November 25. and 3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. Madarang. Common sense and ordinary human experience show that penile penetration is extremely difficult. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 52. we cannot help but observe that AAA. although he may not have been fully informed because of a difference in dialect o Contract purported to formulate between the husband and the wife which permitted the husband to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relationship with another man. Castillo. Salanguit. Yu. Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution. 1931 – Alejandro Pabro and Juan Mappala. Borromeo This is a disbarment proceeding against respondent Borromeo. husband and wife. (n) Panganiban vs. o Second.Digested by: De Guzman.  unless  the  victim’s  legs  were  spread   apart. Felizmenio.. o Third. Its nature. 2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation. o The evidence confirms that Poras committed lewd acts when  he  touched  the  victim’s  private  parts CHAPTER 1 REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE Art. some knowledge of its content. in her direct testimony.”  and  that   something had happened to her. Morales. and had. indecent. lustful.  we  cannot  equate  AAA’s  testimony  of  pain  in   her private parts with rape. or lecherous o There is sufficient evidence to convict Poras with acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code o Elements of acts of lasciviousness: 1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness. without opposition from either one of them 90 . Gravador. consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. revealed that she merely came to the conclusion that the appellant had raped her afterbeing told by the examining physician that the result of the medical  examination  was  “positive. at least. subscribed a contract before the notary public Elias Borromeo who was a member of the Philippine Bar o The contract was prepared by the municipal secretary of Naguilian. Isabela o Atty. o Finally. or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. J. we find it highly unlikely that the appellant inserted  his  penis  into  AAA’s  vagina  while  the  latter’s   panty was lowered to her knees. she would have been in unusually deep sleep in order not to feel the pain and sensation reasonably expected from the insertion of a penis into her young. if not almost impossible under this  situation. Flores. o Fourth. except that the marriage settlements may to a certain extent fix the property relations during the marriage. (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. considering that AAA was an unmarried 13-year old. the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses did not establish with moral certainty that the appellant raped AAA. A.

A. the document is null and void  Mendoza was severely censured De Leon vs. and as a consequence. morals. Madarang. Castillo.Ernesto and Soledad signed a document authorizing each other to marry again  Ernesto asked if there would be trouble. Held: Even before the enactment of the new Civil Code.. Felizmenio. However. since. 1939 Issue: Whether Santiago should be disbarred from the practice Held: The document prepared by Santiago is contrary to law. Morales. but they still remain as crimes that violates the sanctity of marriage .  Mendoza claims that he was aware of the invalidity of the contract but ratified it nevertheless under the impression that the couple will have it approved by the Court of First Instance of Negros afterwards  However. who was living separately from his wife Soledad Colares for some 9 consecutive years and was bent on contracting a 2nd marriage  Atty. 1939. J. and tends to subvert the vital foundation of the family and he should be disbarred. 1939 – Ernesto remarried  Santiago realized his mistake and had the spouses sign another document cancelling the first on June 30. Gravador. Court of Appeals 91 .. Santiago was found guilty of malpractice and was only given a 1 year suspension Selanova vs. the Court held that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership approval was void. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. after learning his mistake.The consent or pardon given by the offended party constitutes a bar to prosecution for adultery or concubinage.The Court confined their discipline of the respondent to severe censure In re Santiago This is an administrative case initiated upon complaint of the Solicitor General against the Santiago charging the latter with malpractice and praying that disciplinary action be taken against him. Yu. Santiago pointed at his diploma and said he would tear it off if the document turns out to be void  June 11. Santiago told Baniquit that he could secure his separation from his wife and afterwards. judicial sanction for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage should be sought for prior the dissolution  Therefore. Facts:  Ernesto Baniquit.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. he could marry again  May 29. he tried to rectify it. licensing either spouse to commit any act of infidelity and ratifying their personal separation Issue: Whether or not the contract is valid. Issue: Whether or not the contract sanctioned an illicit and immoral purpose Whether or not the notary public be disbarred Held: The Court held the contract to contain provisions contrary to law and public order. Mendoza This is an administrative complaint in the Supreme Court for gross ignorance of the law Facts:  Saturnino Selanova charged Judge Alejandro Mendoza with gross ignorance of the law for preparing and ratifying a document extrajudicially dividing the conjugal assets of the couple. Flores. not judicially recognizable .

1977 – Sylvia entered into a Letter-Agreement with her mother-in-law. Jose Vicente de Leon. and further. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Sylvia left their conjugal home  March 1973 – Sylvia went to America where she obtained Ame citizenship  November 23. 2) The trial court failed to appreciate testimonial and documentary evidence proving that Macaria de Leon's claims of threat. Madarang. This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA. money. Motion was granted  October 29. J. Flores. 1973 – Sylvia filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage with Jose Vicente in California o Also filed claims for support and distribution of properties  March 16.. 1983 – trial court rendered judgment in favor of the intervenor. Salanguit. Castillo. Macaria De Leon o The  letter  states:  “In consideration for a peaceful and amicable termination of relations between the undersigned and her lawfully wedded husband. failed to appreciate evidence proving Macaria de Leon's material breach thereof. and custody of their daughter  The obligations of Sylvia to Jose Vincent which included amending her divorce complaint in the US and allowing her daughter to visit her father for 2 to 3 months each year o Macaria gave Sylvia the money she stipulated in the Letter-Agreement  March 30. your son. Yu. Felizmenio. 1971 – they had a daughter.Digested by: De Guzman. declaring null and void the letter-agreement and ordering Sylvia to give back to Macaria the amount she received o The order of the court which dissolved the conjugal partnership of the couple was affirmed except those properties belonging to Macaria  Sylvia appealed to CA raising the ff.500/month monthly support to the agreement  April 20. intimidation and mistake are baseless. Errors: 1) The trial court erred in finding that the cause or consideration of the Letter. 1977 – Sylvia and Jose Vicente filed before the trial court of Rizal a joint petition for judicial approval of dissolution of their conjugal partnership  February 19. 1980 – during the pendency of the MR.  CA  affirmed  the  trial  court’s  decision in toto and denied MR 92 . Morales. 1980 – Macaria filed her complaint in intervention o Assailed the validity and legality of the LetterAgreement which purpose is to terminate the marital relationship between Sylvia and Jose Vicente  December 29. Macaria filed a motion for leave to intervene alleging that she is the owner of the properties involved in the case. dissolving  the  spouses’  conjugal  partnership  March 17. A. the following are agreed upon:”  The obligations of Jose Vicente de Leon to Sylvia which included the delivery of several real properties. 1980 – the trial court approved the petition. 1980 – Sylvia moved for the execution of the order o Jose Vicente moved for a reconsideration of the order alleging that Sylvia made a verbal reformation of the petition adding a P4. Gravador. 1969 – Jose Vicente De Leon and Sylvia Lichauco De Leon got married  August 28.Agreement is the termination of marital relations. Susana De Leon  October 1972 – because of irreconcilable marital differences. child support. Facts:  October 18. and 3) The trial court erred in finding that Sylvia Lichauco de Leon committed breach of the Letter-Agreement.

. Gravador. during marriage. J. Yu..  And since it was Sylvia who prepared the Letter-Agreement.  “the  interpretation  of  obscure   words of stipulations in a contract shall not favor  the  party  who  caused  the  obscurity”   Since the Letter-Agreement has been nullified. Sylvia.  positive  relief  should  be  granted  to  Macaria” CHAPTER 2 HUMAN RELATIONS (n) 93     . the courts may. The following shall be void and of no effect: (1) Any contract for personal separation between husband and wife. the contract may be repudiated by one of the parties before the purpose has been accomplished. In such case. “Since  the  Letter-Agreement was repudiated before the purpose has been accomplished and to adhere to the pari delicto rule in this case is to put premium to the circumvention of  the  laws.  The  use  of  the  word  “relations”  in  the  letter  is  ambiguous  and   subject to interpretation o Sylvia  insists  that  “relations”  refer  to  their  property   relations o Macaria asserted that it refers to marital relations o The Court sustained the observations and conclusions made by the trial court which states that the couple contemplated terminating not just their property relations but also their marital relations which is evidenced  by  Sylvia’s  continuing  of  the  divorce   proceedings in California  The Civil Code renders null and viod those contracts which are contrary to law. consequences and incidents are governed by law and  not  subject  to  stipulation. “Marriage  is  not  a  mere  contract  but  an   inviolable social institution. public order or public property. alleges that she only signed the Letter-Agreement  because  of  Sylvia’s  threats  of  scandalizing   her family Both parties were found to have violated the laws.Digested by: De Guzman. Flores.. on the other hand.”  But if the Letter-Agreement pertained only to property relations. 221. but pari delicto does not apply in this case as Article 1414 of the Civil Code: When money is paid or property delivered for an illegal purpose. Morales. Issue: WON the Letter-Agreement is valid Held: The Court denied the petition and granted positive relief to Macaria. (2) Every extra-judicial agreement. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. applying the pari delicto rule (Legal principle that if two parties in a dispute are equally at fault then the party in possession of the contested property gets to retain it (courts will not interfere with the status quo). for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute community of property between husband and wife. good customs. Madarang. Its nature. allow the party repudiating the contract to recover the money or property. Salanguit. A. Justice would be served by allowing Macaria to be placed in the position in which she was before the transaction was entered into. or before any damage has been caused to a third person. it is still void as stated in Article 221 of the Civil Code Art. Felizmenio. morals. alleges that she will not recover what she has given nor can she ask for what has been promised her Macaria. if the public interest wig thus be subserved. Castillo.

Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another. Such fault or negligence. evidence. Bolifer This is an appel from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Misamis. CHAPTER 2 QUASI-DELICTS Art. Gravador. 2176. in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties. or a secondary evidence of its contents: c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. contrary to law. shall indemnify the latter for the same. 19. Castillo. A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. is obliged to pay for the damage done. of the agreement cannot be received without the writing. Flores. is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. Every person must. or by his agent. Art. Yu. thereof. Morales. 1403. there being fault or negligence. wilfully or negligently causes damage to another. J. Domalagan v. (1902a) CHAPTER 8 UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS (n) Art. or some note or memorandum. 20. act with justice. Art.. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. 21. unless they are ratified: 2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. Domalagan cannot recover the amount 94 . Felizmenio. be in writing. Salanguit. give everyone his due. other than a mutual promise to marry. unless the same. Domalagan demanded the return of P516 plus interest and damages which he suffered since he was obliged to sell a certain real property in Bohol to come up with the P500  Bolifer denied the allegation and alleged that the facts stated in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action  The trial court ruled in favor of Domalagan and ordered Bolifer to pay P516 plus interest Issue: WON Domalagan really delivered money to Bolifer WON the verbal contract between the two parties regarding the delivery of the money for a prospective marrieage is considered valid and effective Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court  The trial court found enough evidence that Domalagan indeed gave Bolifer the said amount and the Court affirms this decision  Bolifer claims that since the agreement was not put into writing. The following contracts are unenforceable. therefore. Facts:  November 1909 – Jorge Domalagan and Carlos Bolifer entered into a contract wherein Domalagan will pay Bolifer P500 upon the  marriage  of  his  son  Cipriano  with  Bolifer’s  daughter   Bonifacia  April 1910 – he paid Bolifer P500 plus P16 as hansel or token of future marriage  August 1910 – Bonifacia married Laureano Sisi  Upon learning of the marriage. and subscribed by the party charged. Art. Madarang. and observe honesty and good faith. Every person who.Digested by: De Guzman. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action.

by virtue of said section. by evidence other than a writing. o Art 335 of the (old) Civil Code does not render oral contracts invalid. et al.. The fact  may  be  proved  by  him”       Issue: WON that the transaction was not in writing can be proven in court Held: For breach of contract to marry. A contract may be valid and yet. That without any reason. make no objection to the admissibility of oral evidence to support contracts like the one in question and permit the contract to be proved. That defendants promised marriage if plaintiffs would improve the house in Basud and spend for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride b. Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages. If it is not made in confirmity with said section of course it cannot be proved. during the trial of the cause. Felizmenio. and unenforceable The court dismissed the case Under the former rules of procedure. when the complaint did not state whether the contract sued was on writing or not. Court of Appeals. Flores. This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.Digested by: De Guzman. arguing that the contract was oral. A contract may be a perfectly valid contract even though it is not clothed with the necessary form. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Hermosisima vs. Salanguit. Geronimo is the only one who can sue Socorro for damages for her failure to carry out their mutual matrimonial promises  The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. f the parties to an action. Morales. Facts:  Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro to recover damages resulting from defendants’  refusal  to  carry  out  the  previously  agreed  marriage   between Socorro and Geronimo  The following are the complaints: a. Castillo. Madarang. if proper objection is made. Auxilio This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. Facts: 95 .  But  Felipe  can’t  continue  with  his  suit  because  the  suit  is  to   enforce  an  agreement  in  consideration  of  marriage. the parties will be unable to prove it. even if such fact is not apparent on the face of the complaint. the defendants refused to honor their promise Defendants moved for the dismissal of the case. It does not declare that said contract are invalid.  “defendant  may  now  present  a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was not in writing. J.  Felipe  can’t  sue   Matias on grounds of breach of mutual promise to marry. Gravador. it will be just as binding upon the parties as if it had been reduced to writing Cabague vs. which have not been reduced to writing. Yu. That plaintiffs made the improvement and spent P700 c. Felipe  can’t   sue Socorro for breach of mutual promise to marry  Basically. Said section provides that aid section simply provides the method by which the contract mentioned therein may be proved. A. the statute of frauds could be no ground for demurrer Under  the  new  rules.

1955 – Francisco filed a Petition for Relief from Orders. Velez This is an appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Rizal. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. P25. Madarang.  she  wanted  to  bind   him by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the benefit of clergy Wassmer vs. Judgment and Proceedings and Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration  The court tried an amicable settlement between the two but the possibility of such was nil  July 20. 1954 – Soledad Cagigas filed a complaint against Francisco Hermosisima for the acknowledgment of her child. Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a marriage license which was subsequently issued.500  as  attorney’s  fees  June 21.000 as moral and exemplary damages. P2. Yu..Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. Chris was born on June 17. 1954 .  P5000  as  moral  damages. o Velez was declared in default since he did not file an answer  April 29. Francisco promised to marry her. Morales. Francisco married Romanita Perez  October 4. J. 1954  September 2.  Soledad. 1954. A. 1954. When she got pregnant.  The Court does not find Francisco morally guilty of seduction because: o He is 10 years younger than Soledad o And because the trial court found that Soledad “surrendered  herself”  to  Francisco  because   “overwhelmed  by  her  love”  for  him. Facts:  August 23.25 and P7. Chris Hermosisima. The wedding was set on September 4. 1954 – Francisco left a note to Beatriz stating that the wedding will have to be postponed and that she sould not ask many people for the reason to avoid scandal  September 3.614. 1956 – defendant’s  motion  was  denied Issue: WON Beatriz has the right to sue for breach of promise to marry 96 . apart from the right to recover money or property advanced xxx upon the faith of such promise  Since  the  law  making  body’s  intent  is  not  to  sanction  actions   for breach of promise to marry.000 as actual damages. had an intimate relationship with Francisco who was 10 years younger than her.000 Issue: WON moral damages are recoverable for breach of promise to marry Held: The Court affirmed the decision of the CA but eliminated the payment of the moral damages  The action for breach of promise to marry has no standing in the civil law.500 for actual and compensatory damages.  and  P500  for  attorney’s   fees  CA affirmed this decision but increased the compensatory damages and moral damages to P5. Felizmenio. Flores. as well as support for the child and moral damages for breach of promise  Francisco admitted he is the father of the child and expressed willingness to give support but denied promising marriage to Soledad  The court rendered judgment acknowledging the child as Francisco’s  daughter  and  ordering  him  to  pay  P30/month  for   child support as well as P4. 1954 – Francisco sent a telegram telling Beatriz that the wedding is back on o He did not appear nor was he heard from again  Beatriz sued Francisco for damages. However. on July 24. 1955 – the court ordered Francisco to pay P2.Francisco X. the award of moral damages made by the court is untenable even if the justification of the said award is that Francisco seduced Soledad. Gravador. Castillo.

an Iranian exchange student taking a medical course in Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City courted and proposed to marry Marilou Gonzales. Thus she filed a complaint claiming  for  damages. 21. Held: The Court held that what Francisco did was not a case of mere breach of promise of contract to marry.   never sought consent from her parents. Court of Appeals This is a petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the CA. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which Francisco must be held liable for damages. Baksh vs CA Facts: Baksh. J. It connotes essentially the idea of deceit.000 Tanjanco vs. Flores. Felizmenio. The decision of CA is reversed and that of the CFI is affirmed. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals. Preparations for the wedding have already been made—wedding trousseau were purchased. wounded feelings. Sometime after. two days before the wedding Francisco walked out on his bride to be. She was a virgin prior to that. baksh was able to force her to live with him in his apartment. moral shock and social humiliation because of  Apolonio’s  breach  of  promise  to  marry  She then sued him for support. Morales. Salanguit. invitations were sent. 21. Araceli consented to have sex with him regularly until December 1959 which resulted to Araceli’s  pregnancy  When Apolonio learned of the pregnancy. Yu. The Court does not find that Araceli was seduced since Araceli. besmirched reputation. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded.  Baksh  said  that  he  didn’t  promise  to  marry  her. A. forced her to live with him or maltreated her. Hence. no case is made under Art. maintained a sexual relationship with Apolonio for one whole year. Castillo. Facts:  From December 1957. Gravador. enticement. In the end the RTC ruled in favor of Marilou on the bases that the parties were lovers and that she was not a woman of loose  morals  and  that  she  only  allowed  herself  to  be  “deflowered”   97 . moral and exemplary damages and  attorney’s  fees  Trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action  CA found that Araceli stated a cause of action for damages premised on Art 21 of the civil code: Art. And then Baksh started maltreating her and threatening to kill her.  Moral damages was reduced to P15. Seduction in law is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of a promise of marriage. an adult. among others—when. This shows voluntariness and mutual passion and that Araceli was not deceived by Apolonio. Baksh  then  visited  her  Gonzalez’s  parents  to  secure  approval  of  their   marriage. Madarang. She accepted the proposal on the condition that they were getting married during the semestral break.Digested by: De Guzman.. Apolonio Tanjanco courted Araceli Santos  The two became a couple afterwards and because Apolonio promised he would marry her. he stopped seeing Araceli  Araceli was forced to resign from her job as secretary of IBM to avoid embarassment and social humiliation  Araceli suffered mental anguish. specifically if whether or not he seduced Araceli Held: No. good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage Issue: WON Tanjanco violated Article 21.

The descendants . this petition. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the other party said that the complaint was not really for annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition but for recognition of natural children. Flores. Felizmenio. Morales. Moreover. he was able to mention to him that he and his mother were able to get married before a Justice of the Peace   of   Taguig. Issue: WON  the  children  from  Mariategui’s  third  marriage  are   legitimate and thus entitled to succession rights on his estate. Facts: Lupo Mariategui died without a will. good customs. She had surrendered her virginity not because of her lust but because of moral seduction. In answer. CA Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the court of appeals  granting  Lupo  Mariategui’s  descendants  from  his  third   marriage an equal share in his estate. Yu. Held: Children from the third marriage are legitimate. the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage. During his lifetime..  “when  his   father was still living. Lupo and Felipa were alleged to have been lawfully married in or about 1930.   Rizal. 21 not because of the breach of promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind the promise and the willful injury to her honor and reputation. J.Digested by: De Guzman. Issue: WON damages for breach of promise to marry are recoverable under the provisions of Art.”   The   spouses   deported   themselves   as   husband and wife. Salanguit. REQUISITES FOR A VALID MARRIAGE Mariategui v. a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume 98 D. which he had acquired when he was still unmarried. wherein separate titles were given to the heirs. (haha!) because of his promise to marry her etc. The court released a decree ordering the registration of the lot. where   they   raised   the   issue   of   their   parents’   lawful   marriage   and their legitimacy as children. Under these circumstances. Baksh appealed the decision in the CA but the CA affirmed the RTC decision further saying  that  Baksh’s  admission  of  his  common  law  wife  in  Bacolod   before  he  wooed  Marilou  is  a  proof  that  he  isn’t  a  man  of  good   character and that his acts are against morals. Gravador. the case was elevated to the CA. A. Madarang. Hence. The lower court ruled   in   favor   of   Lupo’s   heirs   from   the   first   and second marriage. Although no marriage certificate was introduced to this effect. no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these facts. public policy. At the time of his death he had left certain properties. Held: Yes. he had contracted three marriages. His descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they sought to divide among themselves Lot 163 of the Muntinglupa Estate. from the third marriage filed a complaint claiming that they were also children of Mariategui and were deprived of their rightful   share   in   their   father’s   estate   by   their   co-heirs. provided all the requisites for its validity are present. Thus. CA ruled that all the heirs of Lupo were entitled to equal shares in the estate. and were known in the community to be such. and derogatory of women. Thus she is entitled to claim for damages under Art. In  this  case  the  court  found  that  it  was  Baksh’s  fraudulent  and   deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry the plaintiff that made her surrender her virginity and to live with him in sincere belief that he would keep that promise. 21 of the Civil Code. Castillo. This fact is based on the declaration communicated  by  Lupo  to  his  son  who  testified  that.

there being no divorce. unless after attaining the age of twenty-one. 3 The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of solemnizing officer. such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife. (85a) NCC Art 53 No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: 99 1.Digested by: De Guzman. Julian and Paulina. (53a. no evidence which tends to disprove facts contained therein was adduced before the lower court. may contract marriage. and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents. evidence on record proves the legitimate filiation of  the  private  respondents. or person having substitute parental authority over the party. guardian. 2 No marriage shall be valid. Yu. Madarang. and (2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title. A. Felizmenio. with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. that a man and a woman. unless such party afterwards.  Jacinto’s  birth  certificate  was  a   record of birth referred to in Article 172 of the Code. Castillo. 45 A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life. unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. (53a) FC Art. 55a) FC Art. (3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. unless such party after coming to reason. that a child born in lawful wedlock.. or (6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. Salanguit. 5 Any male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38. (54a) FC Art. (5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other. unless the same having disappeared or ceased. have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. (2) That either party was of unsound mind. (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force. such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. in that order. J. Again. Morales. In the case of the two other private respondents. wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. Flores. intimidation or undue influence. existing at the time of the marriage: (1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twentyone. absolute or from bed and board is legitimate. they may not have presented in evidence any of the documents required by Article 172 but they continuously enjoyed the status of children of Lupo in the same manner as their brother Jacinto. Kinds of Requisites & Effects of non-compliance FC Art. deporting themselves as husband and wife. and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and . On filitaion. Gravador.

and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. while in the condo unit of the respondent. WON Villaluz should be disbarred. She confronted him on the identity of the caller. In her complaint. .”   with the complainant before competent authority. Yu. Salanguit. Flores. That they only did it in order to protect de Mijares from the immorality charge that Atty. all ingredients of a valid marriage were present. (1) (2) (3) (4) Legal capacity of the contracting parties. except in a marriage of exceptional character (Sec. 3613). she answered a phone call from a woman who was offending her with insulting remarks. If either of the contracting parties shall obtain consent of the other by means of violence.. they had lived separately and without communication. and A marriage license. Held: Marriage is valid.Digested by: De Guzman. or fraud. she married the respondent as culmination of a long engagement. A. while Villaluz is a retired Associate Justice of the CA. shall be punished by arresto mayor and fine not exceeding 500 pesos. Regardless  of  the  intention  of  the  respondent  in  saying  “I  do. she learned from Manila RTC Judge Makasiar that Villaluz had contracted a marriage with Lydia Geraldez on 10 May 1994. Art. shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment. Castillo. In his defense. 350 Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. Villaluz said that their marriage is not valid and was a sham. 351 Premature marriages. Issue: WON their marriage is valid. 1a. Felizmenio. or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death. J. 100 RPC Art. – Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the date of the death of her husband. Facts: De Mijares is the presiding judge of Pasay RTC. without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article. Morales. Madarang. That on 7 Jan 1994. intimidation. Gravador. De Mijares seeks for the disbarment of Villaluz. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who. Authority of the person performing the marriage. Villaluz Nature: Administrative action in the Supreme Court for Gross Immorality and Grave Misconduct. but what ensued was a heated exchange that led de Mijares to leave their would-have-been-honeymoon-place. Judge Verano was authorized by law to solemnize their marriage and both of them had the legal capacity to contract such marriage. he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph. Naval had commenced against her. Since then. Being a Justice of the CA. And that his marriage by his first wife was still subsisting at the time they were married because the decision had not yet become final and executory. freely given. if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation. Their consent. On the night of their marriage. RPC Art. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved. he must be fully aware of the consequences of a marriage celebrated with all the necessary requisites. His consent thereto was freely given. Several months after. she asserts that Villaluz had committed bigamy. De Mijares vs.

 that  he  is  not  barred  from   instituting another case. Alcantara Facts: Mallion filed a petition with San Pablo City RTC seeking declaration of nullity of his marriage with Alcantara alleging the  respondent’s  psychological  incapacity.. Sajiron Lajim. but she refused.  for  argument’s  sake. In the morning of the following day and brought AAA to the house of Egap. his declining years of life and the fact that he had rendered some years of commendable service to the judiciary cannot be denied. running towards them and carrying a bolo. Maron. and financial resources by litigating the same controversy over again. covered her mouth with a piece of cloth.Digested by: De Guzman. suddenly appeared with a gun and told AAA to come with them. The judiciary would be squandering time. They tried to run away. Nine days 101 . which she was not able to read. Gravador. The petitioner is barred from instituting another suit where the cause of action is the same (declaring nullity of his marriage with Alcantara). J. 1 Jul 1994—AAA was fetching water from the cave together with her aunt Sajiron arrived. he has already impliedly conceded the validity of his marriage when he instituted the first case. but Sajiron held AAA’s  and  threatened  to  kill  her  if  she  does  not  go  with  him. Issues: WON res judicata applies. CCC. Facts: (This is actually a rape and kidnapping  case  but  let’s  just   concentrate on the marriage aspect of the case. and violated her. When AAA refused. Flores. Sajiron and Maron tied her hands behind her back. During the entire time that AAA was being abused by Sajiron. Thus the court decided to suspend him for 2 years but with specific warning that a more severe penalty shall be impsed should he commit the same or similar offense. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. After the decision attained finality. Maron stood guard and watched them. People of the Philippines Nature: An appeal from the Decision of the CA affirming the Decision of Palawan RTC finding accused Sajiron Lajim and Maron Lajim guilty of the crime of abduction with rape and finding accused Egap Madsali and Sajiron Lajim guilty of the crime of serious illegal detention. he is only invoking a different ground which is the lack of marriage license. Egap asked AAA if she wanted to marry Sajiron.15 yr old victim. Although evidence shows that the respondent failed to meet the standard of moral fitness for continued membership in the legal profession. The appeal in the CA was likewise dismissed.) (Note: AAA. Castillo. Salanguit. Mallion vs.her dad) Palawan. Egap Madsali.  This  petition  was   denied. Sajiron instructed Egap to guard AAA and to shoot her if she would attempt to escape. In the second case. When Inon Dama left the place. And assuming. A. Yu. BBB. where she was detained in a room. he filed the same petition with San Pablo RTC this time on the grounds that the marriage is without a valid marriage license. Sajiron's father. Madarang. brought her to the forest. This admission binds the petitioner and cures the alleged defect of his marriage. AAA was then forced to sign an unknown document.   Inon Dama was as well threatened with death so she went home and reported the incident to AAA's mother. and Maron Lajim vs. No disbarment. would the lack of marriage license render the marriage null and void? Held: Res Judicata applies and lack of marriage license cannot render the marriage null and void.her mom. effort. Morales. The respondent for her part moved to dismiss the petition invoking the principle of res judicata. Assuming it does not.

Gravador. 2001. Salanguit. If one of the parties is validly married to another. He alleged that he  is  a  male  transsexual. Yu. CCC also claimed to have talked with BBB that they were both amenable to the marriage and that he and BBB were present during the marriage. after the abduction. AAA stayed in one room with Sajiron. Issue: WON the marriage between AAA and Sajiron is valid Held: No. he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok. 1994. or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing under such valid marriage. Felizmenio. (144a) Silverio vs Republic Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate.. and his sex from male to female. Legal Capacity i. Morales. After the marriage.”   And   so   he   underwent   psychological   examination. While detained. In the absence of proof to the contrary. Gender FC Art 2 Par 1 cf. he lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. children and mother-in-law. AAA did not try to escape. FC Art 148. only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money. not causing any harm to anybody if petition 102 . The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. upon instruction of Egap.  “anatomically   male  but  feels.  Thus  without  the  consent  of  AAA’s  parents  in   addition to the presence of intimidation and lack of consent on the part of AAA makes the marriage invalid. From then on. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article. On January 27. Further. and breast augmentation. The only reason why AAA filed the criminal charges against because he did  not  pay  the  dowry  of  10k  to  AAA’s  parents. Flores. AAA and Sajiron were married by Imam Musli Muhammad. or on July 11. J. their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. his or her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding article. hormone treatment. AAA and Sajiron lived in the house of Egap. He sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely.   and acts as   a   female.Digested by: De Guzman. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. Castillo.  thinks. his allegation that his wife was present during the marriage celebration was also controverted by the testimonies of AAA and Imam Musli Muhammad.  CCC  testified   that Sajiron courted his daughter and proposed marriage after 3 years of courtship. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another. and her captors threatened to kill her and her family if she would attempt to escape. The testimony of CCC supporting the defense was found to be made out of self serving interest. (KAWAWA NAMAN ANG BATANG TO  ) 2. The marriage was solemnized against AAA's will and without the presence of her parents. because her house was very far from the place where she was held captive. together with the latter's wife. A. property. Madarang. Defense: Sajiron and AAA had been engaged for 3 years prior to their elopement and that the sex was consensual. Essential Requisites a. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of Rommel on the grounds of upholding the principles of justice and equity.

 In  this  instant  case. it will allow the union of a man and another man who has undergone sex reassignment. and so no correction is necessary. But the Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. Felizmenio. o Rommel failed to show any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is not allowed o Art. J. even with the consent of the parents. Petitioner moved for reconsideration thus this petition Issues: WON   a   person’s   first   name  can   be  changed   on   the   ground   of   sex reassignment WON a change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is allowed Held: No. not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 80 to 84. Madarang. This particular case however is not one such error. is granted. rendering its decision in favor of the Republic. amended by RA 9048. not judicial. 412. Castillo.  ii. Yu.. Salanguit. insofar as clerical/typographical errors are involved provides that corrections can be made administratively. without any judicial order.  the  petitioner’s  birth   certificate contains no error. 103 . For instance. A. Age NCC Art. To correct means that there was an error in the  first  place. Flores. tainted with dishonor. may contract marriage. to grant the changes sought by the petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter many laws. a change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment is not allowed Ratio  A   person’s   first   name   can’t   be   changed   on   the   ground   of   sex   reassignment o RA 9048 provides grounds for which change of first name may be allowed  If the name is ridiculous. Gravador. 80 The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the male and female respectively. CA then alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.   a   person’s   first   name   can’t   be   changed   on   such   aforementioned ground No. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. or extremely difficult to write or pronounce  New first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community  The change will avoid confusion o The petition was filed in the wrong venue for the reason that proceedings of this nature are primarily administrative (should have filed in the local civil registrar). 54 Any male of the age of sixteen years or upwards. and any female of the age of fourteen years or upwards. Morales. and no presenting of evidence that shows cause to deny the petition. on marriage and family relations.Digested by: De Guzman. (2) NCC Art. o Finally.

Morales. Madarang. Recio became an Australian citizen  January 12. the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. 1994 – Rederick married a Filipina. 1998 – Grace Garcia-Recio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy July 7. their conjugal assets were divided   March 3. 1998 – while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending. in Malabon. under scandalous circumstances.  June 26. shall have sexual intercourse. Flores. --. Recio. or. in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City  In his application for marriage license. an Australian citizen. Grace GarciaRecio. Castillo. it ought to be noted that before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value. provided it is consistent with their respective national laws o However. Rederick declared that he was single and Filipino  From October 22. respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney. 344 Concubinage. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro. Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce  is  “validly  obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating  him  or  her  to  remarry” o A divorce obtained abroad by a couple. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. may be recognized in the Philippines. Yu. 104 ..Digested by: De Guzman. Absence of Impediment Garcia vs. 1995 onwards – lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage  May 16. J. Felizmenio. 1987 – Rederick A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1992 – Rederick A. Gravador. Rizal but they lived in Australia  May 18. 1996 – while the two were still in Australia. Australia because the marriage had irretrievably broken down Issues  WON the divorce between Rederick Recio and Editha Samson is valid and proven  WON Rederick was proven to be legally capacitated to marry Grace Garcia Held   Yes No Ratio  The divorce between Editha and Rederick is valid and proven o In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner. who are both aliens. Recio Nature  Petition for review Facts  March 1.Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. with a woman who is not his wife. 1989 – a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by an Australian family court. was married to Editha Samson. shall be punished by prision coreccional in its minimum and medium periods. or shall cohabit with her in any other place. a Filipino. Salanguit. A. iii. RPC Art.

Yu. Salanguit. However. which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored   respondent’s   capacity   to   remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. Gravador. The first kind terminates the marriage. he alleged that Choa concealed her pregnancy by another man at the time of their marriage and that she was psychologically incapacitated  November 8. A. 1989 was submitted in evidence. counsel for petitioner objected. 1990 – Te filed an action for the annulment of his marriage to Choa on the ground that he was forced to marry her. 1990 – Choa filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative case against Te and Santella for the revocation of their respective engineering licenses on the ground that they committed acts of 105  . o Fortunately   for   respondent‘s   cause.   when   the   divorce   decree of May 18.. Furthermore. o The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. Rederick was not proven to be legally capacitated to marry Grace Garcia o Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. Hence. respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws. while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. o On its face. not to its admissibility. compliance with the evidentiary rules must be demonstrated. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Madarang.”  This  quotation  bolsters  the  court’s   contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. Choa Facts  September 14. But divorces are of different types.   petitioner‘s   failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney. 1989 – Choa gave birth to a girl.   subject   to   petitioner‘s   qualification. There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. Castillo. The trial court ruled   that   it   was   admissible. it was admitted in evidence and accorded   weight   by   the   judge. 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary. Flores. 1990 – Choa charged Te with bigamy  July 20. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Australia. Te vs.   Indeed. By becoming an Australian. but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. 1988 – Arthur Te and Liliana Choa were married in civil rites but they did not live together after the marriage although they would meet each other regularly  April 21. J. Hence. the court finds no basis for the ruling of the trial court. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. o Compliance with the quoted articles (11.   A   party   to   a   marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence  of  bigamy. Morales. the herein Australian divorce decree contains   a   restriction   that   reads:   “1.Digested by: De Guzman. appearance is not sufficient. Petitioner stopped visiting her  May 20. Felizmenio. 1990 – Te contracted a second marriage with one Julieta Santella  August 9.

1994 – CA affirmed decision of RTC  No         Issues  WON CA committed a serious error in refusing to suspend the legal (criminal and administrative) proceedings despite the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage  WON CA gravely abused its discretion and committed an error of law in not holding that the demurrer to evidence should have been given due course  WON CA committed a serious legal error in not holding that the trial judge (a quo) should have inhibited himself Held   No No Ratio  CA did not err in refusing to suspend the legal (criminal and administrative) proceedings despite the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage o The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s   marriage   to   private   respondent had no bearing   upon   the   determination   of   petitioner’s   innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy. immorality by living together and subsequently marrying each other despite her subsisting marriage with Te.. a marriage. even one which is void or voidable. and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption of marriage exists. o Article 40 of the Family Code states that absolute nullity of a previous marriage may not be invoked for purposes of remarriage unless there is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Morales. Gravador. Yu.  CA did not gravely abused its discretion and committed an error of law in not holding that the demurrer to evidence should have been given due course o First. Salanguit. Flores. Thus. 1990 – Trial  court  denied  petitioner’s  demurrer   to evidence Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court judge. 1991 – PRC  denied  Te’s  motion He filed with the CA another petition for certiorari. Te committed an act of falsification by stating in his marriage contract with Santella that he was still single Prosecution rested its case in the criminal case for bigamy Te then filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court and motion to inhibit the trial court judge for showing antagonism and  animosity  towards  petitioner’s  counsel during the hearings of said case November 28. shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding o Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. Judge Cezar Peralejo He also filed a motion for the suspension of proceedings with the PRC July 16. Felizmenio. Also.   petitioner’s   allegations   in   the   demurrer   were   insufficient to justify the grant of the same 106 . the prosecution established a prima facie case for bigamy against the petitioner o Second. J. Castillo. for this must be submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of a marriage is so declared can it be held as void. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. under the law. Madarang. because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted. contending that the PRC board committed grave abuse of discretion August 31.Digested by: De Guzman. A.

107 . J. with the approval of the proper head of Department. 5 cf. exhibit to the local civil registrar. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality It was not mandatory that the judge inhibit himself from hearing and deciding the case 3. Consent freely given by both spouses a. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 4 of the preceding article: (1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties. 45 (2). Said official may also by regulations fix and collect fees for the authorization of priests and ministers to solemnize marriages. 5 (refer to pg. are between the ages of 18 and 21. Effect of Insanity (FC Art. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: (1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude. mother. 1) NCC Art 95. In case either of the contracting parties is a widowed or divorced person. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. CA did not commit a serious legal error in not holding that the trial judge (a quo) should have inhibited himself o Grounds raised by petitioner against Judge Peralejo did not conclusively show that the latter was biased and had prejudged the case o Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar. the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the decree of the divorce court. (61a) FC Art. the party shall make an  affidavit setting forth this circumstance and his or her actual civil status and the name and the date of the death of the deceased spouse. The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license. shall be attached to said applications. Castillo.. 46. in the order mentioned. Effect of Fraud (FC Art. Yu. or in the form of an affidavit made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law to administer oaths. Salanguit. Morales. In case the death certificate cannot be found. (36a) 4. 35 (5). 1) c.Digested by: De Guzman. FC Art. is hereby authorized to prepare the necessary forms and to promulgate regulations for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Title. (2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage. Mistake as to identity FC Art. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles. Madarang. 1) cf. Gravador. Felizmenio. if one is executed instead. refer to pg. 86 (1). surviving parent or guardian. 45 (3). NCC Art. NCC Art 61. (refer to pg. refer to pg. as the case may be. or persons having legal charge of them. and the affidavit. they shall. b. Parental Consent FC Art. instead of the baptismal or birth certificate required in the last preceding article. 1) FC Art. not having been emancipated by a previous marriage. A. the consent to their marriage of their father. The public official in charge of registration of priests and ministers. 14 In case either or both of the contracting parties. the same shall be required to furnish. Flores.

it should be serious and should have not been employed by both contracting parties. upholding the validity of the marriage. habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. (3) Concealment of a sexually transmissible disease. without them. Castillo. 1954 – Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation   Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint of Fernando. (86a) NCC Art. A. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable. Flores. Yu. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. There is fraud when. the other is induced to enter into a contract which. health. he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his Aurora contended that such non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret on the part of the defendant that definitely wrecked their marriage. or (4) Concealment of drug addiction. Morales. (1270) Anaya vs. and granting Aurora’s  counterclaim While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated. J. Fernando had divulged that several months prior to their marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. Madarang. Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages. Palaroan Nature  Appeal from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Facts  December 4. Salanguit. or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties. (1269) NCC Art. he would not have agreed to. fortune. 1953 – Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married  January 7. which apparently doomed to fail even before  it  had  hardly  commenced  constituted  “fraud” Aurora prayed for the annulment of the marriage and for moral damages Fernando denied the allegations and set up the defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppel for her having prayed the validity of marriage and her having enjoyed the support that had been granted to her Fernando counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint but for its dismissal with respect to the alleged moral damages      Issues  WON the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with another woman constitute fraud and therefore is a ground for annulment of marriage  WON   Aurora’s   contention   that Fernando paid court to her without any intention of complying with his marital duties and obligations and covertly made up his mind not to live with her constitute fraud and therefore is a ground for annulment of marriage Held 108 . regardless of its nature.. 1338. Felizmenio. No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character. 1344. Gravador. rank. existing at the time of marriage.

Madarang. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. 1988 – Orlando Villanueva and Lilia Villanueva got married in Puerto Princesa. No. and undue influence (FC Art. which may be a cause of annulment.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu. (n) Villanueva vs. or was ignorant or in financial distress. Effect of force. descendants or ascendants. Salanguit. and this ground was only pleaded in 1966 . serious or irresistible force is employed. sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind. or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness. comes under Article 85. Castillo. Felizmenio. the age.   “no   other   misrepresentation  or  deceit  as  to…  chastity”  shall  give   ground for an action to annul a marriage  Aurora’s   contention   that   Fernando   paid   court to her without any intention of complying with his marital duties and obligations and covertly made up his mind not to live with her does not constitute fraud and therefore is not a ground for annulment of marriage o This ground is already barred o Any secret   intention   on   the   husband’s   part   not   to   perform his marital duties must have been discovered by the wife soon after the marriage. hence. There is violence when in order to wrest consent. 1) NCC Art.  if   the claim is just or legal. Morales. There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property. does not vitiate consent.   No No d. family. 45 (4). refer to pg. 1335. A  threat  to  enforce  one’s  claim  through  competent  authority. Palawan Canalita109 Ratio  Non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman does not constitute fraud and therefore is not a ground for annulment of marriage o Fraud as a vice of consent in marriage. CA Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Facts  April 13. or upon the person or property of his spouse.   providing   that. spiritual. (1267a) NCC Art. 4 of the Civil Code o Such fraud is limited exclusively by law to those kinds of fraud enumerated in Article 86 o Non-disclosure   of   a   husband’s   pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment and it is further excluded by the last paragraph   of   the   article. 1337. her action for annulment based on the fraud should have been brought within four years after the marriage o The wedding was celebrated in December 1953. Gravador. To determine the degree of intimidation. and other relations between the parties. depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another. intimidation. to give his consent. J. A. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential.

Effect of physical incapacity/ impotence (FC Art. that is.  November 17. thus. 1988 Lilia prayed for dismissal of the petition on the grounds that: o Orlando freely and voluntarily married her o He stayed with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage o He wrote letters to her after he returned to Manila. A. J. Canizares Nature: Appeal for the judgment of CFI. Salanguit. Yu. 1992 – Orlando filed a petition for annulment of his marriage on the grounds that: o threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying Lilia who was already pregnant o he did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage o he never cohabitated with her after the marriage o he  later  learned  that  Aurora’s  child  died  during  delivery   on August 29. 110  Issues  WON the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent as alleged by the appellant  WON petitioner should be liable for moral and exemplary damages  as  well  as  attorney’s  fees  and  costs Held   No Yes  for  attorney’s  fees.  moral  and exemplary damages cannot be awarded for lack of factual and legal basis e. Flores. 1) Jimenez vs. Castillo. 45 (5). Morales. 1992 or after a span of 4 . Orlando worked as a security guard in a bank. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. during which she is visited by Orlando personally o He knew about the progress of her pregnancy years and eight months when Orlando took serious step to have the marriage annulled  Prolonged in action evidently finds basis in Lilia’s   allegation   that   this   annulment   suit   was   filed by Orlando solely in the hope that a favorable judgment would bolster his defense. refer to pg.  no  for  moral  and  exemplary  damages Ratio  Orlando freely and voluntarily married Lilia. duress or violence compelled him to do so o Despite the alleged coerced consent which supposedly characterized his marriage with Lilia on April 13. it is reasonable to assume that he knew the rudiments of self-defense or the proper way of keeping himself out of  harm’s  way o Instead of providing proofs that he was tricked into marrying his wife.;  however. Felizmenio. if not altogether bring about his acquittal in the criminal case for bigamy which was then pending against him o At the time he was allegedly being harassed. no threats or intimidation. appellant resorted instead into undermining the credibility of his wife o The letters admitted by Orlando contained expressions of love and concern for his wife. 1988. Gravador. Madarang. it was only on November 17.Digested by: De Guzman. and hardly the rantings of a man under duress o (on  the  side)  Appellant’s  claim  that    his  married  should   be annulled due to lack of cohabition between him and his wife is not allowed for lack of cohabitation per se is not a ground to annul a marriage Attorney’s  fees  may  be  awarded..

48. that the condition of her genitals existed at the time of the marriage and continues to exist. She was surprised that she was not advised by his arrival. and because of these.    Upon  learning  of  this. After 12 days from their marriage. upon the gorund that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation.    She  then  went  to  Rey’s  parents’  house  where  she   was informed that he had been living with his parents since his arrival. f. A. Gravador. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. he proceeded  to  his  parents’  house. When he arrived. Morales. a co-teacher informed her that he was about to come home to the Philippines. Yu. Madarang. Issues: WON Rey is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations Held: Petition is denied for Veronica failed to prove that his husband was really psychologically incapacitated. Formal Requisites 111 . was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. About a year and a half. Castillo.  she  went   to her brother-in-law who claimed that he was not aware of his whereabouts. She tried to call him 5 times but he never answered. Facts: Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his marriage to Remedios Canizares before a judge of the municipal court in Zamboanga City.   Thereafter. 45 (6).. Issues: whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband Held: The decree of CFI that annuls the marriage is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. After their wedding the two lived for five days in the hometown of  Rey’s  parents. he never contacted her. FC Art. Effect of affliction with STD (FC Art. he did not communicate with his wife by phone or by letter. 36. he did not go home to her house. Salanguit. Alcazar Nature: Petition for Review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals that denied her petition for annullment Facts: Veronica Alcazar alleged that she was married to Rey Alcazar. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Alcazar vs. She asserted that since his arrival. they went back to Manila but Rey did not live with Veronica. J. at the time of the celebration. no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. 1) 5. Flores. She concluded that he was physically incapable (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) of consummating his marriage with her. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph. refer to pg. Instead. Art. he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. While working there. Rey left for Riyadh where he worked. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. A marriage contracted by any party who.

infidelity in the custody of detained prisoners and requirement of filing fees from exempted entities. Cosca vs. 29. It was only a year after when Castro discovered she was pregnant.000 on Palapayon with a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offenses in the 112 . Felizmenio. et. For the first accusation. And. falsification of the monthly reports of cases.    With  her  counsel’s  help. including the marriage license. Castro gave birth. Marriage License Republic vs. Then.    Edwin  personally  attended   to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage. Morales. or other person jointly interested with the party. with the consent of Cardenas. their cohabitation only lasted for 4 months. may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. they parted ways.Digested by: De Guzman.   she found out that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage. bribery in consideration of an appointment in the court. The  couple  did  not  immediately  live  together  for  castro’s  parents   know nothing about the marriage. J. Issues: WON the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by Castro are sufficient to establish are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued to the Civil Registrar of Pasig prir to the celebration of the marriage of the couple. Deciding to follow her daughter. Yu. Issues: WON the allegations are true Held: The Court imposes a fine of P20. Salanguit. joint debtor. Held: Petition by Republic is denied there being no showing of any reversible error committed by CA ROC Rule 132 Sec. Palaypayan Nature: Administrative Matter in the SC Facts: Cosca. she wanted  to  finalize  her  marital  status. The baby was adopted by her brother. Castillo.al charged Palaypayon Jr and Baroy with illegal solemnization of marriage. he said that it was just a simulation and not the real thing. CA Nature: Petition for Review on certiorari of the decision of the CA declaring the marriage void Facts: Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony in Pasay City. Flores. Admission by co-partner or agent. — The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency. The marriage contract itself stated that a marriage license was issued in Pasig City. On Octobr of the same year. A. Gravador. The marriage was celebrated without the  knowledge  of  Angelina’s  parents. with regard to the pictures taken showing that he solemnized the marriage of a couple. However. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. that they lived together. a. Palaypayon argues that he did not solemnize the 5 weddings stated by the plaintiffs for there is no date and place written in the marriage contract and he did not affix his signature there.. Madarang. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner. The baby is now in the US. non-issuance of receipt for cash bond received.

Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. Fernando left their conjugal house. A. The petition was granted and the custody of her daughter was given to her while her son was to her husband.  that  they’ve  been  living   separately for more than a year and that they voluntarily entered into a MoA containing the rules that would govern the dissolution of their conjugal partnership. NCC CHAPTER 2 MARRIAGES OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER Art. Yu. priest. On 1992. In case either of the contracting parties is on the point of death or the female has her habitual residence at a place more than fifteen kilometers distant from the municipal building and there is no communication by railroad or by provincial or local highways between the former and the latter. Castillo. with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to employment in any branch. attempt by respondent against her life and abandonment of her without justifiable cause. and the children were in the custody of the mother. Salanguit. agency or instrumentality of the government. This was denied by the RTC and CA. in which latter case he shall give the name of the barrio where the marriage was solemnized. Flores. Gravador. Issues: WON their marriage is void from the beginning for lack of marriage license at the time of ceremony and WON Fernando is psychologically incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration Held: Petition is granted The marriage is declared void ab initio for lack of marriage license at the time of the celebration. It was granted plus the cutody of the children was given to her. she filed a criminal action for attempted parricide against her husband.. but in such cases the official. CA Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC denying the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of the spouses Filipina and Fernando Sy. they lived separately. 72. On 1987.  their  son  transferred  to  his  father’s  residence  on  1988   and lived with him. Filipina filed a petition for legal separation but later amended it to separation of property on the grounds that Fernando  abandoned  her  without  cause. Facts: Filipina and Fernando were married in 1973 when they were both 22 years old. Later she filed for legal separation on the grounds of repeated physical violence. future will definitely be severely dealt with. Baroy is dismissed from the service. J. sexual infidelity. But the RTC only convicted Fernando of slight physical injuries and sentenced him of 20 days imprisonment. Since then. Morales. Felizmenio. including GOCCs. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. However. Let copies of the decision be spread on their records and furnished to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action. Their marriage begot 2 children. The person who solemnized the 113 . Sy vs. In 1983. she filed a petition for absolute nullity of her marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity of her husband. the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license. or minister solemnizing it shall state in an affidavit made before the local civil registrar or any person authorized by law to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or at a place more than fifteen kilometers distant from the municipal building concerned. On 1988.

They met a person who. When the couple went back to the OCR. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. that he took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and that there was in his opinion no legal impediment to the marriage at the time that it was solemnized. J. they parted ways and live separate lives. to push through with the plan. Facts: Petitioner and respondent met and became sweethearts in 1991. for a fee. they executed an affidavit the next year stating that they had been living together as husband and wife for at least five years. the marriage license had already expired. Flores. without securing the required marriage license. He prayed that after due hearing. De castro is the legitimate child of petitioner and at the marriage between petitioner and respondent is valid until properly nullified by a competent court in a proceeding instituted for that purpose. (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage. in either case. 8. 53. Gravador. Alcantara vs. Ratio: Art.Digested by: De Guzman. Morales. Aquilino Navarro. and had regularly engaged in sex thereafter. (2) Their consent. Felizmenio. Salanguit. Issue: Was the marriage void? Held: Petition denied.. Yu. De Castro Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA declaring that Reianne Tricia A. Three years later. They went to another marriage ceremony the following year without securing a marriage license. Nov 1995. Castillo.   she   has   been   the   one   supporting   her   out   of   her   income as a government dentist and from her private practice. judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering Civil registrar to cancel the marriage contract and its entry on file. marriage shall also state. they both went back to their respective homes and did not live together as husband and wife. 114 . freely given. 1982. Since child’s   birth. arranged their wedding before a certain Rev. The marriage having been solemnized on Dec. Madarang. she gave birth to Rose Ann. After the ceremony. and (4) A marriage license. A. The alleged marriage license appearing in the marriage contract is a sham as neither party was a resident of Carmona and they never went there to apply for a license. They planned to get married thus they applied for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil Registrar of pasig City in Sept 1994. The couple got married on the same date. or before effectivity of FC. applicable law to determine its validity is NCC which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. respondent gave birth to reianne Tricia. Alcantara Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA denying Restituto’s  appeal  and  affirming  the  decision  of  the  RTC  dismissing  his   petition for annulment of marriage. Two years later. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties. went to Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage for them. except in a marriage of exceptional character De Castro vs. Thus. They had their first sexual relation sometime in the next month. Facts: A petition for annulment was filed by Restituto against Rosita alleging that he and respondent. They got married on the same day.

claiming that their marriage is void ab initio since the marriage was facilitated by a fake affidavit.  and  that  he  was  not  able  to  get  his  parents’   consent. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings. However. Reluctantly. He initially refused to do so. (RTC ruled the marriage void. Yu. Madarang. She alleged that she is married to him and that he has   “reneged   on   his   responsibility   to   financially   support   her   and  her  child. upon a pre-arranged signal from Felisa. Castillo. Binan. attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity. Jose gave his version of the events which led to his filing of the same. However. he was introduced to Felisa in 1986. In lieu of marriage license. Felisa requested to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall. Felizmenio. Republic vs. as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the parties. Jose filed a Complaint for annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). the petitioner was declared the natural father and obliged to give support. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property. that he did not execute the sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife for at least five years. Facts: On 24 November 1986. Gravador. They were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the package could be released to Felisa. Jose and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit. also dated 24 November 1986. According to Jose. and gave them to the man who immediately left. they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham. he signed the pieces of paper. Branch 25. he came to live as a boarder   in   Felisa’s   house. A. Felisa cajoled him. and that he was merely prevailed upon by respondent to sign the marriage contract to save her from embarrassment and possible administrative prosecution due to her pregnant  state. Morales. and told him that his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother who had learned about their relationship. Immediately thereafter. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. He also averred that they never lived together as husband and wife and that he has never seen nor acknowledge the child. On 7 July 1993. Dayot Petition for review on certiorari of amended decision of the CA which declared the marriage between Dayot and Felisa void ab initio. In his Complaint. and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action. Jose and Felisa were married at the Pasay City Hall. 34. Laguna. a man bearing three folded pieces of paper approached them. and that his consent to the marriage was secured through fraud. It was in February 1987 when 115 . ostensibly so she could claim a package sent to her brother from Saudi Arabia. such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.   Some   three weeks later.” Petitioner denied that he is married to her.   the   latter   being   his   landlady. Issue: WON the court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in an action for support and WON the child is the daughter of the petitioner. Ratio: NCC Art. she filed a complaint for support against petitioner. Flores. Three years after.. At the Pasay City Hall. Salanguit. and that being unmarried. J.Digested by: De Guzman. Held: Decision of CA set aside and the decision of RTC is reinstated.

each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following: (1) Full name of the contracting party.. He alleged that he saw a piece of paper lying on top of the table at the  sala  of  Felisa’s  house  and  he  discovered  that  it  was  a  copy of his marriage contract with Felisa.Digested by: De Guzman. fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. 12. J. (8) Full name. (3) Age and date of birth. how. rank. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 4 of the preceding article: (1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties. A. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular official. 2. A marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar fo the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides except in marriages where no license is required in accordance with Chapter 2 of this Title. Gravador. and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for two years or more. Castillo. Yu. the latter feigned ignorance. Salanguit. Ratio: NCC Art. Decision of CA is affirmed. Morales. residence and citizenship of mother. (6) Present residence and citizenship. (3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage. The local civil registrar. The applicants. proof of capacity FC Art. upon receiving such application. shall require the presentation of the original birth certificates or. (4) Civil Status. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude. consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the Philippines. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. 10. Flores. Issue: Was the marriage valid? Held: Petition is denied. in case the contracting party has neither father nor mother and is under the age of 21 years. their parents or guardians shall not be required to exhibit their residence certificates in any formality in connection with the securing of the marriage license. No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character. residence and citizenship of guardian or person having charge. in default thereof. Requirements for issuance a. (75a) 3. When he confronted Felisa. 86. and (10) Full name. Felizmenio. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by a consul-general. (59a) b. Where to apply FC Art. when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled. (7) Degree of relationship of the contracting parties. Madarang. 10. (58a) FC Art. Where a marriage license is required. the baptismal certificates of the contracting parties or 116 . Application FC Art. (2) Place of birth. (9) Full name. he discovered that he had contracted marriage with Felisa. residence and citizenship of father. 9. (5) If previously married.

instead of the birth or baptismal certificate required in the last preceding article. the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of the absolute divorce. or in the form of an affidavit made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law to administer oaths. (60a) FC Art. 84. such party may furnish in lieu thereof his current residence certificate or an instrument drawn up and sworn to before the local civil registrar concerned or any public official authorized to administer oaths. The signature and official title of the person issuing the certificate shall be sufficient proof of its authenticity. mother. or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage. in lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required.. not having been emancipated by a previous marriage. as stated in the application. (61a) FC Art. Castillo. and the place and date of birth of such party. No marriage license shall be issued to a widow till after three hundred days following the death of her husband.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. Flores. Morales. Yu. be convinced that either or both of them have the required age. In case either or both of the contracting parties. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles. copies of such documents duly attested by the persons having custody of the originals. the applicant shall be required to furnish. or persons having legal charge of them. If either of the contracting parties is unable to produce his birth or baptismal certificate or a certified copy of either because of the destruction or loss of the original or if it is shown by an affidavit of such party or of any other person that such birth or baptismal certificate has not yet been received though the same has been required of the person having custody thereof at least fifteen days prior to the date of the application. The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license. they shall. 14. J. When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country. Gravador. 13. The presentation of birth or baptismal certificate shall not be required if the parents of the contracting parties appear personally before the local civil registrar concerned and swear to the correctness of the lawful age of said parties. setting forth the full name. unless in the meantime she has given birth to a child. In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married. surviving parent or guardian. submit an affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage. In case the death certificate cannot be secured. if one is executed instead. and the affidavit. shall be attached to said applications. to submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage. These certificates or certified copies of the documents by this Article need not be sworn to and shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax. A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall. 21. if known. the party shall make an affidavit setting forth this circumstance and his or her actual civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse. residence and citizenship of such contracting party and of his or her parents. in their default. the consent to their marriage of their father. who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar. Madarang. in the order mentioned. (61a) FC Art. The nearest of kin of the contracting parties shall be preferred as witnesses. it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained. or. exhibit to the local civil registrar. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party. persons of good reputation in the province or the locality. Felizmenio. (66a) NCC Art. are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. (n) Sevilla vs. Cardenas Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA which set aside the decision of the RTC declaring the nullity of the marriage of the parties 117 . Such instrument shall contain the sworn declaration of two witnesses of lawful age. by merely looking at the applicants upon their personally appearing before him. or when the local civil registrar shall. issued by their respective diplomatic or consular officials.

this fact shall be stated in the sworn statement. Salanguit. Felizmenio. shall be attached to the application for marriage license. This notice shall request all persons having knowledge of any impediment to the marriage to advise the local civil registrar thereof. 15. (62a) d. Publication FC Art. Madarang. A.Digested by: De Guzman. 16. If they do not obtain such advice. Castillo. marriage counseling FC Art. duress and intimidation employed upon him by Carmelita   Cardenas   and   the   latter’s   father. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Should the parents or guardian refuse to give any advice. According to Jaime. through machinations.   the father caused him and Carmelita to sign a marriage contract. In case of any impediment known to the local civil registrar or brought to his attention. c. On her part. No filing fee shall be charged for the petition nor a corresponding bond required for the issuances of the order.. He was stopped from invoking the lack of marriage license after having been married to her for 25 years. Facts: Jaime Sevilla claimed that on May 1969. or if it be unfavorable. Decision of CA is affirmed. The notice shall be posted for ten consecutive days on a bulletin board outside the office of the local civil registrar located in a conspicuous place within the building and accessible to the general public. Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and twenty-five shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for advice upon the intended marriage. parental advice FC Art. Failure to attach said certificates of marriage counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application. (64a) g. if any. The marriage license shall be issued after the completion of the period of publication. 17. the party or parties concerned shall. Morales. (63a) f. he never applied for a marriage license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and never did they obtain any marriage license from any Civil Registry. e. attach a certificate issued by a priest. unless ordered otherwise by a competent court at his own instance or that of any interest party. he shall note down the particulars thereof and his findings thereon in the application for marriage license. but shall nonetheless issue said license after the completion of the period of publication. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles. Flores. Issue: Was the marriage valid? Held: Petition is denied. In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed. Gravador. investigation of impediments FC Art. Both marriage were registered with the local civil registry. Yu. 18. the marriage license shall not be issued till after three months following the completion of the publication of the application therefor. imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. together with the written advice given. she claims that they were married civilly and in a church ceremony.     On   the   said   date. payment of fees 118 . A sworn statement by the contracting parties to the effect that such advice has been sought. The local civil registrar shall prepare a notice which shall contain the full names and residences of the applicants for a marriage license and other data given in the applications. Issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. J.

J. (n) FC Art. 27.A DECREE REQUIRING APPLICANT FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE TO RECEIVE INSTRUCTIONS ON FAMILY PLANNING AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD 4. The license shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days from the date of issue. 29. (72a) FC Art. In the cases provided for in the two preceding articles. Gravador. the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives. The original of the affidavit required in the last preceding article. Period of validity (FC Art. Salanguit. or by their oath before the local civil registrar. Marriages exempt from license requirement FC Art. 28. It shall be the duty of the local civil registrar to prepare the documents required by this Title.. 20. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar. 25. the solemnizing officer shall state in an affidavit executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party. the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license. Felizmenio. shall be sent by the person solemnizing the marriage to the local civil registrar 119 . specifying the barrio or barangay. 20. (65a) 5. Castillo. refer above) 6. Flores. 19. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (65a) h. Morales. and to administer oaths to all interested parties without any charge in both cases. be issued free of charge to indigent parties. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death. Place where valid FC Art. 24. Duties of the Civil Registrar FC Art. Yu. is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar and that the officer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of legal impediment to the marriage. and such other data as may be necessary. 965 . family planning certificate PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. The documents and affidavits filed in connection with applications for marriage licenses shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax. FC Art. No other sum shall be collected in the nature of a fee or tax of any kind for the issuance of said license. Alcantara (see digest above) 7. Madarang. The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a registry book strictly in the order in which the same are received. (72a) FC Art. (72a) FC Art. together with the legible copy of the marriage contract.Digested by: De Guzman. however. He shall record in said book the names of the applicants. (n) Alcantara vs. the date on which the marriage license was issued. The local civil registrar shall require the payment of the fees prescribed by law or regulations before the issuance of the marriage license. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold characters on the face of every license issued. A. that is those who have no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for their subsistence a fact established by their affidavit. 30. It shall. and shall be deemed automatically canceled at the expiration of the said period if the contracting parties have not made use of it.

Morales. 76. Flores. (n) PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. (74a) FC Art. Madarang. Castillo. 76 of the NCC  have  been  met  and  that  the  Judge’s  official  duty  ion   connection therewith has been regularly performed. Both parties agreed to keep the marriage secret until Tabang finishes his law studies to be able to ensure a stable future. 1083 – A DECREE TO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE A CODE RECOGNIZIN G THE SYSTEM OF FILIPINO MUSLIM LAWS. Defense: marriage is void ab initio due to the absence of the requisites of Art. (76a) NCC Art. Facts: Evangeline Leda seeks for Atty. And that when he applied for the bar he honestly believed that he was single. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. J.  Trebonian  Tabang’s   disbarment for lack of good moral character. of the municipality where it was performed within the period of thirty days after the performance of the marriage. Felizmenio. CODIFYING MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS. Salanguit. priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. The official. Art. Gravador. Tabang Nature: Administrative case in the SC for disbarment. 32. 76. Held: No. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight. 76 of the NCC He could not have abandoned the complainant for they never lived as husband and wife.Digested by: De Guzman. whether members of the armed forces or civilians. 34. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage. desire to marry each other. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. 33. being unmarried. (74a) FC Art. but also during stopovers at ports of call. 31. Petitioner alleged that the respondent made use of his legal knowledge to contract an invalid marriage (assuming that the marriage was indeed invalid) and that he had misrepresented  himself  as  “single”  in  his  application  for  the  bar   when the truth was the contrary. 120 . Respondent cannot assume that his marriage with the complainant is void. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Leda vs. A military commander of a unit. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.. The presumption is that all the requisites and conditions of a exceptional character under Art. (78a) FC Art. Issues: WON the lack of requisites under NCC Art. A. The two contracted a marriage of an exceptional character under Art 76 of the NCC. rites or practices. Yu. provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs. (75a) FC Art. have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. who is a commissioned officer. 76 would render the marriage void. shall likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation.

Caloocan City. The judge believed that on the basis of (A) the affidavits submitted by the participants of the second marriage which 121 . Bayadog Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA dismissing  the  petitioners’  appeal  for  declaration  of  nullity  of   their  father’s  marriage  to  his  second  wife. and that the continuity must be unbroken. Ninal vs. And WON petitioners can assail the  validity  of  their  father’s  marriage  considering  that  he  has   already died.  There  should  be  no  exemption  from   securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of exemption.” Judge answered in saying that he did not know that Manzano was legally married with someone else and that he only knew that Manzano and Payao have been cohabiting as husband and wife for 7 years. Ninal and respondent Bayadog married w/o a marriage license but executed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 yrs and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. This case was filed under the assumption that the validity/invalidity of the second marriage would  affect  the  petitioners’  succession  rights. Yu. mother of the petitioners. Ninal shot her and caused her death (wonder why he  didn’t  get  charged  with   parricide).  Pepito  and  Norma’s  marriage  was  void  so  it  never   existed. Held: Marriage is void ab initio and can thus be assailed even after the death of one of the parties. Gabriel the Archangel Parish in Araneta Avenue. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1966 at St. A. Article 47 does not apply. 76 of the NCC applies. 1993 David Manzano married Luzviminda Payao. thus Art. Facts: Pepitio Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones. Court has ruled that the 5 yr cohabitation contemplated in Art 76 should be counted back from the date immediately before the celebration of marriage. In this case the 5 year cohabitation clearly could not have happened since the parties got married only 20 mos.  Respondent   moved to dismiss the petition for lack of cause of action. 1 yr and 8 mos after her death. J. On March 22. Felizmenio. Void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party. The marriage of Ninal and Bayadog took place when the FC was not yet in effect.Digested by: De Guzman. Madarang. Flores. Issue: WON marriage between Manzano and Payao is valid. Held: Yes and Yes. Manzano vs. Judge Sanchez Facts: Hemrminia Borja claims to have been the lawful wife of the late David Manzano and that they were married on May 21. Issues: WON the marriage is valid. After the death  of  Ninal’s  first  wife. It should be characterized by exclusivity—meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years. Petitioner contends that Judge Sanchez must have known that the marriage would be bigamous and void as the marriage contract clearly states that both contracting  parties  were  “separated.. Castillo. Morales. Gravador. However on 11 Dec 1985. Voidable marriages can be assailed during the lifetime of the parties and so the action prescribes. And WON Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law. Salanguit.

74. ministers of the gospel of any denomination. or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general. (3) Judges of the Courts of First Instance. rabbi. De Castro (see digest above) Republic vs. religion or sect. consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10. he can marry them both. duly registered. Castillo. A marriage in articulo mortis may also be solemnized by the captain of a ship or chief of an airplane during a voyage. Morales. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight. who is a commissioned officer. (56a) FC Art. 56. (2) The Presiding Justice and the Justices of the Court of Appeals. during war. (75a) FC Art. but also during stopovers at ports of call. (4a) NCC Art. (4) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned. 10. The duties mentioned in the two preceding articles shall be 122 . or by the commanding officer of a military unit. (3) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the case mentioned in Article 31.. as provided in Article 92. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular official. whether members of the armed forces or civilians. and consuls and vice-consuls in special cases provided in Articles 74 and 75. Yu. (5) Any consul-general. Madarang. (5) Municipal judges and justices of the peace. military commanders. 7.Digested by: De Guzman. likewise only in the cases mentioned in Article 32. Dayot (see digest above) (b) Authority of the Solemnizing Officer 1. (6) Priests. Felizmenio. stated that they were separated and been cohabiting for five years+. J. Flores. in the absence of the latter. church. and it does not grant the legal status to enable marriage. The SC finds the judge grossly ignorant of the law. Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. rabbis. and the (B) Family Code Article 34 that states that those who have been cohabiting for five years may get married without a license. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by a consul-general. consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the Philippines. and it only allows exemption from procuring a marriage license. De Castro vs. The FC does not allow cohabitation with another to dissolve existing marriage bonds. A military commander of a unit. 31. in the absence of a chaplain. 32. (74a) FC Art. (74a) NCC Art. Salanguit. airplane chiefs. acting within the limits of the written authority granted by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect. (2) Any priest. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction. Who are authorized FC Art. A. imam. (4) Mayors of cities and municipalities. during a military operation. and (7) Ship captains. Gravador. shall likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation.

likewise. 2000 – Petitioner and Orobia filed their Application for Marriage License however neither of them claimed it  February 17.   Mercedita’s   right   to   inherit   the vast properties left by Orobia was not recognized. however. Felizmenio. Duties. Flores. 2001 – A  clerk  informed  the  judge  that  they  can’t  issue   the marriage license due to failure of Orobia to submit the Death Certificate of his previous spouse Since   the   marriage   was   a   nullity. Gravador. Yu. having been assured that al the documents to the marriage were complete Furthermore. and activities of the municipal government. Camarines   Sur   which   is   outside   the   judge’s   territorial   jurisdiction o The Office of the Civil Registrar General and the Local Civil Registrar of Nabua both have no record of their marriage o Orobia then had a difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of traveling to Balatan which is 25 km from his residence in Nabua so they requested that the judge solemnize the marriage in Nabua May 8. 76. The Chief Executive: Powers. airplane chief or commanding officer. 2001 – In his comment. the municipal mayor shall: (1) Exercise general supervision and control over all programs. (b) For efficient. .(a) The municipal mayor. A. due to the pleas of the parties. Functions and Compensation. J. respondent judge refused at first to solemnize the marriage when he discovered that the parties did not possess marriage license. Salanguit. 2001 – Petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so the latter could communicate with the Office of the Local Registrar of Nabua for the issuance of her marriage license May 9. she was deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia Mercedita prays that sanctions be imposed against Judge Occiano July 5. (n) RA 7160 SEC. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. Madarang. services. 444. as the chief executive of the municipal government. respondent judge averred that he was just requested by a certain Juan Arroyo to solemnize the marriage of Dominador and Mercedita. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman who have attained the age of majority and who. complied with by the ship captain. have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. The official. (n) NCC Art. effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code. shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other laws. and in this connection. he proceeded to solemnize such out of human compassion 123       . Castillo. desire to marry each other. shall: (xviii) Solemnize marriages. Morales..Digested by: De Guzman. any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. 2000 – Judge Salvador Occiano solemnized Mercedita   Aranes’   marriage   to   her   late   groom   Dominador   Orobia without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua. being unmarried. projects. ARANES vs OCCIANO Nature  Administrative matter in the Supreme Court Facts  January 5. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

. 1994 – Judge Domagtoy solemnized the wedding between Tagadan and Borga despite knowledge that the Tagadan is merely separated from his first wife o Judge stated that he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey. thus. confirming the fact that Mr. respondent judge still cannot avoid the liability for violating the law on marriage  Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license o It is the marriage license which gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage o Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of the petitioner. Felizmenio. A.  September 12. Surigao del Norte) o Judge argued that he did not violate Article 7 (1) of the Family Code which states that marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent member of the judiciary within  the  court’s  jurisdiction.Digested by: De Guzman.   there   is   a   resultant irregularity in the formal requisite which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage. J. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven years  October 27. 1994 – Judge Domagtoy is alleged to have performed a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo   and   Gemma   del   Rosario   outside   his   court’s   jurisdiction (Dapa. Gravador. Madarang. Yu. Salanguit. 2001 – Mercedita filed her Affidavit of Desistance. Morales.;  and  that  Article  8  thereof   applies to the case in question Issue  WON Judge Domagtoy gross misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law Held  Ratio 124 Yes Issue  WON judge is guilty of solemnizing a marriage without duly issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction Held  Yes Ratio  Respondent judge should be faulted for solemnizing marriage outside his jurisdiction o Judges who are appointed to specific jurisdictions may officiate in wedding only within said areas and not beyond. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his   court’s   jurisdiction. may subject the officiating official to administrative liability o Despite the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the petitioner. she said that it was because of her prodding and reassurances that the judge solemnized her marriage and she is now bothered by her conscience NAVARRO vs DOMAGOTOY Nature  Administrative matter in the Supreme Court Facts  September 27. Samar. he acted in gross ignorance of the law . Flores. Castillo.

a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a subsequent marriage. Yu. head. priest. 93. marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent member of the judiciary within  the  court’s  jurisdiction. pastor or minister shall likewise be ordered upon the request of the bishop. (36a) NCC Art. head. upon receiving such sworn statement containing the information required.  In Tagadan and Borga wedding o The law is clear. How Authorized [FC Art 7 (2) refer to pg1] NCC Art. or religion. (n) 125  2. or lawful authorities of the denomination. Freedom of religion shall be observed by public officials in the issuance of authorization to solemnize marriages. or religion to solemnize marriage shall send to the proper government office a sworn statement setting forth his full name and domicile. Salanguit. rabbi. church. Even if the spouse present has wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. Gravador. church. upon showing that the church. the law is clear. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. guardians. and other acts or omissions relative to the celebration of marriage shall remain and continue to be in force. The existing laws which punish acts or omissions concerning the marriage license. Flores. or region of the applicant operates in the Philippines. (35a) NCC Art. sect. 96. on his own initiative or at the request of any interested party. Noncompliance therewith will not invalidate the marriage. church. sect or religion to which he belongs. solemnization of marriage. 92. no public official shall attempt to inquire into the truth or validity of any religious doctrine held by the applicant or by his church. attaching to said statement a certified copy of his appointment. Said priest or minister or rabbi shall be obliged to exhibit his authorization to the contracting parties. or rabbi authorized by his denomination. or minister. or persons in charge demanding the same. sect. (34a) Art. Article 8 refers only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the preceding provision. sect or religion whose ministers have been authorized to solemnize marriage is no longer in operation. No priest or minister not having the required authorization may solemnize marriage. The public official in charge of registration of priests and ministers. 95. Felizmenio. church. or religion to solemnize marriage. with the approval of the proper head of Department. and that he is authorized by his denomination. o Respondent judge was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa. Consequently. (n) NCC Art. Said official may also by regulations fix and collect fees for the authorization of priests and ministers to solemnize marriages. is hereby authorized to prepare the necessary forms and to promulgate regulations for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Title. Morales. Under Article 7. a mandatory requirement incorporated in the Family Code o Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding o Such neglect or ignorance of the law has therefore resulted in a bigamous and therefore void marriage In Sumaylo and Rosario wedding o Again. Castillo. and being satisfied that the denomination. sect. Madarang. shall record the name of such priest or minister in a suitable register and issue to him an authorization to solemnize marriage.. grandparents. sect. The cancellation of the authorization granted to a priest. to their parents. pastor or minister of the gospel of any denomination. Every priest. authority to solemnize marriages. 94. The . The public official in charge of registration of priests and ministers shall cancel the authorization issued to a bishop. A.Digested by: De Guzman. church. Surigao del Norte o Court finds respondent to have acted in gross ignorance of the law director of the proper government office.

being an ecclesiastic. Nueva Ecija  Paraiso won the mayoralty race  Vilar then protested that Paraiso was ineligible to hold office as mayor because he was then a minister of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines and such was disqualified to be a candidate under section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code  Vilar also prayed that he be declared duly elected mayor of Rizal in lieu of Paraiso  Paraiso denied his ineligibility and claimed that he resigned as minister of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines on August 21. Yu. and his resignation duly accepted. Felizmenio. Flores. a copy of his alleged resignation as minister knowing full well that a minister is disqualified by law to run for a municipal office  It is true that respondent attempted to substantiate his claim by submitting evidence certain documents purporting to show the alleged resignation and its acceptance by the cabinet of his church at a meeting but one cannot help but brand them as selfserving or as documents merely prepared to serve the political designs of respondent in an attempt to obviate his disqualification under the law o If one examines the minute book. but declaring petitioner as mayor-elect for lack of sufficient legal grounds to do so Issue  WON Paraiso. being an ecclesiastic and consequently. one would get the impression that it was prepared haphazardly and not with seriousness and solemnity o Such lead the court to believe that the supposed resignation and acceptance were made at a later date to cure the ineligibility of the respondent 126 . but equally to keep it informed of any change in his religious status o This information is necessary for the protection of the public. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. A. 1951. Morales. J. as claimed. Salanguit.Digested by: De Guzman. especially so with regard to authority to solemnized marriages  He failed to attach to his certificate of candidacy. PARAISO Nature  Appeals from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija Facts  Pedro Vilar and Gaudencio Paraiso were among the candidates registered and voted for the office of mayor of Rizal. Paraiso did not resign Ratio  Paraiso remains to be ecclesiastic for he failed to resign in due form and have the acceptance of his resignation registered with the Bureau of Public Libraries o The purpose of registration is two-fold: to inform the public not only of authority of the minister to discharge religious functions. Gravador. Madarang. Paraiso is ineligible to hold office No.. thereby removing his disability Held   Yes. is ineligible to hold office  WON Paraiso actually resigned as minister before the date of the elections. and that his resignation was accepted by the cabinet of his church  The trial court found respondent to be ineligible for mayor. VILLAR vs. it declared his proclamation as mayor null and void. Castillo.

J. 1948 – Mamerto  Escańo  received  a  letter   disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor and one Pacita Noel o June 1948 – the newlyweds were already estranged o June 24. Tenchavez v. that she intended to return after two years o August 22. 1954 – Vicenta married an American. Madarang. entirely mental in character o October 21. 1950 – decree of divorce was rendered final and absolute o 1951 – Escańos  filed  a  petition  with  the  Archbishop  of   Cebu  to  annul  their  daughter’s  marriage  to  Pastor o September 13. and those which have for their object public order. Yu. (n) FC Art.”  NCC 17. Castillo. 352. par 3 – “Prohibitive   laws   concerning   persons. 1950 – she filed a verified complaint for divorce in the State of Nevada the ground of extreme cruelty. or to the status. 1958 – Vicenta acquired an American citizenship 127 . A. 1950 – Vicenta applied for a passport indicating in her application that she was single and that her purpose was to study and that she was domiciled in Cebu. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so. criminally and administratively liable. – Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect. Flores. Gravador.” 3.  even  though  living  abroad.   their   acts or property. Felizmenio. Escano Related Provisions  NCC 15 – “Laws  relating  to  family  rights  and  duties. A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly. and finally. or by Nature  Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Facts  Significant dates o February 24. Russell Leo Moran o August 8. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. RPC Art.. Effect of Absence of Authority FC Art. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens  of  the  Philippines. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio.Digested by: De Guzman. except as stated in Article 35 (2). determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. 35. Salanguit. or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. Cf. Morales. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated. 1948 – Vicenta   Escańo   (27)   exchanged   married vows with Pastor Tenchavez (32) without the knowledge of her parents (duly registered with the local civil register) o February 26.

and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. 1948 marriage is valid o Both parties were above the age of majority o Both consented to the marriage o Marriage was performed by a Catholic Priest in the presence of competent witnesses .;   Vicenta’s   divorce   and   second   marriage   is   not   valid o The Civil Code does not admit absolute divorce o Vicenta’s   marriage   and   cohabitation   with   Russell   Moran entitles Techavez to a decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery   Issues    Held  4. the copy of the marriage certificate. Felizmenio. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate. the original of the marriage license and. Gravador. 23. It shall be the duty of the local civil registrar to prepare the documents required by this Title.. o July 30. The documents and affidavits filed in connection with applications for marriage licenses shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax. this appeal Whether  or  not  Vicenta  and  Pastor’s  marriage is valid Whether or not their marriage is subsisting and undissolved Whether  or  not  Vicenta’s  divorce  and  second  marriage  is  valid Decision under appeal is hereby modified o Pastor is entitled to a legal separation o Vicenta is sentenced to pay Pastor for damages and attorneys’  fees o Pastor   is   sentenced   to   pay   the   Escańos   by   way   of   damages  and  attorneys’  fees  Tenchavez falsely charged which caused them unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages o The very act of Vicenta suing for divorce implies admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding Their marriage is subsisting and undissolved under the Philippine   law. Yu. 24. 1955 – Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance  of  Cebu  against  the  Escańos  whom  he  charged   for dissuading their daughter from him  Falsely  charged  the  Escańos  which  caused  them   unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages  The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation. to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized. Madarang. in proper cases. Duties of the Solemnizing Officer FC Art. (68a) FC Art. just freedom of plaintiff from supporting his wife and acquiring properties to the exclusion of wife Thus. Effect of irregularity 128 Ratio  February 24. (n) 5. Castillo. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. A.Digested by: De Guzman. the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in place other than those mentioned in Article 8. Morales. Salanguit. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of the marriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after the marriage. and to administer oaths to all interested parties without any charge in both cases. Flores.

provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs. which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing officer. 32. chapel or temple. except in cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. 8.. for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. (57a) Martinez vs. 3. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license. Morales. who is a commissioned officer. (53a. and MARON LAJIM v PEOPLE (please refer to the previous set of digests) 2. and not elsewhere. consul or vice-consul. (78a) FC Article. Castillo. Madarang. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar. or where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect. Flores. (72a) FC Art. Yu. In the cases provided for in the two preceding articles. the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license. A military commander of a unit. (c) Marriage Ceremony (1) form of ceremony FC Art. (72a) FC Art. shall likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation. 55a) FC Art. however. SAJIRON LAJIM. J. 33. It shall be necessary. 29. Gravador. (74a) 3. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. whether members of the armed forces or civilians. 28. Issuance of Marriage Certificate 129 . in the church. Felizmenio. rites or practices. A. or in the office the consul-general. Place of Ceremony FC Art. (55a) FC Art. Tan EGAP MADSALI. The formal requisites of marriage are: (3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. In case of a marriage in articulo mortis. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. it shall be sufficient for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said party. when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage certificate. is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar and that the officer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of legal impediment to the marriage. 6. specifying the barrio or barangay. the solemnizing officer shall state in an affidavit executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party. as the case may be.

if any. o 2 Kinds of acknowledgment: 130 . The marriage certificate. Morales. Laguna shows tha Pedro and Flaviana had a child. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. attaching a copy thereof. (5) That either or both of the contracting parties have secured the parental consent in appropriate cases. Madarang. Felizmenio. A. the child was named Melecio Perez w/ Flaviana as the mother and no mention of the father o July 8. Domingo de Leon o Eulogio died and when Flaviana was widowed. Flaviana and Pedro got married o July 9. and (7) That the parties have entered into marriage settlement. J. sex and age of each contracting party. Castillo. Children shall be considered as legitimated by a subsequent marriage only when they have been acknowledged by the parents before or after the celebration thereof. Gravador. 121. (3) The date and precise time of the celebration of the marriage.. 22. Yu. shall also state: (1) The full name. 1920 – Flaviana died leaving behind Pedro. 1920 – in her deathbed. (6) That either or both of the contracting parties have complied with the legal requirement regarding parental advice in appropriate cases. in which the parties shall declare that they take each other as husband and wife. (67a) o June 17. (2) Their citizenship. Flores. FC Art. Melecio and Domingo o May 2. 1928 – Domingo died o Defendants Gonzalo de Leon et al contend that the trial court erred when it declared that:  Pedro  and  Flaviana’s  marriage  is  valid  Pedro  and  Flaviana’s  subsequent  marriage   legitimated Melecio  Melecio is the rightful heir of the property left by de Leon Issue: WON  Pedro  and  Flaviana’s  marriage  is  valid  even  w/o  the   marriage  cert  and  if  Melecio  was  legitimated  by  his  parents’  marriage MADRIDEJO v DE LEON Facts:   The  trial  court  held  that  Melecio  was  Domingo’s  next  of  kin   and is the rightful successor of the property Back story: o Eulogio de Leon and Flaviana Perez were married and had one child. 1917 – registry of births of the municipality of Siniloan. religion and habitual residence.  what  needs  to  be  validated  is  WON  his  parents’   marriage legitimated him o Article 121 of the Civil Code provides:  Art.Digested by: De Guzman. except in marriage provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title. she lived w/ Pedro Madridejo o June 1. (4) That the proper marriage license has been issued according to law. 1917 – a child was christened at the parish church of Siniloan. Salanguit. Melecio Madridejo Held: The  Court  reversed  the  lower  court’s  decision  Just because the parish priest did not send a copy of the MC to the municipal secretary does not mean that Pedro and Flaviana’s  marriage  was  not  valid o Forwarding  a  copy  of  the  MC  is  not  one  of  the  law’s   requirement for a marriage to be valid  There is no attempt to deny WON Melecio is the son of Pedro and  Flaviana.

When the child has been in the uninterrupted possession of the status of a natural child of the defendant father. the provisions of the Penal Code with regard to the acknowledgment of the issue. justified by the conduct of the father himself of that of his family. When an indisputable paper written by him.  Matilda  Taborada.. The mother may be compelled to acknowlegde her natural child: 1. 131. shall be observed. together  with  his  father  went  to  Susana’s  and  Elias’  hut o The two peeped through the bamboo slats of the hut and saw Susana lying on the floor. seduction. the Civil Code requires that he take a judicial action against his parents to compel them to recognize him. expressly acknowledging his paternity. Yu. 2.  Compulsory acknowledgment by the father:  Art. o No document shows that Melecio was not voluntarily acknowledged by his parents  o In order for Melecio to be compulsory acknowledged. Madarang. Salanguit. J. is in existence.year old niece of Elias and Susana Borromeo reported  to  Susana’s  mother. Gravador. or abduction. Morales. When the fact of the birth and the identity of the child are fully proven. in a will. Castillo. The father may be compelled to acknowledge his natural child in the following cases: 1.  that  Susan  was asking for help because Elias was killing her o Matilde seek the help of her son. 3. or in some other public document. Voluntary by the mother or father:  Art. Flores. The acknowledgment of a natural child must be made in the record of birth. 1981 – 4. apparently dead. In cases of rape.Digested by: De Guzman. Geronimo who. included in any of the cases mentioned in the next preceding article. 2. Elias was holding a bloody kitchen bolo o The police were called and arrested Elias who asked to be allowed to smoke first before surrendering o Susana was found dead with her intestine spilling out of her abdomen o Susana died due to the stab wounds Elias contends that the trial court erred when it held that: o He and Susana were legally and validly married in a church wedding ceremony when the officiating priest testified otherwise and they had no MC so he should only be liable for homicide o In failing to appreciate in his favor the mitigating circumstances of provocation or obfuscation and voluntary surrender w/o any aggravating circumstance to offset the same o In convicting him of parricide and imposing on him reclusion perpetua 131 . 135. her one-month child was crying beside her. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Felizmenio. When the child is. something  which  he  haven’t  done PEOPLE v BORROMEO Facts:   July 3. with respect to the mother. A.  Compulsory acknowledgment by the mother:  Art. 136.

in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. and not immorality. Castillo. to submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage. all the requirements for its validity were present  Person living together in apparent matrimony are presumed. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated. Prohibitive laws concerning persons. There is the presumption that persons living together as husband and wife are married to each other. wills. submit an affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage. admitted that he was married to Susana  Non-existence of MC does not invalidate a marriage as long as during its celebration. in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case. the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. public order. (11a) (b) As to substantive requirements NCC Art. and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being. Issue: WON Elias and Susana were legally and validly married Held: The  Court  affirmed  the  lower  court’s  decision  and  increased  the   indemnity to be paid by the defendant  In his testimony. it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained.Digested by: De Guzman. A. E. 15. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. The law presumes morality. for their object. The forms and solemnities of contracts. and those which have. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines. Yu. Special rule in marriage (a) lex loci celebrationis FC Art. (As amended by Executive Order 227) FC Art. (4). When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country. and not bastardy. 216) The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known in law. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. 26. and not concubinage: legitimacy. General rule in contracts (a) As to form NCC Art 17. (17a) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Elias. to be in fact married. (66a) 132 . shall also be valid in this country. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Son Cui vs. and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. they would be living in constant violation of decency and law. LAW GOVERNING VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES ABROAD 1.. 22 Phil. Flores. Felizmenio. 21. The reason is that such is the common order of society. 3637 and 38. (5) and (6). J. upon being asked. Laws relating to family rights and duties. issued by their respective diplomatic or consular officials. their acts or property. Morales. or to the status. marriage. and valid there as such. Madarang. Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall. (9a) 2. except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1). Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Guepangco. When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country. in lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required. even though living abroad. Salanguit.

and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1931 in China o The other oppositors are the LC of the deceased w/ Yao Kee o Sze Sook Wah. Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy are acknowledged natural children of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego. the eldest. Manuel Sy. Manuel Sy. Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy are IC And appointed Sze Sook Wah as administratrix CA modified the decision: o Aida Sy-Gonzales. willing. Manuel Sy. an unmarried woman w/ whom he lived as husband and wife w/o the benefit of marriage o Sook Wah. 1977 . is competent. Castillo. FC Art.000 Aida Sy-Gonzales. J. Gravador. and desirous to become administratrix The probate court held that: o Yao Kee and Sy Kiat were legally married o Sook Wah. a Chinese national.Digested by: De Guzman. consul or vice-consul of the Republic of the Philippines. Madarang. Flores. Felizmenio. Salanguit. Morales. 10..  Yao’s  and  Sy  Kiat’s  marriage  can’t  be   recognized by Philippine law  Yao Kee said that there was no solemnizing officer in their wedding as is known here in the Philippines  Back story: 133 . A. died in his residence in Caloocan City leaving real and personal properties amounting to P300. (75a) o Aida Sy-Gonzales. Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen are LC Issue: WON Sy Kiat  and  Yao  Kee’s  marriage  in  China  has  been   proven valid in accordance w/ laws of China Held: The  Court  affirmed  CA’s  ruling  Petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on marriage o Yao  Kee’s  and  Gan  Ching’s  (her younger brother) testimonies  cannot  be  considered  as  proof  of  china’s   law or custom on marriage not only because they are self-serving but they are also not competent to testify on the matter o For failure to prove the foreign law or custom and the validity of the marriage in accordance w/ that law or custom.Sy Kiat. Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition for the grant of letters of admin and alleged that: o They are the children of Asuncion Gillego o Sy Kiat died w/o a will o They  do  not  recognize  Sy  Kiat’s  marriage  to  Yao  Kee   nor the filiation of her children to him o They nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales as administratrix of the intestate estate of Sy Kiat Yao Kee Sze Sook Wah. Yu. The issuance of the marriage license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemnizing officer with regard to the celebration of marriage shall be performed by said consular official. Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen opposed the petition and alleged that: o Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat whom he married on Jan 19. Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen are acknowledged natural children of Sy Kiat with Yao Kee since the legality of their marriage in China has not been proven as valid o Affirmed the administrator  YAO KEE v SY-GONZALES Facts:     January 17. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be solemnized by a consul-general.

awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. Salanguit. 1981 – Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva got married at United Church of Christ in Lam-an. Madarang. They have one daughter. Filipino. since the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence that his wife was indeed naturalized and has remarried. Kristoffer Simbortriz and Lady Kimberly 1986 – Myros left for US w/ son Kristoffer A few years later. Illinois (Illinois court) a divorce decree against petitioner. the Court is unable to declare that the respondent is now capacitated to marry DACASIN v DACASIN For review is a dismissal of a suit to enforce a post-foreign divorce child custody agreement for lack of jurisdiction. through OSG. respondent sought and obtained from the Circuit Court. In June 1999. The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement. In its ruling. Yu. Sy Kiat admits to being married to Yao  Kee  and  to  having  children  w/  her  that’s  why  Yao   Kee’s  children  were  considered  as  Sy  Kiats   acknowledged natural children REPUBLIC v ORBECIDO III Facts:       May 24. Castillo. who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried. On 28 January 2002. 19th Judicial Circuit. Respondent undertook to obtain 134 Issue: WON Cipriano can remarry under Art 26 of the FC . also to remarry o This is to avoid the absurd situation wherein the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien spouse is not married anymore to him/her o The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of celebration of the marriage. Stephanie. Flores. and that the practice during that time was a written docu is exchanged bet the parents of the bride and of the groom or any elder o In several docus. petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie. filed for review contending that par 2 of Art 26 of the FC is not applicable to this case bec it applies only to marriage bet a Filipino citizen and an alien o Also suggests that Cipriano should file for annulment/legal separation instead Held: The  Court  granted  the  Republic’s  petition  Par 2 of Art 26 of the FC should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen. and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin. Facts: Petitioner Herald Dacasin. but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry  However. Gravador. American. J.. Cipriano learned that Myros has been naturalized as US citizen 2000 – Cipriano learned from Kristoffer that Myros divorced Cipriano and married Stanley who she now lives with in California Cipriano filed at theRTC for petition to remarry invoking par 2 of Art 26 of FC which the lower court granted Republic. Ozamis City o They had children. o Yao Kee claimed that her marriage to Sy Kiat took place in accordance w/ Chinese custom and that in this custom. born on 21 September 1995.Digested by: De Guzman. Lake County. the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. there is no MC. A. Morales. were married in Manila in April 1994.

paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction. and (3) the Agreement is void for contravening Article 2035. Thus. it is in the interest of swift and efficient rendition of justice to allow the parties to  take  advantage  of  the  court’s  jurisdiction. and valid there as such.Digested by: De Guzman. Ratio:  Instead  of  ordering  the  dismissal  of  petitioner’s  suit. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even 135 . from  the  Illinois  court  an  order  “relinquishing”  jurisdiction  to   Philippine courts. 35. shall also be valid in this country. equity may be invoked  to  serve  the  child’s  best  interest.  submit  evidence  on  the   custodial  arrangement  best  serving  Stephanie’s  interest. raising the new argument that the divorce decree obtained by respondent is void. we remand the case for the trial court to  settle  the  question  of  Stephanie’s  custody. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.[30] As the question of custody is already before  the  trial  court  and  the  child’s  parents. Flores. Salanguit. FC Art. 26. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. A. respondent exercised sole custody over Stephanie. in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. the divorce decree  is  no  bar  to  the  trial  court’s  exercise  of  jurisdiction over the case. b. 3637 and 38. the divorce decree is binding on petitioner under the laws of his nationality. Issue: whether the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s  suit  and  enforce  the  Agreement  on  the  joint  custody  of  the   parties’  child. including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.  and  let  the   trial court render judgment. Felizmenio. Held: RTC: In its Order dated 1 March 2005.  Stephanie  is  now  nearly   15 years old.  the  logical   end to its lack of cause of action. (2) the divorce decree is binding on petitioner  following  the  “nationality  rule”  prevailing  in  this   jurisdiction. Morales. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines. This disposition is consistent with the settled doctrine that in child custody proceedings. Branch 60. Madarang.. the trial court sustained respondent’s  motion  and  dismissed  the  case  for  lack  of  jurisdiction. Gravador.   The trial court held that: (1) it is precluded from taking cognizance over  the  suit  considering  the  Illinois  court’s  retention  of  jurisdiction  to   enforce its divorce decree. holding that unlike in the case of respondent. (5) and (6). thus removing the case outside of the ambit of the mandatory maternal custody regime under Article 213 and bringing it within coverage of the default standard on child custody proceedings – the best interest of the child. Castillo. Branch 60 (trial court) to enforce the Agreement. In 2004. J. except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1). Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint for.  lack  of  jurisdiction  because  of  the  Illinois  court’s  retention  of   jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree. among others. petitioner sued respondent in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. SC: REVERSE the Orders dated 1 March 2005 and 23 June 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Exceptions FC Art. Petitioner alleged that in violation of the Agreement.  by  executing  the   Agreement. initially showed inclination to share custody. the trial court denied reconsideration. Petitioner sought reconsideration. (4). In its Order dated 23 June 2005. Yu. (17a) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

A. (4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child. until after the termination of their cohabitation. 38. and shall be owned by them in equal shares. (19a) F. FC Art. or his or her own spouse. (6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter. such share shall belong to the innocent party. polygamous. the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. Salanguit. 136 . In the absence of proof to the contrary. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. (7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter. (3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law. Gravador.. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. (4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41. with the consent of parents or guardians. (2) Between step-parents and step-children. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy: (1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate. without the consent of the other. 147. live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. J. FC Art. the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. at the time of the celebration. and (2) Between brothers and sisters. For purposes of this Article. killed that other person's spouse. work or industry. COMMON-LAW  MARRIAGES/  “LIVE-IN”   RELATIONSHIPS FC Art. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants. and valid there as such. (5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child. All marriages performed outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed. 71. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. up to the fourth civil degree. shall also be valid in this country. a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common. Madarang. (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other. FC Art. 36. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. In the absence of descendants. each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. Yu. 37. with the intention to marry the other. Flores. Morales. properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. NCC Art. A marriage contracted by any party who. whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate: (1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree. (8) Between adopted children of the same adopter. or incestuous marriages as determined by Philippine law. In all cases. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. and (9) Between parties where one. When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. whether of the full or half blood. except bigamous.

A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first story. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. Yu. (397a) Art. NCC Title III. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other coowners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement. the courts may afford adequate relief. Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority as determined in Article 492. Morales. intimidation. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. if the titles of ownership do not specify the terms under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses and there exists no agreement on the subject. The share of the co-owners. 489. In default of contracts. Madarang. he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph. (393a) Art. in the benefits as well as in the charges. (n) Art. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing owned in common. but he must. Felizmenio. without the consent of the others. There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by 137 . co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title. (394a) Art. 491. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common. the stairs from the first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all. the following rules shall be observed: (1) The main and party walls. provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the coownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal. shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata. Gravador. RPC Art. first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. the roof and the other things used in common.CO-OWNERSHIP Art. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person. or of special provisions. the floor of the entrance. 487. If neither of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence. Castillo. (396) Art. shall be proportional to their respective interests. None of the co-owners shall. 488. shall contact marriage is in disregard pf a legal impediment. the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. 486. express or implied. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to different owners. (395a) Art. and so on successively. J. front door. 485. with the exception of the owner of the ground floor. However. Flores. make alterations in the thing owned in common. 492. if practicable. (3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata. (392) Art. or fraud. (n) Art. shall be preserved at the expense of all the owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to each. Salanguit. . Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. who without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article. (2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of his story. 484. 490. if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the coownership. unless the contrary is proved. 350.Digested by: De Guzman. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void. common yard and sanitary works common to all. even though benefits for all would result therefrom. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners..

and he may therefore alienate. shall be limited to the portion which may be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. (401a) Art. (403) Art. there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. except when personal rights are involved. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common. after partition. servitude or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. (n) Art. 501. Felizmenio. 497. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. and the remainder is owned in common. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498. assign or mortgage it. Madarang. This term may be extended by a new agreement. shall be valid. 494. unless there has been fraud. (399) Art. Should there be no majority. 493. 496. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed. Nevertheless. Salanguit. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (n) Facts: LESACA v LESACA . Upon partition. shall order such measures as it may deem proper. be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the other co-owners. Morales. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it. A. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not prejudice third persons. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage. without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity.. insofar as his share is concerned. Yu. J. who shall retain the rights of mortgage. at the instance of an interested party. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners. Gravador. Likewise. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. 495.Digested by: De Guzman. 500. or should the resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common. when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. Castillo. the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership. including the appointment of an administrator. Flores. (404) Art. with respect to the co-owners. not exceeding ten years. (398) Art. each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. (402) Art. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. 498. (400a) Art. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the coowners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others. Every co-owner shall. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the coownership shall also remain in force. notwithstanding the partition. 499. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. the preceding provision shall apply only to the part owned in common. the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in 138 common. the court. (405) Art. and even substitute another person in its enjoyment. an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article.

WON: 139 1. two children from his first marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. In another order. The fact that the money was returned after the marriage cannot make it conjugal property. Widow and deceased lived together since 1924 but did not get married till December 18. his 2nd wife. Madarang. His will stated that Juana Lesaca and Consuelo Lesaca. totaling P2955. Salanguit. it is not conjugal property. thus one-half goes to the widow. thus she was entitled to one-half of it. on March 11. Money received after the marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the land was conveyed to Baldomero by Ramon Garcia. 1949. 1946. be his co-executrices. this refers to property obtained during the . which shall be deducted from their inheritance share once it exceeds what they are entitled to as fruits or income. 1949. No. Yes. Baldomero J. 188 of NCC) directs that surviving spouse and his or her children should be given allowance. the two minor children of the widow Juana were granted P100 for living expenses plus P300 for their matriculation and uniforms. In another order. the widow claimed that the 1040  cavans  of  palay  received  as  rent  on  decedent’s  land  should  be   considered conjugal property. as purchase price of land sold a retrovendondo before such marriage.83. 1945. and was survived by Juana Felix. The court ruled in favor of the widow. constitutes conjugal property or not 3. The co-executrices then appealed to the higher court. 3. thus it was not conjugal. 1041 states that allowances for support are not subject to collation. It is considered part of the deceased’s  estate.  1949. Ratio: 1.  On  March  11. and three natural children from a third woman. In 1930. 3. Flores. and that she is entitled to one-half of it.  thus  the  widow  is  NOT  entitled  to  one-half. The co-executrices refused to do this. 2. Lesaca died on November 8. two of their minor children. Although Art. Art. 2. A. on April 29. The 1040 cavans of palay is considered conjugal property Held: 1. 1430 of the CC of 1889 (re-enacted as Art. Gravador. The co-executrices argued that the rent was harvested on June-July. Felizmenio. the widow claimed that the sum of P2500 as repurchase price of the land is conjugal property. 1946. The allowances for the support of the minors are subject to collation (deductible from their share of the inheritance) 2. they are subject insofar as the amount exceeds what they are title to as fruits or income. saying that the amounts for support should be charges against the minors’  share  of  the  inheritance. 1401 of 1889 CC declares that property obtained by work of the spouses belongs to the spouses. the children from his first marriage. Morales. J. this applies to property or rights received during the lifetime of the decedent.  the  court  ruled   that the amounts be deducted from their inheritance only insofar as they exceed what they are titled to as fruits or income. after the death of Baldomero (which caused the dissolution of their marriage). 1. Castillo. Yes. the crop of palay is conjugal property.. Yu. Although Art. In the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court ruled in favor of the widow. and ordered the co-executrices to deposit all the amounts for the minors. 2.

17. Felizmenio.probate  court  declared  Virginia  Yaptinchay  (Isidro’s   legitimate  daughter)  as  SA  for  Isidro’s  estate. Jun. VOID MARRIAGES General Rule: 140 .Virginia resisted the restraining order. Salanguit. and Teresita  can’t  shake this possession by having a writ of injunction issued. Teresita has not proved her contributions to the NF house. What is important is the date of the accrual. Held: No.  Persons  and Personality”  heading) ESTRADA v. and this she failed to do. YAPTINCHAY v TORRES Facts: A common-law  wife  arguing  with  the  legal  family’s  possession  of  a   North Forbes house. including the NF house.. Morales.Teresita Yaptinchay. Aug. 3. 1965 . She must first prove that she has contributed to the property.   thus. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the house was constructed  on  Isidro’s  lot  during  his  marriage  with  Josefina. Teresita then filed on Pasig CFI an action for replevin and liquidation of properties. Teresita’s  MR  was  denied. 1965 . July 17. 1965 . (wooh! waaw! asteeg! :) Of course she had no right.15 and 28.the judge (Torres) temporarily restrained Virginia from disposing any of the involved properties including the NF house. J.  it  should  fall  under  Virginia’s  administration. Flores. alleged 19-year common-law wife of Isidro Yaptinchay. 2) The properties are legitimate conjugal properties between Isidro and his legal wife Josefina. Castillo. VELEZ (please  check  the  digest  w/  “IV. ESCRITOR (please  check  digest  w/  “FC  Art  1  …. The palay was planted after the marriage (June or July 1946). Furthermore.  she  doesn’t  have.  Hence.. A. Issue: Whether or not Teresita has SA powers on the NF house. Aug. and the cease and desist order was issued against Teresita. 1966 – Virginia was ruled to be still the SA. marriage.”   heading  it’s  there  haha!) G.  and  prayed   for Teresita to cease and desist disturbing the properties. July 30.  this  case. It is immaterial that the rent was received after the dissolution of the marriage. Also. 25. was declared by Pasay CFI as  Special  Administratix  (SA)  of  deceased  Isidro’s   properties. Teresita also claims ownership of the NF house. 3)  Teresita  can’t  claim  the NF house by using NCC 144 (which provides for the sharing of properties of unmarried man and woman). Yu. there was no proof that the money was earned by the joint efforts of the widow and deceased. EUGENIO v. Gravador.  Rule  131  Burden  of  proof. Ratio: 1) Virginia was in actual/physical possession of the NF house. alleging that Teresita’s  claim/right  is  still  disputed  and  that  the  Pasay   CFI’s  jurisdiction  was  being  undermined. Her loans (during the time of the building of the house) do not necessarily translate to her shares on the building expenses. 1965 . Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. alleging that she has shared in the costs of building it.  including   a North Forbes house.

J. Salanguit. Section 1. FC Art. (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other. or (2) By the recording in the Civil Register of an agreement in a public instrument executed by the parent exercising parental authority and the minor at least eighteen years of age. except those covered the preceding Chapter. AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED NINE. Gravador. Emancipation also takes place: (1) By the marriage of the minor. (4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41. Article 236 of the same Code is also hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 234." Sec. (3) Those solemnized without license. Such emancipation shall be irrevocable. 35. REPUBLIC ACT NO. Flores. Castillo. "Nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians. 3. "Contracting marriage shall require parental consent until the age of twenty-one. Unless otherwise provided. 4.  This  petition  was  denied. (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so.Emancipation shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. donations. 1. 6809 AN ACT LOWERING THE AGE OF MAJORITY FROM TWENTY-ONE TO EIGHTEEN YEARS. Madarang. the Family Code of the Philippines. MALLION Facts: Mallion filed a petition with San Pablo City RTC seeking declaration of nullity of his marriage with Alcantara alleging the respondent’s  psychological  incapacity." Sec. Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. is hereby amended to read as follows: "Art. save the exceptions established by existing laws in special cases. Kinds of Void Marriages (a) Absence of requisites FC Art. Felizmenio. 209. FC Art.   141 . grants. A. existing wills. majority commences at the age of twentyone years.Digested by: De Guzman. and (6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Article 234 of Executive Order No. ALCANTARA v.Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority. 5. insurance policies and similar instruments containing references and provisions favorable to minors will not retroact to their prejudice Sec. Morales. Unless otherwise provided. Upon the effectivity of this Act. 236. Sec. 2.. This Act shall take effect upon completion of its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. majority commences at the age of eighteen years. except as stated in Article 35 (2). 234. Articles 235 and 237 of the same Code are hereby repealed. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. bequests. Yu.

he signed these documents on the condition that these would only be used if they decide to get married. he filed the same petition with San Pablo RTC this time on the grounds that the marriage is without a valid marriage license. he is only invoking a different ground which is the lack of marriage license. Valera prevented him from doing so. They stayed in (1) Bulacan. This admission binds the petitioner and cures the alleged defect of his marriage. Issues: WON res judicata applies. declared null and void ab initio) on the ground that Valera is psychologically 142      . effort. 1996 – Reyes filed a petition for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that Valera was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage: o Valera failed and refused to cohabit and make love with him. and financial resources by litigating the same controversy over again. 17-year old HS student. And assuming. marriage contract. The judiciary would be squandering time. o Failed and refused to enter into a permanent union and establish conjugal and family life with him. After the decision attained finality.. Aside from his testimony. physical and psychological help and support. VALERA Facts:  1973 – Renato Reyes. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. he has already impliedly conceded the validity of his marriage when he instituted the first case. Flores. According to Reyes. o Eloped two months after meeting at a party. met at a party.e.   that   he   is   not   barred   from   instituting another case. (2) Caloocan City and (3) Muntinlupa City. A. 1991 – Exchange of marital vows between parties at the Caloocan City Hall Union produced three children: Jeffrey. Morales.  Meeting led to a courtship and to a 19-year common-law relationship. would the lack of marriage license render the marriage null and void? Held: Res Judicata applies and lack of marriage license cannot render the marriage null and void.] December 10. Gates: o Valera is plagued with an Adjustment Disorder and exhibited Compulsive Behavior Patterns. The respondent for her part moved to dismiss the petition invoking the principle of res judicata. Felizmenio. Salanguit. J. In the second case. and Lorna Valera. Renelee and Loni May 14. Assuming it does not.] [1990 – Reyes found all his things outside their house when he came home (drunk) late after closing a deal with a client. Madarang. and maintained that no marriage ceremony took place in 1991. curriculum vitae and psychological report of Dr. o Did not give him emotional. o Failed and refused to have a family domicile. he presented certified true copies of the birth certificate of their children. The appeal in the CA was likewise dismissed. o Did not love and respect him. o Did not remain faithful to him. Castillo. spiritual. RTC annulled the marriage (i. 21-year old college student.Digested by: De Guzman. SO v.  [1986 – Valera asked Reyes to sign a blank marriage application from and marriage contract.   for   argument’s   sake. Yu. but when he tried to go back to their place. Gravador. He left their house for 2 months. The petitioner is barred from instituting another suit where the cause of action is the same (declaring nullity of his marriage with Alcantara). He also admitted not knowing what happened to these documents.

41. 8533. (n) 143  Issues:  WON Reyes failed to prove Valera’s  psychological  incapacity? Held and Ratio:  Yes. o Psychologist’s  Report/Testimony  Conclusions were based on statements by Reyes whose bias in favor of his cause cannot be doubted. as it were. that a cure was beyond Valera’s  capacity  to  achieve . No sufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity. 8533 [Approved February 23. incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligation of marriage.  Conclusions appear to be exaggerated extrapolations. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. derived as they are from isolated incidents. Yu. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith. these flaws were not physical manifestations of psychological  illness. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void.” (b) Bigamous Marriage FC Art. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. that it was rooted in Valera’s medical or psychological history before her marriage. The totality of evidence presented by Reyes failed to establish  the  respondent’s  psychological  incapacity  to  perform   the essential marital obligations. such action or defense shall prescribe in ten years after this Code shall taken effect" has been deleted by Republic Act No. Report is not comprehensive enough to be reliable. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. Morales. FC Art. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. The phrase "However. Madarang. unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage. CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.  Failed  to  show  that  the  respondent’s  behavioral   disorder was medically or clinically permanent or incurable as established jurisprudence requires (i. o CA:   “While   respondent   appears   to   be   less   than   ideal   mother to her children. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe. snapshots rather than   a   running   account   of   the   respondent’s   life   from which her whole life is totally judged. 40. the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. rather than from continuing patterns. J. 1998]).. Gravador. A. (As amended by Executive Order 227 and Republic Act No. said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. 39.e. Felizmenio. and loving wife to her husband. Flores. Salanguit. 44. removal of stimulus)  Failed to prove that behavioral disorder is so grave and serious that Valera would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. (83a) FC Art.Digested by: De Guzman. in case of marriage celebrated before the effectivity of this Code and falling under Article 36. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code. The particulars are. Castillo. (n) FC Art.

Ellen (February 4. their union produced two children. Salanguit. Also. On September 21. On November 10. which provides that a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again. Apiag and her children charged Cantero with gross misconduct for allegedly having committed bigamy and falsification of public documents. A. They also ruled that bigamy constitutes a continuing offense. Yu. Court Administrator recommended dismissal from service and forfeiture of benefits. It is also highly suspicious and intriguing that the complaints are filed just now knowing that he is retirable next year. Judge Cantero did not file for a declaration of nullity of the alleged marriage because there is nothing to be voided or nullified in the first place. Cantero and Apiag executed and entered into a compromise agreement wherein it was agreed that the complaint be withdrawn and that support and inheritance rights be granted. wrote to Cantero demanding for (1) maintenance and support for the family and (2) children be declared compulsory heirs and legal beneficiaries in all legal documents. o The marriage of Cantero to Ygay took place and all their children born before the promulgation of Wiegel v Sempio-Dy and before the effectivity of the Family Code. 1993. In response. when his previous marriage was still subsisting.) Issues:  WON Cantero committed bigamy  WON Cantero is guilty of falsification of public documents  WON charge of grave misconduct against Cantero is applicable Held and Ratio (SC):  No. Onofre (June 10. and. through Atty. with whom he contracted a second marriage. however she was ignored by defendant. that they never lived together as husband and wife nor have established a conjugal home (NOTE: As to this. Gravador.). 1970). Judge Cantero said that he honestly believed that his marriage with Apiag was void from the beginning considering that and his consent was not freely given (i.Digested by: De Guzman. Investigating Judge called for 1 year suspension without pay. Manuel Apiag. 1968). APIAG v CANTERO Facts: Maria Apiag and (Judge) Esmeraldo Cantero joined together in holy matrimony in marriage on August 11. he said that they never communicated for the last 40 years and that Apiag has been living with another man during her public school teaching days and has another child. 1947) and Glicerio Cantero (October 29. Apiag learned that Cantero had another family with Nievas Ygay to whom he has five children – Noralyn (May 19. Thereafter. After having lived together as husband and wife. and. 1953). That parents of the parties were the ones who agreed on the marriage to save name and shame due to the early pregnancy of Apiag. Morales. that he was still 20 and at his second year HS days at that time). The letter elicited no action or response from the respondent.otherwise. Southern Leyte). the second marriage is also void. 1981) Cantero. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Felizmenio. Flores. Apiag begged for support. (Investigating Judge and Court Administrator found Cantero guilty of grave misconduct of bigamy and falsification of public documents. Bigamy charge cannot stand. Erwin (April 29. Cantero was never heard of and his whereabouts unknown. Teresita Cantero (June 19. Subsequently. Castillo. 1997.. March 1994. 1979). he declared himself as being married to Ygay. When Cantero surfaced in Southern Leyte. Cantero left conjugal home without any apparent cause leaving Apiag to raise the two children with her meager income as a public school teacher (Hinanduyan. that they were forced to acknowledge the signatures appearing in the duly prepared marriage contract. Guyula. Apiag. Also. whereas.e. 1947. 1993. Madarang. 1977) and Desirie (December 2. For several years. Apiag found out that in all public documents of Cantero. that he did not know he was to appear on a drama marriage on that day. with him (He who seeks justice must seek justice with clean hands. 144 .). J.

No. Vincent Mercado married Ma. Neither do these misdeeds directly relate to the discharge of his official responsibilities. No. Felizmenio. 10 Apr 1976 – Dr.  the  case  was  dismissed. good faith). o His personal life falls short of the standard because the record reveals he had two families.Digested by: De Guzman. Thelma Oliva (by a Judge) . So Mercado was still validly married to Oliva when he married Tan. TAN Facts: A case about a two-timing doctor who sought declaration of nullity to save himself from the crime of bigamy. On 22 January 1993. HOWEVER. o Doctrine in Odayat v Amante applies in this case: No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Held: Yes. Ratio: RPC 349 states the elements of the crime of bigamy: 1) That the offender has been legally married 2) That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or. him posing  as  “single”) 29 Jun 1991 – Mercado married Tan again (in church) 5 Oct 1992 – Tan filed bigamy against Mercado 13 Nov 1992 – Mercado sought for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage for his marriage with Oliva 6 May 1993 – the above petition was granted by the RTC (BUT…RTC  and  CA  held  Mercado  guilty  of  bigamy   under RPC Art. 349) Issue: WON  Mercado’s  marriage  with  Tan  is  bigamous  (and  thus  void). Madarang. Consuelo Tan (by a Judge. o Court would have imposed a penalty but because of Cantero’s  death.e. Gross misconduct is not applicable. Gravador. A. 145    MERCADO v. Morales. o No malice in filling up the public documents (i. o The acts imputed against Judge Cantero clearly pertain to his personal life and have no direct relation to his judicial function. all of these elements were present when the Information (for the crime of bigamy) was filed! The declaration of nullity came after the Information had been filed. o Since charge of bigamy cannot stand. o His conduct of not giving support to his first family is unbecoming of a trial magistrate. the absence of finding criminal liability on his part does not preclude the Court from finding him administratively liable for his indiscretion. Flores. Salanguit. in case his/her spouse is absent. which would have merited disciplinary action from this Court had death not intervened. Cantero is not guilty of falsification of public documents. J. 10 Oct 1976 – Mercado married Oliva again (in church) 27 Jun 1991 – Mercado married Ma. Yu. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code 3) That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage 4) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requirements for validity..  it’s  bigamous  and  thus  void. so too must the accusation of falsification fail. He had already committed bigamy.

Castillo. and the church marriage also null and void ab initio for lack of consent 4 Apr 1979 – Reyes married Ofelia Ty (civil rites) 4 Apr 1982 – Reyes wed Ty again in church 3 Jan 1991 – Reyes filed a petition for his marriage with Ty to be declared null and void for lack of a marriage license.  there  would’ve  been  a  need  to  present   this decree. Support was granted. Really. concurring and dissenting: “[t]he  necessity  of  a  judicial  declaration  of  nullity of a void marriage for the purpose of remarriage should be held to refer merely to cases where it can be said that a marriage.the church wedding confirmed. 40 overturned them all and explicitly provided that there needs to be one before a person can contract a second marriage.” TY v.FC  40  can’t  apply  because  children’s  rights  would  be  affected . Morales. BUT FC Art. and the 1980 declaration of nullity to protect her marriage (stupid girl.  It  did  not  state  whether  there’s  a  need  for   a declaration of nullity though. CA Facts: Another stupid case involving a stupid two-timing husband and an equally stupid second wife with petition for support. SC  cited  conflicting  precedents  on  whether  or  not  there’s  a  need  for  a judicial declaration of nullity.S. Ratio: (SC  cited  various  precedents…) Then CC Art 83 applies here. and fortified (oo na) the earlier civil wedding .there was really a marriage license (the fact that the same license was used for the 2 ceremonies does not matter) . Madarang. at least ostensibly. Damages not awarded. ratified. 29 Mar 1977 – Edgardo Reyes married Anna Maria Regina Villanueva (civil rites) 27 Aug 1977 – same parties wed again (church rites) 4 Aug 1980 – Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court declared their civil marriage null and void ab initio for lack of license. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. and alleged that he was still married to Anna Maria – Ty  responded  by  presenting  a  marriage  license  that  they’ve   used.Digested by: De Guzman. Held: YEP. Flores. being a total nullity and inexistent. 146 . Vitug.” “Unlike  a  voidable  marriage  which  legally  exists  until  judicially   annulled…the  complete  nullity  however.  of  a  previously  contracted   marriage. In  the  end. had taken place…[i]t  is  likely  that  Art  40  of  the  FC  has  been  meant  and  intended   to refer only to marriages declared void under the provisions of Arts 35-38  and  53  thereof. Jurisprudence showed conflicting decisions. she still wanted to stay married to this two-timer?!?) RTC  declared  Reyes  and  Ty’s  marriage  null  and  void  ab  initio CA affirmed RTC Issue: WON  Reyes  and  Ty’s  marriage  is  valid. Yu.  Had  FC  40  applied. should be capable of being independently raised by way of a defense in a criminal case for bigamy.all the requirements for a valid marriage were present\ P. Felizmenio.. The reasons: . A. Salanguit. which provides conditions before entering into a 2nd marriage.  SC  decided  to  hold  Reyes  and  Ty’s marriage valid and subsisting. Gravador.

Lucia filed for divorce in Canada which was granted on Jan 17. Felizmenio. MORIGO v.Digested by: De Guzman. After the marriage. Gravador. 1993. Lucia was then based in Canada. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Lucia once again left for Canada.They maintained a long distance relationship from 1894 ro 1990. marriage is void ab initio. to account innocence for the accused. 1991. what transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two. for a period of four (4) years (from 1974-1978). By August 19. The trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio.. They got married on August 30. 1993 – Tenebro contracted another marriage. The complaint seek (sic) among others. Province of Bohol. Castillo. 1992 and effective after a month. J. Salanguit. MORIGO Facts Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City. BITDU should hold and the erred failed Ratio: The trial court found that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer. 1993. hence he would have no criminal liability for bigamy. There is no crime of bigamy committed. CA Overview A man declaring his bigamous marriage void ab initio due to his psychological incapacity.. accused filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. Madarang. Facts  Apr 10. we also find that we need not tarry on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent. 6020. 1990 – Veronico Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas  Tenebro & Ancajas lived together without interruption until latter part of 1991. Further. On September 21. Morales. in Septembet 8. Yu. Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of marriage contract b/n him and Villareyes  Tenebro left Ancajas to cohabit with Villaretes  Jan 25. Bohol. without the presence of a solemnizing officer. when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on Nov 10. appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago4 at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish. with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. in accordance with Articles 322 and 423 of the Family Code. Flores. this time with Nilda Villegas 147 Held: Yes. Issue: WON the marriage was void ab initio for the lack of the lack of a valid marriage ceremony WON the crime of BIGAMY should hold considering that defendant married in good faith thinking that his marriage was already dissolved WON the case People vs. .  on   the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. On October 4. 1986. TENEBRO v. appellant was charged with Bigamy in an Information5 filed by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran [City]. A. 1992. Instead.  the  declaration  of  nullity  of  accused’s  marriage  with  Lucia. docketed as Civil Case No. Tagbilaran City.. This case should be differentiated from others as its nullity is retroactive. which is now moot and academic.On October 19. hence the defendant did not contract a second marriage. 1990 in Iglesia Filipina Nacional in Catagdaan Pilar Bohol.

Gravador.Digested by: De Guzman. 2. All essential and formal 148     WON 1. a handwritten letter from Villareyes to Ancajas informing Ancajas that Villareyes and Tenebro were married o A certification from the NSO and CR of Manila that record of marriage can not be found has no bearing. o Documentary evidence – a copy of the marriage contract. Bigamous marriages are automatically void. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. J. Madarang. Such certifications merely attest that there were no records. and 2) that the declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological capacity retroacts to the date of their marriage. 1997 .;  Tenebro’s  marriage   with Ancajas was bigamous 2.RTC rendered decision finding petitioner guilty of bigamy. A. o Petitioner’s  marriage  to  Ancajas would be null and void ab  initio  regardless  of  petitioner’s  psychological   incapacity. Yu. Morales. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void. No. The first marriage exists.  Marriage  with  Villareyes  was  valid.    Ancajas heard of third marriage—confirmed with Villareyes— Villareyes confirmed through letter that she was married with petitioner Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner (Criminal Case: 013095-L) Petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed that: o He and Villareyes were not validly married. Yes. Felizmenio. Flores. the marriage contract itself serves as positive evidence as to the existence of the marriage. The marriage contracted between Villareyes and Tenebro valid. Castillo. On appeal. Salanguit. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. they cohabited from 1084-1988 though o There was no record of said marriage in Civil Registrar of Manila Nov 10. the nullity of this second marriafe is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.. Petitioner files for review on the following errors o That the CA affirmed decision of the RTC despite the non-existence of the first marriage and insufficiency of evidence o That the CA convicted petitioner for the crime of bigamy despite clear proof that the marriage between the accused and complainant had been declared null and void ab initio without legal force and effect Petitioner argues that 1) the marriage with Villareyes does not exist. Ratio 1. o Art 349 of the RPC penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage o The declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that  petitioner’s  marriage  to  Ancajas  lacks  the  essential   requisites for validity. The judicial declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity allows Tenebro to be free from criminal liability in bigamy . Mere absence of record is different from absence of a marriage ceremony altogether. rendering  Tenebro’s  marriage  with  Ancajas  bigamous 2. Petitioner prays for acquittal Held 1.

 the  State’s  criminal  laws  on  bigamy   step in. Oscar Mallion filed for a petition seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to Editha Alcantara due to the latter’s   psychological   incapacity. Issues:  WON a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? o WON res judicata can be applied in this case o WON marriage was valid without a marriage license Held and Ratio:  Yes. Madarang. Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. 149 . res judicata can be applied in this case. a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license. o Judicial declaration of nullity of marriage grounded on psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage. Mallion again filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage this time claiming that the marriage was null and void because it was celebrated without a valid marriage license.  Reasons why except those due to psychological incapacity: o Breaches neither the essential nor the formal requisites of marriage o Other grounds are capable of relatively easy demonstration. being a mental state may not be so readily evident o Marriage remains valid and binding until declared judicially as void MALLION v. Felizmenio. 1995.. (2) lack of marriage license.  “When  an  individual manifests a deliberate pattern  of  flouting  the  foundation  of  the  State’s  basic   social  institution. but said marriage still has legal effects. Facts: On October 24.  Res judicata is present because (1) former judgment is final (2) decision is rendered by court having jurisdiction over the case (3) judgment was based on merits (4) there is identity of parties. 1999.   the   petition was denied by the RTC.  A party cannot avoid the application of res judicata by varying the form of his action or adopting another method of presenting the case. Morales. Vitug:  The absolute nullity of either the first or the second marriage. Salanguit. psychological incapacity however. Tenebro contracted marriage THRICE. constitute a valid defense in a criminal action for bigamy EXCEPT on account of psychological incapacity. Alcantara filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and forum shopping. even prior to its judicial declaration as being void. Castillo. Such a marriage may still produce legal consequences. Flores. The court denied the two petitions. o Yes. Concurring. Gravador. requisites for the validity of Ancajas-Tenebro marriage were present. On July 12. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.   Because   of   lack   of   evidence. subject matter. o MORE IMPORTANTLY. A. cause of action and relief sought. ALCANTARA Overview: Mallion filed a declaration of nullity of marriage to Alcantara twice: (1) due to psychological incapacity. J. RTC ruled in favor of Alcantara and dismissed the petition.

1955 (allegedly): Salvador first married Zenaida and they separated in 1966 stating that they only remarried for purpose of complying with the requirements needed by their son for military  RTC convicted petitioner of bigamy. Flores. WON penalty imposed was improper Held: 1. The outcome of the civil case of annulment would have no  bearing  upon  the  petitioner’s  guilt  or  innocence  in  the   criminal case of bigamy. she found him cohabiting with Fe Plato. No. WON his proceedings for bigamy case should have been suspended during the pendency of his annulment case (this being a prejudicial question) 4. Gravador. ABUNADO v. Note: This decision is wrong because it is highly unfair to bar a subsequent petition when the contents therein are not yet known during the previous petition. Castillo. 1995: a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida December 24. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. Yu. Zenaida was acquitted because evidence was insufficient   CA  affirmed  RTC’s  decision  but  modified  penalty  to  a   lesser degree Issue/s: 1.Digested by: De Guzman. 1967: Salvador Abunado (petitioner) married Narcisa Arceno 1988-1992: Narcisa left for Japan to work and only came back upon knowing that her husband was having an extra-marital affair and left their conjugal home. 1995: annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa May 18. Prejudicial question – one based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines guilt or innocence of the accused. After earnest efforts. No.. Salanguit. REPUBLIC Facts:  Dates: September 18. 1989: Salvador married Zenaida Binas January 19. Madarang. it must appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the 150 . January 10. She also discovered that her husband contracted a 2nd marriage. o Petitioner expressly and impliedly conceded the validity of their marriage celebration during the first petition. The crime of bigamy is a public offense which can be denounced not only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited citizen who may come to know the same. Morales. WON Information given to petitioner was defective as it stated that the bigamous marriage was contracted in 1995 when in fact it should have been 1989 2. WON petitioner is absolved from criminal liability because his wife consented to his other marriage 3. ALL THE ISSUES EXISTING when the suit began. The information clearly states that the petitioner contracted a subsequent marriage and the date was obviously just a typographical error. and for it to suspend the criminal action. Felizmenio. J. Real nature of the crimes are determined by the facts alleged in the information and not by the title or offense in the caption of the information. 3. and is now deemed to have waived any defects therein. 2. A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. No. Plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading.

Issue:  WON Jarillo committed bigamy when she contracted another marriage with Uy? Held and Ratio:  Yes. 1 day imprisonment). PUSE Facts: 151 .   1 day as minimum and 6 years. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1995. issue or issues raised in the civil case. Uy filed for the annulment of their marriage. 4 months and 1 day imprisonment – 8 years. Jarillo is guilty of bigamy. J. Jarillo filed against Alocillo a declaration of nullity of their marriage before the RTC of Makati City. knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978 (15 years has already elapsed. July 21.e. Jarillo was charged with bigamy before the RTC of Pasay City.   RTC   of   Makati   City   declared   Jarillo’s   marriage   with Alocillo null   and   void   ab   initio   on   the   ground   of   Alocillo’s   psychological   incapacity. 1 day as maximum. they again celebrated marriage in a church wedding ceremony. Jarillo insisted that (1) her marriage with Alocillo was null and void because he was still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at that time (2) her marriage with Alocilllo and Uy were null and void for a lack of a valid marriage license (3) action has prescribed since Uy. Gravador. On November 26. Meanwhile. July 8. 1974. the said marriage is not without legal consequences among which is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.   which   had   not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction. MRC was denied. Salanguit. o The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s   two   marriages   with   Alocillo   cannot   be   considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy considering that the second marriage was contracted without the previous one being declared null and void. 1975. Flores. April 16. Herein. while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of marriage. Rachelle Alocillo was born. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. In 1999. Penalty is modified (2 years. For her defense. on March 28. Morales. A. Mother was not called to the witness stand. Jarillo contracted a second marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy. July 29. Disposition: Petition is partly granted. 2003. Yes. On October 29. Castillo. CA invoked the Tenebro ruling saying that the subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage. 1975. 2003. RTC ruled that Jarillo is guilty of bigamy (with 6-10 years imprisonment). Said decision became final and executory on July 9. the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. August 2.). SC affirmed   CA’s   penalty   of   indeterminate  penalty   2   years.. PEOPLE Overview: Jarillo was charged with bigamy for having contracted a second marriage with Uy when her previous marriage with Alocillo was still subsisting. Madarang. 2001. Jarillo and Uy exchanged marital vows in a church wedding ceremony. 2003. Thereafter. prescription began to ran as of 1978). 2001. Yu. 2004. Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony. October 5. Felizmenio. 1979. the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage.   petitioner’s   marriage   to   Alocillo. through her mother. JARILLO v.Digested by: De Guzman.   4   months. was deemed valid and existing. 2000. PUSE v. Facts: On May 24. On May 4. His age of 76 years old was already taken into account. o Jarillo failed to present sufficient evidence to support her allegation that 15-years has already elapsed (i.

PRC or Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the Department  of  Education  (DepEd)  or    whatevs  but  it  won’t  probably  be  discussed. (Yes) Ratio: 1 Rene’s  allegation  that  he  believed  his  1st wife to be dead was found a lie by the PRC and the CA. J. if there are none. Of course Rene denied these. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse. So the PRC found Rene guilty and revoked his teaching license1. After their living together for 12-13 years. He had 2 kids with her.   Rene defended himself by saying that he believed that his 1 st wife was dead already because he had no communication with her (but he did not have a declaration of presumptive death).D. Flores.)  No. Salanguit. he earlier submitted an affidavit saying that Rene knew that his 1st wife was working in Hongkong and she regularly sent him and their children financial support and visited them at least once a year. Felizmenio.  807  and  it  was  where  the  case  was  first  filed…so  it   acquired jurisdiction.  it’s  the  PRC  pursuant  to  Rep. but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith. 43. A. he should have gotten a declaration of presumptive death. and alleged that if these were true. But Ligaya found out that he was previously married to Cristina Pablo on 27 Dec 1986 and that he also had 2 kids with Cristina.  Act  No.Digested by: De Guzman. unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.  If   asked. Issue: Was the marriage of Rene and Ligaya bigamous? (or…was  Rene  guilty  of  Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct by virtue of his marriage with Ligaya?) Held: Yes. Castillo. On 10 Jan 1992. Plus he does not seem to be remorseful of his conduct. (n) FC Art.  Rep.  and  that  she  didn’t  know  he  was  previously  married. Madarang. abandonment. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. then Ligaya would be guilty as well. the 152 There’s  also  a  discussion  on  which  body  would  have  to  decide  on  Rene’s  conduct. Plus. it does not absolve him. upon appearance of absent spouse FC Art. and  the  revocation  of  Rene’s  license  (for  immorality  and  dishonorable   conduct). shall be dissolved and liquidated. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: (1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate. Morales. elementary school teacher Rene Puse married barangay rural health midwife Ligaya Delos Santos.  4670  and   Presidential Decree (P.   the Board of Professional Teachers. CA dismissed  Rene’s  appeal  and  held  Ligaya  to  be  in  good  faith  when  she   married him. If he really believed that. as the case may be. .  Act  No.  7836. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person. (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership. A case about a teacher who married twice and his license was revoked. 42. (c) Subsequent Marriage. Gravador.. with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. Ligaya said that she married him  in  good  faith. his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or. Even  though  he’s  walking away from his 2nd family to be with his 1st. Yu. Ligaya filed for bigamy.

Her only heirs were Hortiguela  and  Angelita  Jones. (3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. parental or property relations. Declaration of absenteeism was published in the Official Gazette and the El Ideal  April 23. and was never heard of again. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes. and (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. (n) FC Art. Yu. (n) NCC Art. Flores. (3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.. He went abroad. 1921 – Court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence  May 6. Felizmenio. (178a) JONES v. 391. Castillo. After an absence of seven years. HORTIGUELA Facts  December 1914 – Marciana Escano married Arthur Jones  January 10 1918 – Jones secured a passport. Madarang. or FC Art. (2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war. he shall be presumed dead for all purposes. 55. (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy. subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose. including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. Morales. J. except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith. leaving Hortiguela as judicial administrator of her entire estate. such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligations to the family. Salanguit.  October 1919 – Escano filed for the declaration of Jones as absentee  October 25 1919 – Arturo Jones was declared an absentee pursuant to the provisions of Art 186 of the Civil Code. The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital. Gravador. except for those of succession. 101. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. 1932 – Escano died. 1927 – Escano married Hortiguela  May 9. or an aeroplane which is missing. children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children. and has been missing for four years. the innocent spouse. even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. (n) NCC Art. the aggrieved spouse may petition the court for receivership. who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane.Digested by: De Guzman.  Escano’s  daughter  from  first   marriage 153 . it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner. A. for judicial separation of property or for authority to be the sole administrator of the absolute community. 390. A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning.

November 19. However. Even when he asked the friends. The FC needs a well-founded belief that partner is dead before granting the declaration. Facts: REPUBLIC v. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1988: Respondent Gregorio Nolasco filed before the RTC a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker.000. failure to transmit such document to the municipal secretary does not annul the marriage. Madarang. August 5. he just  secured  another  seaman’s  contract  and  went  to  London  to  look  for   154 WON Escano  and  Hortiguela’s  marriage  was  valid Held Yes Ratio  The absence of Arthur Jones should be counted from Jan 10. However. He also said that he knew nothing about her because she refused to tell him such information. 1934 – Angelita Jones filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her mother. . Evidence and testimony only prove that they did not communicate to one another. 1982. judicial declaration of presumptive death is needed to enable the spouse present to remarry. 1980: Couple returned to Antique after 6 months on a ship. Art. Yu. His mother testified that Janet had expressed her desire to return to England even before she had given birth to Gerry Nolasco on December 7. Salanguit. Rationale: Under Article 41. The Court considers that the investigation Gregorio conducted to find Janet Monica Parker was not enough to form a basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead. that the marriage between Hortiguela and her mother being null and void (so that Hortiguela  doesn’t  get  to  be  judicial  administrator  of  the   estates) o Angelita Jones argues that the declaration of absence must be understood to have been made not in the order of October 25 1919 but in that of April 23 1921. He even tried looking for her when the ship docked in England. he was given back all the letters he had sent to Janet in Liverpool. When he found out that his wife had left. Flores. instead of going to the authorities. As compared to Article 83 of the Civil Code.   she   gave   Janica   P22. She said she knew nothing about the whereabouts of Janet. 1918. A. January 15. only 6 years and 14 days elapsed. J.41 of the FC is much stricter since before it just needed that there be no news of partner still living or the partner is generally considered dead and the spouse present believed him to be dead. Either that or to declare the marriage null and void. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. 1982: They got married. January   1983:   A   letter   from   Gregorio’s   mother   informed   him   that Janet gave birth to his son and that she left Antique.  May 3. November 1983: He arrived in Antique and tried to look for her. Gravador. (He was a seaman). Janet was not used to living the rural way of life in Antique.. NOLASCO They met in a bar in England. Note: For some reason. He also did not report her disappearance to the authorities. 1927 when Escano married Hortiguela. the time required for the presumption to arise has been shortened to four years. Castillo. the date when he was last heard of. and that from April 23 1921 to May 6. 1982 for England. Also. they did not know where she was. It did not prove she was dead. Morales. She tried to stop Janet but when she   couldn’t. Held: No. the marriage contracted b/n Hortiguela and Escano does not appear recorded in the marriage register of Malitbog. invoking Article 41 of the Family Code.00   for   her   expenses   before she left on December 22.

Even his statement that he asked his “unnamed”   friends   if  they   knew   where   Janet   was  cannot   be   believed   since  there  are  serious  doubts  to  respondent’s  credibility.  April 30. Couples cannot circumvent the laws on marriage. They lived together from  June  1968  until  Aurelio’s  death  in  May  28. Gregorio even tried to have the marriage annulled before the trial court in the same proceeding. 1988 – Luisita and son sought for the annulment of the sale of the property to Nenita. Aurelio and Luisita lived together since 1953. 1942 – Aurelio Camacho married Consejo Velasco  February 6. The marriage 155 . is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage. Yu. Aurelio contracted a marriage with Luisita.   then the property was property of conjugal partnership and Luisita is the proper party to question the validity of the sale to Nenita) Held No Ratio  Art 83 provides that Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance.  1967 – Aurelio met Nenita Bienvenido. her there. Gravador. CA Facts  October 3. Salanguit. unless: (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved. Felizmenio.  November 26. Morales. or (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive. Madarang. It is not believable that in a major city such as London or Liverpool. one can hope to bump into one particular person there. or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391.. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. and this led to the birth of Aurelio Luis Faustino Camacho. The fact that he claims to know nothing about her and has lost all their letters to each other was deemed too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. 1993 – CA  reversed  lower  court’s  decision. or if the absentee. A. BIENVENIDO v.  1988.  June 4.  holding   that the property in dispute belonged to the conjugal partnership of Aurelio and Luisita and that the sale of the property to Nenita was void for the same reason that donations b/n persons who are guilty of concubinage or adultery are declared void under Art 379 of the Civil Code WON Aurelio  and  Luisita’s  marriage  was  valid  (If  marriage  was  valid.  August 29. 1982 – Aurelio bought the house Nenita and he have been staying in from its owners. 1952 – Without marriage to Velasco being dissolved. Castillo. 1984 – Aurelio executed a deed of sale of the property in favour of Nenita  September 7. 1989 – trial court rendered a decision upholding the sale of the property to Nenita. alleging that the deed of sale was a forgery and was executed in fraud of her as legit wife of Aurelio. born in May 22 1961. though he has been absent for less than seven years. Nenita claimed that the sale of the  property  to  her  was  with  Luisita’s  consent and that she was a purchaser in good faith. J.

Petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio. 1998.   1958. and Marietta as administrator and administratix. (29a) The first exception in par 2 cannot be invoked in this case because apparently it was Aurelio who had left his first wife (Velasco).  thereby  making  her  the   compulsory heir of her husband. February 5.      Issue: WON the marriage between Teodorico and Marietta is valid. Armas.00. Felizmenio. 750. August 31.Marietta was first married to James Bounds. of the intestate estate of Teodorico. 1946. Morales. Armas.  April 24.  February 11. According to Article 83 of 156 .(11 years later) Marietta married Teodorico Calisterio without securing a court declaration that James was presumptively dead. 1998.  October 9. (This is particular to the issue. filed with the QC RTC a petition entitled  “In  the  Matter  of  the  Intestate  Estate  of  the  Deceased   Teodorico Calisterio y Cacabelos. Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. A. 1993.RTC appointed Sinfroniano C. a surviving sister of Teodorico. 1947.James Bound disappeared without a trace.CA  denied  Antonia’s  MR. 1958. be appointed the administrator of the state of the deceased. The sale of property to Nenita Bienvenido must be presumed.Teodorico died. and Antonia and her children to the other half. Flores.  when   the controversy arose at the time that the New CC was still in force. as  the  latter’s  marriage  with  Marietta  is  null  and  void  due  to   bigamy. Yu. Marietta appealed the case in the CA stating basically that the RTC erred in applying the provisions of the FC on her (which requires  that  she  should  seek  the  court’s  declaration  of  her  first   husband’s  presumptive  death  before  she  marries  again). hence Luisita was not in position to question property.the RTC decided in favor of Antonia. She is entitled to half of the estate. The first exception refers to the subsequent marriage of the abandoned spouse. conjugal properties do not exist. January 17.”   Antonia claims that she is the sole surviving heir of Teodorico. ARMAS v. when the New CC was still in effect. hence  being  determinative  of  Marietta’s  right  to  inherit  as  the   surviving spouse of Teodorico. Ratio:  Marietta’s  marriage  with  Teodorico  was  solemnized  on  May  8. leaving several parcels of land with an estimated value of P604. Salanguit.. November 23. 1992. Antonia Armas. respectively. Held: Yes. Jr. as the applicable provision in this case is Article 83 of the New Civil Code and not the Family Code. CALISTERIO Facts:  January 13. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. please check page 203 of the case for the other points she raised). 1996. so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. J. → Marietta opposed this saying that her first marriage with James  Bound  has  been  dissolved  due  to  the  latter’s   absence for more than 11 years before she contracted her second marriage. Antonia prays that her son Sinfroniano C.CA decided in favor of the validity of Marietta’s  marriage  with  Teodorico. Gravador.  since  Marietta  married  without  the  court’s  declaration   that her first husband is presumptively dead. 1992. Castillo. and not the remarriage of the deserting spouse Note:  Because marriage b/n Luisita and Aurelio was void.  May 8. Jr.  Petitioner. declaring  her  as  the  sole  heir  of  Teodorico’s  intestate  estate.

who had left his petitioner wife nine years earlier. Hence. Trial court Judge Fortunato Madrona cited Article 41. Castillo. Republic says 157 . Salanguit.. A. Marietta’s  marriage  with  James  was  lawfully  dissolved  due  to  the   latter’s  absence  for  more  than  11  years. Rizal under the rules on Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law stating: reason why she left and that she believes him to be dead and seeking a petition for a court declaration that her husband is judicially presumed dead for purpose of remarriage. Gravador. J. REPUBLIC v. They did not answer this. however modifying it so as to grant half of the  estate’s  share  solely  on  Antonia. Flores. for RP.  After 9 years. RP had no right to appeal the RTC decision. presumptively dead.  Husband’s  presumptive   death is final. a judicial declaration of absence of absentee is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met. She then found out that her husband was a habitual drinker and possessed violent character and found it safer to leave him. Felizmenio. From then on. Judgment: SC affirms CA decision. but only stated that the decision of  the  RTC  is  final  and  executory.  RTC rendered the presumptive death/absence of her husband  Office of Solicitor-General. paragraph 2 of the Family code which says that for the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage wherein the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years. Morales. No. the judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. In order to support her children. she filed a verified petition with the RTC of San Mateo. Yu. she was compelled to work abroad. The Republic appealed however the court dismissed it assuming that it was a special proceeding which needed a filing and serving of a record of appeal.  excluding  her   children. FC)  CA  denied  RP’s  appeal Issue/s: 1. the spouse present must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spouse. Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. appealed to CA even if the judgment shall be immediately final and executory (Art 247. WON CA has jurisdiction over the appeal on a final and executor judgment of the RTC  2. 2.  rendering  her  marriage  with   Teodorico valid. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. REPUBLIC v. She went to her parents home with her children. the New CC. there was no such appeal filed and served (Sec 2(1) Rule 41 of Rules on Civil Procedure). CA Overview: It is about the declaration of presumptive death of absentee spouse Clemente Jomoc Issue: WON a petition for presumptive death of a person is in the nature of a special proceeding Facts: RTC granted the petition for declaration of presumptive death of   absentee   spouse   on   the   basis   of   the   Commissioner’s   Report   and   accordingly declared the absentee spouse. WON the factual and legal bases for a judicial declaration of presumptive death under Art 41 FC were duly established Held: 1. she had absolutely no communication with her husband. BERMUDEZ Facts: Gloria Bermudez-Lorino and her Franciso Lorino married in 1987 and had 3 children. Under Sec 247 of the Family code.

He did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. 26877. the instant petition is in the nature of a special proceeding. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Article 41 of the Family Code also states that the purpose of the petition was to enable Apolinaria Jomoc to contract a subsequent marriage and was a summary proceeding. or a particular fact. and was assured by them that their son was still single. A. 19562-R. As opposed to an ordinary proceeding. which cannot be found in the records. J. Castillo. Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned. as one thing led to another. they went to a motel where. Felizmenio. Their marital relationship was in order until this one time when he noticed that she had a 'love-bite on her neck. a mere notice of appeal is enough. a right. convicting Eduardo P. Eduardo proposed marriage on several occasions. Eventually. Salanguit. He then abandoned her. even if true. Therefore it is not a special proceeding. but she nevertheless agreed to marry him.) Nevertheless. It declared that Eduardo's belief. Flores. assuring her that he was single. that  it  isn’t  a  special  proceeding  in  a  petition  for  certiorari. and was assured by them that their son was still single.[21] 158 . despite Tina's resistance. Madarang. they went to a motel where. Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Neither does it involve a demand of right or a cause of action that can be enforced against any person. Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Ratio: Since Rule 109 of the Revised Rules of Court enumerates special proceedings and the declaration of presumptive death is not one of them. Therefore. a special proceeding is defined as a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status. Held:  Nope. Yu. CR No. the instant petition does not aim to seek the enforcement or protection of a right. He insisted that he married Tina believing that his first marriage was no longer valid because he had not heard from Rubylus for more than 20 years. Citing the ruling of this Court in People v. Morales. Manuel vs.. the latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy The phrase 'or before the absent spouse had been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings' was incorporated in the Revised Penal Code because the drafters of the law were of the impression that in consonance with the civil law which provides for the presumption of death after an absence of a number of years. Branch 3. assuring her that he was single. People 476 SCRA 461 Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. He informed Tina of his previous marriage to Rubylus Gaa. Eduardo further claimed that he was only forced to marry his first wife because she threatened to commit suicide unless he did so. Thus denial of appeal was correct since the OSG should have filed a record on appeal first. despite Tina's resistance. that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wife's 20-year absence. Bitdu. He visited her in jail after three months and never saw her again.R. or the prevention or redress of a wrong. as one thing led to another. Eduardo further testified that he declared he was 'single in his marriage contract with Tina because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid.Digested by: De Guzman.  CA  denied   appeal on the basis of procedural and substantive grounds (failure to attach to the petition a certified true copy of the assailed order and it questioned an order that declared Clemente Jomoc presumptively dead. the judicial declaration of presumed death like annulment of marriage should be a justification for bigamy. Eventually. affirming the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. Gravador. Eduardo proposed marriage on several occasions. Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina's parents. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. CA says that in Section 3(c). did not exculpate him from liability for bigamy. Manuel of bigamy in Criminal Case No.  It’s  a  summary  proceeding. Elements of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina's parents.[10] the trial court further ruled that even if the private complainant had known that Eduardo had been previously married.

 petitioner’s   absent spouse ROSALIA JULATON is hereby declared PRESUMPTIVELY  DEAD  for  the  purpose  of  the  petitioner’s   subsequent marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines. As obtained from the Acampado only answers within authorized petitioner regarding her realms. The Barangay officials and Lea's father who was the owner of RADIO DYMS. On March 29. Alegro filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan. 2002. Acampado's Acampado from further testifying as an testimonies refer to the expert witness in her case. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the said absent spouse. Castillo. 3) elements of bigamy: (1) an undissolved marriage. he believes to be neither illegal nor immoral. Madarang. supported his claim. J. 2001 he filed a missing persons case at the local police station. Lea did not go home the following day and the Alan presumed she went back to her parents. On June 20. ailment and treatment treatment and other medical recommended recommendations given to Lim as The petitioner makes no privileged. he has a right of action against the person so inducing him for damages sustained by him in consequence of his having done such act REPUBLIC v.”   pleadings that her counsel the Court believes that the petition is had objected to any devoid of merit. etc for two years. Alan searched for his wife at her parents house. 2001.. question asked of the witness on the ground that it elicited an answer that would violate the privilege. Julaton. Felizmenio.  and  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing. the court rendered judgment granting the petition. From the testimonies. Where a person is induced by the fraudulent representation of another to do an act which. and went to her friends. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE. Issue: WON the wife is presumptively dead. Alan B. 1995 at Catbalogan Samar. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and (3) fraudulent intention constituting the felony of the act. for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife. OSG appeals that he did not exhaust all efforts to find his wife and Held Ratio There is no showing that The petitioner's contentions lie to bar Dr. Flores. Salanguit. being the exact case of Nelly Lim medical expert who has examined her. On Feb 6. Dr.Digested by: De Guzman. Lea went home late and he berated her saying if that she wanted a single life she should return to her parents. CA FACTS: Alan Alegro and Lea Julaton married on Jan 20. Dismissed. Rosalia (Lea) A. Branch 27. Yu. In 1997 he went back to Catbalogan. Morales. that the state should strengthen the institution of marriage. 159 . A. Samar. Alan files another case to the CA. keeping the exact ailment. proving that the Doctor has not claim in any of her “blackened  the  reputation  of  the  patient. Gravador. Janeth. (2) a new marriage. He went to Manila to look for her in malls. but which is in fact a criminal offense. Acampado never expert witness. not as the physician who disclosed any information looked after Lim's alleged ailments. on July 9 2001 at the NBI. in consequence of such misrepresentation.On January 8. it shows that the petitioner is The Court allowed the Doctor to testify not interviewed alone since the latter is only called upon as an Dr.

However. business or activity without the consent of the other. (111a) FC Art. A. from the income or fruits of their separate properties. Madarang. dishonor or injury to the other or to the family. Secondly. (115a) FC Art. FC Art. A marriage contracted by any party who. (117a) LIM v. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. serious. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession.Digested by: De Guzman. REPUBLIC v. and (2) Benefit has occurred to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. occupation. (n) (e) Psychological incapacity FC Art. the court shall decide. (110a) FC Art. (116a) FC Art. Gravador. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger. the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief. It did not appear that he really wanted to find his wife. Felizmenio. In case of disagreement. 68. observe mutual love. Facts: 160 . In case of disagreement. 69. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. and render mutual help and support. 71. and moral grounds. 72. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith. Castillo.. the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent. TANGO (d) Bad faith of both spouses FC Art. at the time of the celebration. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits. respect and fidelity. Morales. Yu. (109a) FC Art. such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. Flores. The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. CA Overview: This is about the rule on the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship Issue: WON the CA denied due course to a petition to annul the order of the trial court allowing a Psychiatrist of the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness and not as an attending physician of petitioner. he filed a missing persons report after the RTC dismissed his case. The husband and wife are obliged to live together. 70. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. 73. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection. 44. such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. in the absence thereof. the court shall decide whether or not: (1) The objection is proper. The latter may object only on valid. said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. Held: No Ratio: The in-laws had reported that Lea did drop by their house but did not leave a clue to her whereabouts. 36. Salanguit. J.

Hence. she had waived her right to object. has destroyed the confidential nature of the communication between doctor and patient. Manila. A. which states that: x x x at the time of their marriage. After a year. the facts which the evidence on the trial court will prove. Nelly Lim was never interviewed alone and thus.e. Nelly Lim and Juan Sim are lawfully married.  Salita  also  reasons   out that she cannot respond if the BP were inadequate. the RTC found it adequate already. The present case in SC therefore is a petition on certiorari questioning the Resolution of the CA. Madarang. Only disclosures made to the physician to enable him safely and efficaciously to treat his patient are covered by the confidentiality rule.. Hence.”  Salita  was  not  satisfied  with  the   details of the petition.” Juan Sim had 4 witnesses. since Nelly Lim did not object when she found out that the doctor was going to testify. Held: Nope. J.  petitioner   came to realize that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage. specializing in Psychiatry.  lack  of   ultimate  facts. 1992. Since expert witness and she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination of Nelly Lim. Espinosa  alleged  in  the  petition  that  “sometime  in  1987. 1986. CA affirmed the resolution of the RTC on July 21. Felizmenio.  during. Acampado in a professional capacity and had diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia. Espinosa filed such. Castillo. SALITA v. Chief of the Female Services of the National Mental Hospital. Salita insists that the Bill of Particulars failed to point out specific details  which  can  explain  Espinosa’s  cause  of  action  (i. however. Lydia Acampado. The doctor was allowed to testify since she would be testifying as an expert and not as an attending physician. which denies due course to her petition. her testimony cannot be excluded. whose intervention caused petitioner to lose his job. 32. November 25. respondent (Salita) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession—that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine—upon  petitioner’s  time  and  efforts  so  that  she   frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother. All they discussed was hypothetical and did not mention specifically Nelly Lim. the issue  is… Issue: WON the Bill of Particulars filed by Espinosa is sufficient to enable Salita to file a response.  constitutive. 1987: Juan Sim filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that petitioner Nelly Lim has been allegedly suffering from a mental illness called schizophrenia “before. Espinosa then filed an annulment case before the QC RTC on January 7. One is Dr.Digested by: De Guzman. even if the information was privileged. it ordered Salita to file a response. so she requested for a Bill of Particulars. and they eventually separated in 1988. Salita was still not satisfied with the Bill of Particulars. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and Joselita Salita. Nelly Lim objected to this witness since the testimony sought from Dr. Nelly Lim had gone to Dr. Salita was not convinced still so she filed a petition for certiorari with SC. Lastly. Gravador. MAGTOLIS Facts: Erwin Espinosa. were married at the Roman Catholic Church. their marriage turned sour. 22.  and  after  the  marriage  and  until  the  present. which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage although the same became  manifest  only  thereafter. 161 . Acampado is privileged.  or  traversable  facts   essential to the statement of the cause of action. Besides. Flores. Salanguit. on January 25. Morales. The petition was sent instead to CA for a resolution. 1992.  which  are  “issuable. and not the evidence which will be  required  to  prove  the  existence  of  those  facts”). Yu.

Madarang. the court must immediately decide on the matter so the couple can move on either together or separately.  hence   rendering the decision of the RTC and CA wrong. 1988. more or less. there were a lot of stuff mentioned as obiter dictum):  There is no need to limit the scope of situations which denote the psychological incapacity of a party. 1986. is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. the two started having fights due to the interference of  Julia’s  parents  in  their  relationship. Castillo.  Interpretations  shall  be  guided  by  the  Judge’s   experience. Felizmenio.Julia opposed the complaint and denied its allegations. and by decisions of church tribunals. J. which may not be binding.Julia filed a manifestation that she would neither appear nor submit any evidence for the case. but he was not able to find her. Leouel appealed in the CA. There is no point in prolonging the agony of the annulment case. October 25. She even claimed that it was Leouel who is irresponsible and incompetent (HAHA! Mature!).(7 months after) Julia called up Leouel to tell him that she would just finish her contract and return in July 1989. Morales. Ratio:  The  BP  already  stated  the  cause  of  Espinosa’s  action  for   annulment.  there  is  no  affection  for   (him) because Julia failed all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A.”   Issue: WON Leouel can nullify his marriage with Julia on the basis of the  latter’s  psychological  incapacity  (given  his  basic  argument). and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. That should be presented in the trial court. 1987. Respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos  is  one  such  wife.  CA’s  resolution  is  affirmed. 1989.Julia left for US to work as a nurse. CA Facts:  September 20. Gravador. Leouel went back to the Philippines and filed with Negros Oriental  RTC  a  complaint  for  “Voiding  of  Marriage  Under   Article  36  of  the  Family  Code.  The  two  lived  together  with  Julia’s  parents.Leouel Santos and Julia Rosario BediaSantos exchanged vows before MTC Judge Cornelio G. Salanguit. neither are pieces of evidence needed yet. This was followed by a church wedding.. There is no need to go into very specific details. 162 . Judgment: Instant  petition  is  denied. Each allegation should be treated in a case-to-case basis.”  Summons  was  served.RTC dismissed the case for lack of merit.Digested by: De Guzman.Leouel underwent a training program in the US under the auspices of the AFP.  Giving examples might limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. On JULIA’s  PSYCHOLOGICAL  INCAPACITY:  Leouel   basically  argues  that  “There  is  no  love. He tried to look for Julia. Lazaro of Iloilo City. April 10 to August 25. Held: Yes. but are otherwise helpful. 1990. A wife who does not care to inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of five years. However. May 31. 1991. Yu. January 1. 1991. SANTOS v. CA affirmed the RTC decision.            July 18.Julia gave birth to a baby boy. findings of experts. November 6. 1991. Notes: A few points on FC 36 (I cannot include it in the issue because the case  really  does  not  concern  itself  with  the  details  of  Salita’s   psychological incapacity. Flores. Later on. May 18. But she never did.

which in this case was not proven. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which. And there were detailed medical reports hahaha. Morales. J. the law nor society can provide all the specific answers to the individual problems. existing precepts in our law on marriage. Note: It is important to reiterate that FC 36 refers to the inability of a person to fulfill marital obligations.  Gina  suspects  him  of  being  a  closet  gay. Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao married on May 22. (Please see page 37 of the case for the outlined specific reasons of Justice Padilla). indissoluble social institution upon which the family and society are founded. J. . Filipino culture sees marriage as a permanent. There was no attempt on her husband’s  part. separate opinion:  FC 36 is not a means to provide couples an easy way out of their marriage. dissenting: Julia clearly shows signs of psychological incapacity that she is not even able to live with her husband. he is incapable. Divorce. granting that the incapacity is already present at the time of their wedding (just to be strict about the timeframe). Issue: Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi was incapable of consummating the marital act (because of his psychological incapacity). The law intends to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders. Castillo. Madarang. The sanctity of marriage is important in our culture.  CHI MING TSOI v. RTC declared their marriage void. Ratio:   FC 36 cannot be taken and construed independently of. include their mutual obligations to live together. Marriage was annulled. CA Facts: A case where the petition for annulment was granted on the basis of psychological incapacity (to consummate the marriage). A. on the other hand. and fidelity and render help and support. Yes. by reason of incapacity. Flores. respect. FC 36 is not the same as divorce. Held. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Romero. Padilla. Held: Sorry. however. J. but must stand in conjunction with.  1989   (almost 10 months). 1988.. observe love. grants dissolution of marriage based on problems that appeared even after the marriage ceremony. 1 and 2 of Art XV of the 1987 Constitution. However. CA affirmed it. but no. although its symptoms only became obvious after a while.Digested by: De Guzman. as so expressed by FC 68. inviolable. 163  Judgment: Petition is denied.. Yu. Felizmenio. Chi rebutted by saying that she refuses his attempts. they haven’t  had  sex  on  their  wedding  night  up  until  March  15. fail short of the ideal. Gravador. Salanguit. SC explains that Leouel may be in a very difficult situation. hence FC 1 and Secs.. when they separated. it is but a recognition that some marriages.

CA (Republic vs. Yu. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. SC + Amici Curiae (Rev. Felizmenio. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse. Ratio: .If  Gina  really  refused  to  have  sex  with  him. J. Roridel (girl) and Reynaldo Molina married on April 14. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. proven by his abnormal reluctance and unwillingness to consummate their marriage. etc.FC states that to procreate children is one of the essential marital obligations. May 14.   . and she became the breadwinner. she would not expose her private life to public scrutiny. No. 4. not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. quarreling with her. Salanguit. 3.Chi had a serious personality disorder which prevented him from having sex with his wife. due to some psychological (not physical) illness.. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.). A.Why  wasn’t  he  the  one  who  sought  the  declaration  of  nullity? . Issue: Whether Reynaldo Molina was psychologically incapacitated. squandering money. sufficiently proven by experts d. Castillo. It is essential that the party must be proven to be incapable of doing these.  why  didn’t  he  try  to  find   out  what  her  problem  was?  He  can’t  prove  that  Gina  was  the  one  who   had the problem. Furthermore. Flores. medically or clinically identified b. Held: Ratio: . The incapacity must be proven to be existing at  “the  time  of  the   celebration”  of  the  marriage. Marriage still valid. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Madarang.Gina is a Filipino woman who is modest and unless she had compelling reasons to do so. Andre.It  was  proven  that  they’ve  never  had  sex. After 1 year of marriage. Oscar Cruz and Justice Ricardo Puno) Guidelines for Interpreting FC Art. clearly explained in the decision FC 36 requires that the incapacity must be psychological—not physical. .it  wasn’t  proven  that  Reynaldo’s  “personality  traits”  were  present  at   the time of marriage. 36 1. Gravador. Mar 1987 she resigned and went back to her parents and Reynaldo left her and Andre alone.neglect of marital duties does not translate to incapacity. . RTC declared the marriage void and CA affirmed this.Digested by: De Guzman. such incapacity must 164 . They had a son. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. 1985. . Psychological incapacity not proven. Morales. Such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Republic vs. Feb 1986 he lost his job. and this he cannot fulfill. Olaviano Molina) Facts: A case for annulment of marriage. alleged in the complaint c. 2. 1991. (FC 36) . she found out that Reynaldo was immature (going out with friends.

1982). Mario was  Lucita’s  student  for  two  consecutive  semester. they became sweethearts (February 1979). Cavite.(probed  intent  of  the  UP  Law  Center’s  Civil  Code  Revision   Committee---they wanted to exclude mental inability.” . . On January 1. Three children were born to them: Maie (May 3. in nature. Concurring Opinion . viz: 1. . 221 and 225 of the FC. CA Overview: Lucita Hernandez filed a petition seeking an annulment of her   marriage   to   Mario   on   the   ground   of   the   latter’s   psychological   incapacity that causes him not to perform his marital duties and obligations. Separate Statement. should be given great respect by our courts. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.”  They’re  more  like   “refusal”  or  “neglect. not necessarily to those not related to marriage. 3. Salanguit. not mere refusal. more than in any  field  of  the  law. and 4. not a refusal. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Art 6871 and Art 220. Also. Yu. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume  the  essential  obligations  of  marriage…  The  illness   must be shown as downright incapacity or inability.”  to  be  a  ground  for  the  nullity  of   marriage under FC 36. July 10. 8.FC did not define psych incapacity . devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. “[w]hether  or  not  psychological  incapacity  exists  in a given case calling for annulment of a marriage. 5. a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to Mario on the ground of his psychological incapacity. A.) . Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household (for he has no stable job). not physical. The psychological incapacity must relate to the inability.Reynaldo’s  traits  did  not  show  “difficulty.  on  the  facts  of  the  case.. Facts: In 1977. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. Lucita Estrella Hernandez and Mario Hernandez met at the Philippine Christian University in Dasmariñas. 1981. or difficulty. She alleged that from the time of their marriage up to the time of filing the suit. 6. assume. while not controlling or decisive.  When  she  was  no   longer his teacher. Madarang. observing love.Digested by: De Guzman. 1985) and Marian (June 15. there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person. In other words. 2. must be able to pass the following tests. Lucita and Mario were married at Silang Catholic Parish Church in Silang. The incapacity must be psychological or mental.“neither  should  the  incapacity  be  the  result  of  mental  illness. Felizmenio. depends crucially.  The  mental  disorder  must  be  grave  or  serious  and  incurable.” . neglect. 1992. Interpretations given by the National Appelate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. Lura (May 22. she claimed that 165 Padilla. Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City. be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations. 7.” Romero. 1989). and discharge the basic marital obligations of living together. Separate Opinion. Gravador. J. Castillo. much less ill will. to understand.“the  term  “psychological  incapacity. respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help and support. Cavite.church annulments are not recognized by civil law Vitug. Morales.” HERNANDEZ v. The psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is contracted although its overt manifestations may occur only thereafter.

Lucita prayed for support (P9000 monthly). Felizmenio. Madarang. that because of his promiscuity.   sexual   infidelity   and   abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity. (2) alleged in the complaint. MARCOS Overview: Brenda Marcos filed for declaration of nullity of marriage based  on  her  husband’s  psychological  incapacity. Psychological incapacity of Mario was not proven. As such. She averred that Mario was irresponsible. and. Yu. 1994: They had a bitter quarrel that turned super violent that she had to leave with their kids. Issue: WON psychological examination is required to prove psychological incapacity WON the totality of the evidence presented and the demeanour of the witnesses show that he was psychologically incapacitated to marry Facts: September 6. Flores. and not merely due to private respondent’s   youth   and   self-conscious feeling of being handsome.e. Eduardo Eleazar at Malacanang Park. In 1992. they lived in a housing unit from Bliss Development Corporation that Brenda Marcos had acquired when she was single. o Private   respondent’s   alcoholism. Japayuki Tess.Digested by: De Guzman. Mario left for the Middle East. 1983: It was solemnized by Rev. Margie Oliva) with)] and. o No evidence was presented to show that private respondent was not cognizant of his basic marital obligations. Issue:  WON marriage of Lucita and Mario Hernandez should be annulled on the ground  of  Mario’s  psychological  incapacity? Held and Ratio:  No. Salanguit. Angie. custody of their children and ownership of the land and jeep bought and used during their marriage. Note:  Root cause of psychological incapacity: (1) medically or clinically identified. 1992: They were already living separately October 16. 1982: Judge Eriberto Espiritu solemnized their marriage at the Municipal Court of Pasig May 8. Castillo. Even forcing her to have sex when she did not want. immature and unprepared for the duties of married life. dissolution of property regime and/or custody of children. She sought refuge 166 . (3) sufficiently proven by experts and (4) clearly explained in the decision. Mario endangered her health by infecting her with gonorrhea (sometime in 1986). Myrna and Ruth Oliva (whom he had an illegitmate child (i. Since the marriage.  It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge his essential marital obligations. They had 5 kids. RTC dismissed petition ruling that circumstances mentioned are valid reasons for the grant of legal separation not as grounds for a declaration of nullity of marriage or annulment thereof. MARCOS v. Morales. Gravador. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Mario cohabited with several women [Edna. he often hit and beat her.  These matters may be appropriately litigated in a separate proceeding for legal separation. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment. J. A.. that sometimes he physically abused her and her children.  Expert testimony should have been presented to establish that such incapacity existed at the inception of marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.

habitual alcoholism. A. . the social worker. No. can be enough. He got so mad that he ran after them with a samurai sword and even beat her driver.Digested by: De Guzman. in  her  sister’s  house  and  then  underwent  a  medical  examination   which found that the injuries were contusions. Avelino started leaving his family w/o explanation. 1975. The last time Erlinda saw him was on Oct. His behaviour may be traced to his lack of employment for a period of more than 6 years which let him drink and fail to give support. he indulged in drinking sprees. He would disappear for months. suddenly reappear for a few months. Rationale: Even with the testimonies of the petitioner. A week after their wedding. the totality of evidence is not enough to prove psychological incapacity of Wilson Marcos. August 1995: She and two sisters went to his house (her old Bliss home) looking for her missing son.The court found that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude. 2. Held: Not needed because the totality of evidence. Although respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. Morales. moral pressure. It should also be grave and  permanent  such  that  one  becomes  incapable  of  doing  one’s   duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond. sexual infidelity. with or without the psychological exam. Castillo. 1990 declared that he was still at-large. Flores. J. 1993. . 1990 – teh court issued an order giving the investigating prosecutor until Jan. 1990 – Erlinda filed for petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity (FC 36) December 17. REPUBLIC v.. Social worker Sonia Millan said that the kids described their dad as cruel and physically abusive. in this case. Salanguit. 1991 to present controverting evidence. civil interdiction. the children. Article 36 of the Family Code is not the same as a divorce law which cuts the marital bond at the time the causes manifest themselves. It should be psychological illness afflicting a party even before marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. she was beaten. December 27. petitioner failed to prove that her marriage was null and void. At most. During the times when he was with his family. Gravador. Madarang. There could be no conclusion of psychological incapacity where there is absolutely no showing that the defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.CA reversed the decision and held that the incapacity has not been proven. the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. then disappear again.   July 3. If she did not comply. he intended to intervene in the case to avoid fabrication of evidence. abandonment etc. moral corruption. She later learned that he was imprisoned but escaped from jail and was now a fugitive. 1990 – RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Erlinda and Avelino void under FC Art 36 167  . the sister. Felizmenio. drug addiction. 14. Yu. Although he found that there was no collusion. DAGDAG Facts Erlinda Matias (16) married Avelino Dagdag (20) on September 7. A certificate issued by the Jail Warden on Feb. would return home drunk and force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse with him. Article 36 is also different from legal separation which can be based on physical violence. the evidence presented can be grounds for legal separation but not for declaring a marriage void. Their marriage begot two children.

1994 – Florence filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage  June 16. Castillo. 1991 . 1993). MALCAMPO-SIN v.  dissolution  of  a   marriage that the State values so much) did not happen. Morales. Note Ruling shall be given upon proper trial by the lower courts. 1995 – trial court dismissed Florence’s  petition  December 19.  ―  The  OSG  then  appealed  to  the  CA  which   consequently affirmed the decision of the RTC (April 22. OSG petitioned for review to the SC. 1991 to present controverting evidence. and the court noticed the nonparticipation of the State during the proceedings and the case in general. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. 68 of the Family  Code.  the  “evil”  sought  to  be  prevented  (i. Felizmenio. 1987 – Florence and Philipp got married  September 20. 1988 – Florence filed with the CA an MR January 19.  January 29. stating that ―the  fact  that  Avelino  failed  to  support  his  family  is  a   violation of essential marriage obligation in Art. PESCA Facts: Loren Pesca filed a petition to declare her marriage with Zosimo null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity. Petition was denied. 1998 – CA  dismissed  Florence’s  petition . The OSG likewise filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it. PESCA v. 168 WON Marriage of Matias and Dagdag could be declared null on the basis  of  Dagdag’s  alleged  psychological  incapacity Held No Ratio  Erlinda failed to comply with guideline no. since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.e. SIN Facts  January 4. A. Madarang. Held Yes Ratio  Art 48 of the Family Code provides for the need of the participation of the state in cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the task of protecting a marriage requires active participation from the State. Salanguit. Gravador.  It can be argued that since the lower court dismissed the petition. 1995 – Florence filed a notice of appeal to CA  April 30. Yu. the allegation that her husband is a fugitive was not sufficiently proven. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. so lack of participation of State was cured. Also.    June 23.Investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment on the ground that RTC decided on the issue prematurely since he was given till January 2. J. However. Flores. 1999 – CA denied MR This appeal was filed. WON the RTC and CA erred in dismissing the petitions without due participation of the State in the proceedings..Digested by: De Guzman.

cannot be equated to psychological incapacity CHOA v. Molina ruling: psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty”. etc. 1995. Her husband filed the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on her alleged psychological incapacity. 169 . invoked by the petitioner. as so expressed by Art 68 of FC.  May 9.  she  withdrew   herself and refused to talk to Tadeo. 6) they agreed on the support and custody of their children.Tadeo R.. -Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity -Dr. nonetheless. 1995.Tadeo filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition which the RTC granted in its Order dated June 7. He also claims the following (see page 47 for a clearer discussion of these reasons): 1) they had frequent quarrels due to their differences in upbringing.) are not mentioned in the case. CHOA Facts: Leni Choa files a petition for review on certiorari on ruling of CA (denied her demurrer of evidence). Petition was granted. 3) Diana requested Tadeo to temporarily leave their home.  A  “Refusal”  or  a  “neglect”  in  the  performance  of  some   marital obligations. which was found in the psychological examination conducted on their relationship. CA Facts: The specific details of their marriage (i. 4) in order to keep the peace. 6) Diana is psychologically incapacitated from the celebration of their marriage until the present. juridical antecedence (rooted in history antedating the marriage although overt manifestations may emerge only in marriage) and incurability (cure would be beyond means of the party involved). Barcelona before QC RTC. date of wedding. Gravador. observe love. Morales. Tadeo was forced to permanently leave their home and reside in a condominium in Greenhills instead. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Bengzon filed an annulment case against Diana M. and 2) it violates SC Administrative Circular 04-94 on forum shopping. Gauzon. “Psychological  incapacity”  should  refer  to  no  less  than  a  mental  (not   physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed discharged by the parties to the marriage which. Madarang. Santos ruling: psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity (grave or serious such that the party will be incapable of carrying out ordinary duties required in a marriage). and 7) under FC 36. Salanguit. J. 2)  due  to  Diana’s  several  miscarriages. A.  Diana  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  Tadeo’s  petition  for annulment based on two grounds: 1) the second petition fails to state a cause of action.Digested by: De Guzman. 1995.e.  July 21. → Tadeo asserts that Diana is psychologically incapacitated. BARCELONA v.Tadeo filed a new Petition for Annulment of Marriage against Diana in QC RTC. Felizmenio. Yu. Flores. claims that the spouses had an “incompatibility”-a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy -Declaration for nullity based on grounds of psychological incapacity of Leni was dismissed. Castillo. include their mutual obligations to live together. a psychotherapist. their marriage must be declared void ab initio. 5) complete estrangement of the couple. It starts with these:  March 29. 1995. respect and fidelity and render help and support -Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility.

Desperado si Ate! CA dismissed the petition and the MR. Judgment: SC  denies  Diana’s  petition. Prohibition and Mandamus before the CA.RTC Judge Tabiolo issued an Order deferring  the  resolution  of  Diana’s  motion until the hearing. Facts: DEDEL v. Castillo. Gravador. Yu. which  is  Diana’s  psychological  incapacity.  The  Decision  and  Resolution   of the CA are affirmed. against the RTC. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Morales. Held: Yes. Ratio: her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot equated with psychological incapacity.  Diana filed a Petition for Certiorari. Alleging that his wife Sharon L.  CA agrees with the RTC that there is a sufficient  cause  of  action  in  Tadeo’s petition. A. the instant petition.  September 18. Republic of the Philippines. through the Solicitor General appealed.  in  order  for  the  petition  for   annulment to proceed. Respondent. CA Issue: WON Tadeo Bengzon has fully established his cause of action. The Judge claims that: 1) it is for the court to  examine  if  there’s  no  cause  of  action.e. After trial. Hence. The Court of Appeals recalled and set aside the judgment of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of petitioner's petition.RTC Judge Pison denied the MR. Ratio:  There is no need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity since only experts in neurological and behavioral sciences can do that. petitioner sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of his wife to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Flores. The civil and church marriages between petitioner and his wife were therefore declared null and void on ground of psychological incapacity on the part of private respondent to perform the essential obligations of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. petitioner obtained a favorable judgment from the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. It must be shown that these acts are 170 . Salanguit. because there is no final decision on the merits). 1996.. because Tadeo had caused the dismissal without prejudice of the first petition before filing the second petition) nor res judicata (i. Felizmenio.  Tadeo’s  second  petition  was  able  to  state  the  physical   manifestations  indicative  of  Diana’s  psychological  incapacity. Corpuz-Dedel was an irresponsible and immature wife and had abandoned her family and repeatedly committed acts of infidelity during their marriage. 1997.Digested by: De Guzman. J. which constitutes a cause of action.  January 21.  2)   Tadeo’s  petition  shows  that  Diana  violated  the   rights of Tadeo. Madarang.e. ISSUE: WON The marriage can be annulled based on psychological incapacity Held: No. It also agrees that there was no violation of Circular 04-94 because there is neither litis pedentia (i. → Diana filed for MR.

Lolita and Toshio got married in a civil wedding ceremony. Facts: Lolita Quintero-Hamano and Toshio Hamano started a common-law relationship in Japan in October 1986. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. immaturity or sexual promiscuity.e. Morales. Lolita filed a motion to refer the  case  to  the  prosecutor  for  investigation  due  to  Toshio’s  failure  to   respond. Sometime in 1991. it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person. They later lived in the Philippines for a month. o As ruled in Molina. 1996. thereby declaring their marriage null and void?  WON there is a distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse in proving psychological incapacity? Held and Ratio:  No. July 8. 1988. o It  would  have  helped  respondent’s  case  had  she   presented evidence that medically or clinically identified  Toshio’s  illness  (i. Issue:  WON  Lucita  successfully  proved  Toshio’s  psychological   incapacity to fulfill his marital responsibilites. In an appeal of the OSG. Yu. illness. prosecutor filed a report finding that no collusion existed between the parties.  was   never alleged nor proven to be some kind of psychological illness. RP v. stopped giving financial support after two months and responding and/or communicating with her. Madarang. Salanguit. Republic of the Philippines appealed such a decision saying that mere abandonment by Toshio did not automatically constitute psychological incapacity. not physical. a Japanese. Flores. manifestations of a disordered personality which make respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.  No. the summons was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Meanwhile. There was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person. 1996. 171 . 1996. Gravador.  expert  witness). November 20. Thereafter. 1987. the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation.  albeit  irresponsible. Toshio went back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987.  Lucita  did  not  prove  Toshio’s  psychological  incapacity. A. Lolita gave birth to their child. There is no distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse in proving psychological incapacity. the trial court has no jurisdiction to dissolve the church marriage of petitioner and respondent. QUINTERO-HAMANO Overview: Lolita sought that her marriage with Toshio. RTC declared the marriage between said parties null and void. which incapacity became manifest only after the marriage. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. our first and foremost duty is to apply the law no matter how harsh it may be. o Toshio’s  act  of  abandonment. Lolita filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons by publication.. In August 1996. not merely due to her youth. an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage. On January 14. November 5. Court granted the motion on November 7. Unknown to Lolita. Lolita learned that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not even bother to see her and their child. it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological. The authority to do so is exclusively lodged with the Ecclesiastical Court of the Roman Catholic Church.Digested by: De Guzman. Toshio. not for declaring a marriage void. be declared  null  and  void  on  the  ground  of  the  latter’s  psychological   incapacity that prevents him from fulfilling his marital responsibilities. Castillo. 1996. on November 16. 1996. Felizmenio. Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. after leaving for Japan. J. Court granted the motion on July 12.

Eduardo Maaba..     Their relationship is not conducive to a healthy and progressive marriage. over-domineering and selfish. Jeremy. the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality. She was supportive of Manuel and she was raised in a really happy family and had a happy childhood. . SIAYNGCO her perceived lack of love from her parents. husband Manuel filed for nullity of marriage due to Juanita’s  alleged  psychological incapacity. incurable and existed even before marriage. Issue: WON the marriage between petitioner Juanita and respondent Manuel is null due to the psychological incapacity of either parties Facts: June 27. 4) Juanita – denied what Manuel said 5) Dr.She says that these are lies concocted by Manuel since he wants to marry his paramour.   respondent’s   Clerk   of   Court   – she agreed that Juanita was weird/OC/praning 3) Dr. because they discovered that they  couldn’t  have  a  child  of  their  own September 25. Felizmenio. Juanita filed a motion for certiorari. he says. Note: Molina ruling re: guidelines for psychological incapacity presented on pages 740 to 742.She was. for Manuel – Juanita was psychologically capacitated 6) Crispina Sevilla – a friend of the couple couple were sweet. She was a loving mother and wife. Valentica Garcia. Gravador. . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Madarang. She also complained a lot and didn’t   respect   and   support   him   and   his   position   as   MTC judge. Morales. 1997: Manuel filed for a declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of Juanita. A. o The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general. J. Treatment would take years which he cannot take emotionally and physically since he had already suffered 22 years of loveless marriage. 1973: Juanita and Manuel were married at civil rites August 11. Castillo. She was also extremely volatile and had a bellicose nature. for Juanita – the couple had defective communication pattern which is characteristically negative and deformed. This the lower court dismissed while the court of appeals granted that BOTH were psychologically incapacitated. Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. Hence. They have both shown their psychological incapacity to satisfactorily comply with the fundamental duties of marriage. religious leaders. Witnesses: 1) Manuel – he supported his claims and said that he had no mistress 2)   Lucena   Tan. 1973: They were married before the Catholic Church 1977: They adopted a baby boy. Overview: Basically. Flores. he claims is rooted in her resentment for SIAYNGCO v. She also yelled and threw objects at him. It is. Both spouses display narcissistic psychological repertoire failed to adequately empathize   to   each   other’s   needs   and   feelings. 172 . This. psychiatrist. according to him. She also says that it was Manuel who was lacking. Salanguit. professional qualifications as a psychiatrist. Hence.

Pasig.R. Court of Appeals reversed the decision finding that both are psychologically incapacitated. Reyes. Marriage is always presumed to be valid. Rationale: Supreme Court rules that sexual intimacy is a non issue. Castillo.  April 19. He admitted that he had extramarital affairs because he wanted to have a child. Facts:  August 1989. Salanguit. Issue: WON Leonilo has fully established the psychological incapacity of his wife for their marriage to be declared null and void.Church wedding at the Sta. Juanita: Manuel failed to prove that she showed grave psychological maladies that paralyze her from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. since both are not incapacitated and since an unsatisfactory marriage is not null and void.Leonilo Antonio. 155800 (March 10.Leonilo filed a petition to have his marriage declared null and void—FC36 psychological incapacity. but died after 5 months. . Madarang. J. Yu. RTC denied the petition of Manuel since they did not prove that they were psychologically incapacitated. the marriage is still valid. their marriage is still valid. Gravador.. o She lied that her brother-in-law tried to rape and kill her.  March 8. Therefore. met. And that is not an inadequacy of Juanita amounting to psychological incapacity. Ponente: Tinga.  December 6. o She represented herself as a person of greater means.The two married before a Minister of the Gospel.Leonilo separated from Marie. o She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold. o She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez who she said sent her letters of admiration. A. Even Dr. o She exhibited insecurities and jealousies  RTC: Granted declaration of nullity. 173 . o She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist. Held: No. 1991. Bagong Ilog.Digested by: De Guzman. Manuel: Sexual infidelity does not constitute psychological capacity.  Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila: Annulled the church marriage.  August 1991. 2006) Nature: Petition for review on certiorari on the Decision and Resolution of the CA. Flores. . It must   be   shown   that   Manuel’s   unfaithfulness   is   a   manifestation of a disordered personality which makes him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state and not merely due to his desire to have a child.  CA: Revised RTC. It is actually about a husband who does not want to married to an overbearing irritating wife. Morales. Marie allegedly persistently lied about herself: o She concealed that she has an illegitimate son. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Their child was born. 26 y/o (petitioner) and Marie Ivonne F. 1990. J. Antonio v. Reyes G.  Barely after a year.Since they could not have sexual intimacy.Due to the gravity of the failed relationship in which the coupled was trapped in. No. Felizmenio. Maaba said that Juanita was ok. 1993. 36 y/o (respondent). Rosa de Lima Parish.

Felizmenio.  Psychological incapacity was established to have existed before celebration of marriage. Judgment: RTC decision AFFIRMED. Held: Yes. clearly explained before RTC. Catherine filed to CA a Motion for the Modification of her visiting rights. April 28. Santos and Molina ruling stated. and which has been in the existence at the time of celebration of marriage and is incurable. Yu v. J. and flaunting of her American family and surname do not satisfactorily establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious or grave. IYOY Facts: Republic of the Philippines. 2002 Eric was given full cutody during pendency of habeas corpus. 2002. extravagance. which enumerates the requirements for a marriage to be declared null and void under FC 36:  Petitioner has sufficiently overcome the burden of proving his wife’s  psychological  incapacity—presenting witnesses. marriage to an American. judicial antecedence and incurability. Gravador.Digested by: De Guzman.  Root cause of psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified. Must be able to prove gravity. April 5. Yu. Petition also includes prayer for the award to him of the sole custody of Bianca.  Gravity  of  the  respondent’s  psycho  incapacity  was  so  grave  it   would make prolonged marriage life difficult. experts (he presented two psychologists). nagging. Petition was granted. Ratio: SC relied heavily on the 1997 Republic v. Flores. with full visiting rights to Catherine.  Wife failed to comply with essential marital obligations stated in FC 88 and 71. approved April 24. the couple filed a Joint Motion to Approve Interim Visitation Agreement. CA (aka Molina) case. Yu Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts: The whirlwind left and right filing of cases started on: Jan. Morales. March 3. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2002.  Catcholic church annulled their marriage. March 21. Salanguit. and that there never was a tribute to Marie held in the said hotel). Madarang. A. Castillo. sufficiently proven by experts. through office of the Solicitor General. Eric filed for the Opposition with Motion to Cite 174 REPUBLIC v. -Fely’s  hot-temper. 11. certifications from Blackgold and Philippine Village Hotel (that Marie is never an employee of Blackgold. Eric Jonathan Yu filed petition for habeas corpus before the CA alleging that his estranged wife Caroline Tanchay Yu unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their minor child Bianca. Catherine filed a petition against Eric before Pasig RTC for declaration of nullity of marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property.  In terms of curability—psychosis is quite grave. . abandonment of Crasus. filed a petition to reverse the CA decision declaring the marriage between Crasus Iyoy and Fely Rosal-Iyoy null and vode on the basis of psychological incapacity. Marriage declared null and void. It includes prayer for full cutody and for fixing the visiting rights of Eric..

the custody and support of the common children. Ratio: FC Art. Eric petitioned for nullity of marriage and dissolution of absolute community of property before RTC.. Catherine petitioned for habeas corpus and sole custody of Bianca in Pasay RTC July 25. Respondent for Contempt of Court in light of her filing of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC which constituted forum shopping. RTC granted it thereby dismissing her petition. Eric prayed for custody of Bianca in the duration of the case in the Pasig RTC Pasay   RTC   granted   Catherine’s   petition   and   so   Eric   motioned   to   dismiss it for certain issues. 50. Felizmenio. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation. Art. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2003. CA dismissed habeas corpus petition for being moot and academic July 2. During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses. and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes. Morales. (3). On December. Paay RTC released an Order that Bianca should stay with her mother on certain times. June 12. Gravador. She then motioned to Admit Amended Petition.Digested by: De Guzman. CA ordered Catherine and her counsel to make amendments in her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC. Flores. Salanguit. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. 12. July 3. Petitioner filed Motion for recon for RTC has no jurisdiction Oct. J. she filed for Motion to Dismiss the said petition since she no longer has time and attention for it. Castillo. July 5. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2). All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. Aug. Dismissing the ruling of Pasay RTC and setting aside the ruling of CA. A. 49. 175 . unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. The Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children. Yu. Pasig RTC ordered that the couple observe the Interim Visiting Agreement and granted custody to Eric Issue: Whether custody should be litigated before Pasay RTC or before Pasig RTC . Madarang. 30.WON the ground of psychological incapacity is valid to nullify the marriage and not to give the custody to Catherine Held: The petition filed by Eric for the declaration of nullity of marriage before Pasig RTC is the appropriate action to determine the issue of who between the parties should should have custody. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. The Court orders the Pasog RTC to continue with dispatch.

Yu. Armida Perez-Ferraris to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error. RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES Sec. Alcantara Catalan v. CA affirmed in toto CA held that the evidence on record did not convincingly establish that his   ‘defects’   were   incurable   and   already   present   at   the   inception   of   marriage. Madarang. Ferraris Motion for Recinsideration of a decision of the SC denying the petition for review on certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the CA for Ma. 176 . custody. in case of appeal.Digested by: De Guzman.Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition.” Issue: WON Brix is psychologically incapacitated therefore being a ground for annulment. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. the Family Court. including custody. 21. The Petition is denied. Held:  Brix’s  alleged  MPD. on motion of either party. Flores..   “dependent   and   avoidant   type. Mallion v. are not rooted on psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition. Morales. CA Petition for review on certiorari on the decision and resolution of the CA which reversed the decision of the Dagupan RTC declaring the marriage between Orlando B. best interests.     Petitioner  motioned  for  a  Recon  but  was  denied. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. abandonment and lack of support and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family. Castillo. Gravador. the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated. Liquidation. partition and distribution. A. sexual infidelity. Braganza void bigamous and the resolution denying motion for recon. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. or. In the partition. shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.  “leaving  the  house  attitude”whenever  they   quarrelled. support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes. 20. . Salanguit. J. violent tendencies during epileptic attacks. benefit and the good of the child must be determined as of the time that either parent is chosen to be custodian. shall proceed with the liquidation.  Dayan’s  failed  to  explain  her  allegations  that  Brix  has   mixed   personality   disorder”schizoid. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.    Dr. Notes: The welfare. Pasig RTC denied her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with Brix Ferraris. Catalan and Merope E. Felizmenio. support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Suffering from epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity and the evidence on record were insufficient to prove infidelity. Ferraris v. 2001. Facts: Feb.

She might have the personality if it was a limited divorce (suspend the marriage and leave the bond in full force) or if the foreign law restricts remarriage. They migrated to the US and allegedly became naturalized citizen thereof.. Notes: The accused who secured a foreign divorce and later remarried in the Phil. Felizmenio. Gravador. Two months after. in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid is liable for bigamy. Case was decided following the doctrine in Molina. Salanguit. . Petitioner allege that his wife is psychologically incapacitated because she refused to cohabit with him and in fact lived in the US for more than 20 years and that she is horrified by the mere thought of having children. Considering that the marriage is bigamous since Merope is married. (a) Who may file. Guanzon alleging the psychological incapacity of Manolito due to his AntiSocial Disorder is unscientific and unreliable because it was only deduced from 2nd hand information from Laila and no actual psychological examination was performed on the respondent. Court of Appeals Marriage valid. Ratio: RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES Sec. no psychological incapacity. J.  However. Also that she had always been fond of children as she is by profession a nurse. as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations  of  marriage. the petitioner must nonetheless be able 177 . 2. Morales. After 38 yrs of marriage. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose Marriage valid. Also petitioner failed to present an expert to corroborate his contentions. Manolito’s  alleged  psychological  incapacity  was  premised  on  his   being jobless and a drug user. they were divorced.   only   a   party   who   can   demonstrate   “proper   interest”can   fill   the same. Madarang. Court decided based on the Molina case and said that mere refusal to bear children does not constitute psychological incapacity unless it is proven to be due to a psychological illness. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu.A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Facts: Felicitas Amor-Catalan married Orlando in 1950. and while it is not expressly required in Molina and Santos cases for an expert opinion to prove psychological incapacity. Felicitas filed a petition for declaration of mullity of marriage with damages against Orlando and Merope. The testimony of Dr. Respondent says  that  she  didn’t  want  to  cohabit  only  because  of  his  infidelity  and   that he had in fact 2 mistresses and had children with them. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. however. Issue: WON Felicitas has required standing to question nullity of marriage WON failure of CA to declare the marriage void constitutes reversible error Held: The Court cannot rule on the first issue without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence. A. Orlando married Merope. the case is remanded to RTC Under the NCC anyone can file a petition for nullity of marriage. Therefore. Flores. no psychological incapacity.  Manolito’s  state  or  condition  or   attitude has not been shown to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. Zamora v. Pangasinan.

 During  the  trial. abandoning her manifested defendant's psychological incapacity. RTC of Las Pinas Marriage valid. Court said that homosexuality is a ground only of legal separation and cannot in itself annul a marriage. Court said that the spouses’  frequent  squabbles  and  the  respondent’s  refusal  to  sleep  with   the petitioner and be supportive of him (because he is a doctor and is often on duty DAW) does not constitute psychological incapacity. Leonida filed a petition to annul her marriage with Manuel  due  to  the  latter’s  psychological  incapacity. dependency patterns. Incapacity must be more than just difficulty/ refusal/ neglect to perform the marital obligations. this she failed to do. What was proven in this case was that the spouses had 11 years of blissful marital union that bore 3 children   and   it   was   Leonida’s   burden   to   show   the   nullity   of   this   marriage. Cecilio-Navarro Marriage valid. and immaturity is not psychological incapacity. declaring himself single and naming his mother as the beneficiary. Court said that Martini's failure to establish a common life with her stems from his refusal. It is downright incapacity. to present evidence to sustain the finding of such incapacity. Gravador. Jr. to do so. his uncaring attitude towards his wife. Failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons is not psychological incapacity. Salanguit. It is the concealment of that sexual orientation at the time of the celebration of marriage that makes it a ground for declaring nullity and no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate this. and self-centered motives. this the petitioner  wasn’t  able to do. v. not refusal or neglect or difficulty. much less ill will. no psychological incapacity. Yu. not incapacity. Laurena vs CA Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Facts  January 1983 – Darlene Dimayuga – Laurena and Jesse Lauro Laurena met  December 19. Morales. Manila  They had two children: Mark Jordan and Micheal Joseph 178 . Cabantug Baguio Petitioner’s  expert  witness  said  that  respondent’s  psychological   incapacity because of immature personality disorder.Digested by: De Guzman. J. The testimony of the expert as well is mere hearsay since his findings were deduced from second hand information from petitioner  and  not  from  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  spouses’   relationship. spending more time with his family and less with his wife and ultimately. However. Flores. 1983 – they got married at the Church of Saint Augustine in Intramuros. Court said that they were just IMMATURE. Madarang. Felizmenio. which renders a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Castillo. A. It was also said that Being a Mama's Boy. Navarro. the doctor's findings and conclusion were derived from his interview of Lynnette and her sister and Lynnette's deposition. Almerol v.. Las Pinas RTC annulled the marriage not because of psychological incapacity but because of his homosexuality.  it   was said that Manuel was also a homosexual. Republic v. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. it must be shown that this incapacity is due to a psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence. Both second hand information w/c constitute hearsay and is unreliable. These findings reveal nothing  in  the  defendant’s  past  life  and  acts  that   shows a behavior pattern that would prove the alleged psychological incapacity.

Castillo. Lauro invited a 15 year  old  boy  (son  of  one  of  Lauro’s  house  helpers)  to   sleep in their hotel suite o When Darlene almost bled to death when she suffered a miscarriage. physical violence. Madarang. Lourdes Lapus (psychiatrist presented by Darlene) was not able to talk to Lauro and simply based her conclusions and impressions of Lauro from her twohour session with Darlene o Darlene was not able to prove that the alleged incapacity was existing at the time of the celebration of their marriage o Darlene’s  allegations  lacked  factual  and  evidentiary   bases Issues  WON Lauro is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations Held  No Ratio  Sexual infidelity. and the incapability existed at the time of the celebration of marriage although she discovered it only after the marriage o During their honeymoon in Baguio.. unreasonable. A. and extremely jealous Ruling of the Trial Court o Petition is denied on the ground that the manifestations of Lauro’s  psychological  incapacity  were  not  so  serious   as to consider him psychologically incapacitated o Evidence showed that Darlee could not only get along with Lauro Ruling of the CA o Trial  Court’s  decision  is  affirmed  on  the  ground  that   Darlene failed to prove that the root cause of respondent’s  psychological  incapacity  was  medically  or   clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts o Dr. unstable. Gravador. Felizmenio. Lauro just ignored her and continued watching tv o Lauro gave priority to the needs of his parents o Lauro tried to convert Darlene to his religion o Lauro was a womanizer o Lauro was said to have feminine tendencies o Lauro sometimes hit Darlene o September 1990 – Lauro left their conjugal home and stopped supporting their children Lauro denied such allegations and asserted that Darlene was emotionally immature. Salanguit. Morales. repeated physical violence. incurable. Yu. Lapuz to prove that psychological  incapacity  is  the  root  cause  of  Lauro’s  behaviour   and that such is incurable  Social Case Study Report found that Lauro was responsible while Darlene was immature. and existing at the time of their marriage Te vs Te 179    . homosexuality. stubborn. 1993 – Darlene filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Lauro on the ground that Lauro is psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage.  October 19.Digested by: De Guzman. Flores. or moral pressure to compel Darlene to change religious affiliation. and abandonment are grounds for legal separation but not for declaring a marriage void  There is a failure on the part of Dr. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and that the two separated because  of  Lauro’s  infidelity  Darlene was not able to prove that the alleged incapacity was existing at the time of the celebration of their marriage  In sum. J. the totality of the evidence presented by Darlene failed to show that Lauro was psychologically incapacitated and that such incapacity was grave.

Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo. Gravador. Flores. incurable.  in  Rowena’s  uncle’s  place. Edward Kenneth Ngo and Rowena Ong Gutierrez understood each other and developed a certain degree of closeness  March 1996 – Rowena asked Edward that they elope. and sever presence of Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder that started since childhood and only manifested during marriage Trial court held that their marriage is null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court decision on the ground that clinical psychologist did not personally examine Rowena. Morales. and relied only on the information provided by Edward. Salanguit.  were   presented) o Edward Kenneth Ngo Te  Is said to be still unsure and unready so as to commit himself to marriage  Is absconded as an introvert as he is not really sociable and displays a lack of interest in social interactions and mingling with other individuals o Rowena Gutierrez Yu Te  Is said to be of the aggressive-rebellious type of woman  Is seen to be quite exploitative in her plight for a life of wealth and glamour  Is seen to take move on marriage as she thought that her marriage with petitioner will bring her good fortune because he is part of a rich family  In order to have her dreams realized. 1996 – Rowena’s  uncle  brought  the  two  to  a  court  to   get married  However. Yu. Edward agreed to stay with her  April 23.  Edward’s  money  lasted  for  only  a  month. and incurability 180   . Felizmenio. and that psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity.  Edward  was  treated  like   a prisoner  Rowena suggested that Edward should get his inheritance so that they could live on their own  A month after.;  both  of   them having no work. A. Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolutions of the CA Facts  Sharing a similar angst towards their families. she said that it was better for them to live separate lives  They the parted ways  Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of her psychological incapacity  The clinical psychologist who examined Edward found both parties psychologically incapacitated (the findings and conclusions were exhaustive in the sense that data about Edward’s  life. she used force and threats knowing that her husband is weak-willed  Upon knowing that she has no chance for wealth. Unmoved by his persistence that they should live with his parents. and they did  However. J. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. juridical antecedence.  both  before  and  after  the  marriage. she gladly finds her way out of the relationship  Is apparent to be suffering the grave. Edward was able to escape from the house of Rowena’s  uncle  June 1996 – Edward was able to talk to Rowena.. Madarang. they decided to go back to Manila  Rowen  proceeded  to  her  uncle’s  house  while  Edward  went  to   his  parents’  home  Threatened by Rowena.

Gravador. may allow others t make most of their important decisions.Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo. finds as decisive the psychological evaluation made by the expert witness. Flores. Renato Obra who observed that there is  nothing  wrog  with  Benjamin’s  personality Lower court held that the marriage is null and void CA reversed the decision stating that no proof was adduced to support the conclusion the Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated when he married Carmen        Issues  WON the marriage of Carmen and Benjamin is null and void Held 181 . and thus. Yu. Morales. rules that the marriage of the parties is null and void Ting vs Ting Nature  Petition for review o certiorari of the amended decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Facts    July 26. Carmen filed a petition praying for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Benjamin on the ground of psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage which however became manifest thereafter Carmen stated that o Alcoholism . Salanguit. Pureza Trinidad. a psychiatrist. must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties  Psychological assessment. instead. Felizmenio. the Court. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. produced the findings that both parties are afflicted with personality disorders – dependent personality for Edward and narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder for Rowena o Dependent personality disorder – individuals who have this disorder may be unable to make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance from others. whose evaluation of Benjamin was limited to the transcript of stenographic  notes  taken  during  Benjamin’s  deposition o She concluded that Benjamin is suffering from a personality disorder Benjamin presented Dr. A..Benjamin was a drunker o Violent nature . which the Court consider in this case as adequate. physically assault her and force her to have sex with him o Compulsive gambling habit o Irresponsibility and immaturity .He would confront and insult her. Issues  WON the marriage between Rowena and Edward is null and void Held  Yes Ratio  Courts must not discount but. and tend to agree with people even when they believe they are wrong o Antisocial personality disorder – characterized by lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the need to control others  The seriousness of the diagnosis and the gravity of such considered. Madarang.He refused to give financial support to their family Benjamin denied such allegations Carmen’s  testimony  was  corroborated  by  Susana  Wasawas   who  served  as  nanny  to  the  spouses’  children Carmen presented Dr. 1975 – Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting were married They begot 6 children After being married for 18 years. J. in this case.

inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people o In this case. basing on the testimonies of Marietta. characterized by loss of self confidence. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu.. 1993 – Marietta Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta got married  1997 – they separated  March 2. constant selfdoubt. Salanguit. very responsible. irresponsible..   then such expert opinion should be presented and be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant the petition for nullity  The court find that the totality of evidence adduced by respondent is insufficient to prove the petitioner is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him  Presumption is always in favour of the validity of marriage Nature  Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Facts  July 24. independent.Digested by: De Guzman. sufficiently proven by expert testimony. A. Morales. Gravador. Madarang. she found that Rodolfo is suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with sever inadequacy related to masculine strivings o Persons suffering from it were those whose response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept. J. and that. 2002 – Marietta filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of Rodolfo o Rodolfo was said to be emotionally immature. gravity and  incurability  of  a  party’s  alleged  psychological  incapacity.  and  clearly  explained  in  the  trial  court’s  decision  Rodolfo’s  incapacity  was  established  to  have  clearly  existed  at   the time of and even before the celebration of marriage 182 . Cecilia Villegas who found that Marietta is mature. Castillo. Felizmenio. and continually failed to adapt himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties of a husband o He never looked for a job and always asked his mother’s  financial  assistance o He is said to be still residing with his mother and not with Marietta  Marietta presented Dr. Flores.  No Ratio  The parties had the full opportunity to present professional and expert opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause. focused and Azcueta vs RP has direction and ambition on life. the root cause being the cross identification with the mother who was a dominant figure in the family and that this problem began during the early stages of life but manifested only after his marriage o This problem is said to be severe because he may not be able to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person and that it is incurable because it is deeply ingrained into his personality RTC decided that the marriage is null and void ab initio CA reversed the RTC decision   Issues  WON the totality of the evidence is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated Held  YEs Ratio  Marietta successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of her husband  The root  cause  of  Rodolfo’s  psychological  incapacity  has  been   medically or clinically identified.

and the children never received affirmation  Lester grew up w/o self-confidence. with application for designation as administrator pendent lite opf the conjugal partnership of gains)  Her allegations: 183 Halili vs.  Dayan  was  also  able  to  conclude  that  petitioner’s   personality disorder was grave and incurable and already existent at the time of his marriage Najera vs. It was even his mother who had to tell him to seek legal help when he learned that his marriage was real. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Najera Facts:  Digna Najera (petitioner) filed for declaration of nullity of marriage (with alternative prayer for legal separation. unhappy mother.  Expert  testimony  was  able  to  establish  the  petitioner’s   psychological incapacity and was able to trace its root cause o His motivation for marriage was questionable o Petitioner was very much attached to his parents and depended on them for decisions.. Gravador. (dependent personality disorder) o He allowed himself to be dominated by his father and by the respondent who is as domineering as his father (self-defeating) o The  cause  of  Lester’s  personality  disorder  is  his   dysfunctional family—abusive and domineering father. Felizmenio. A. J. Morales. Yu.    It was shown to be sufficiently grave so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with his marital obligations The incurability of his condition which is deeply ingrained in his system since his early years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness So vs Valera (see Cheerios digest) Held: Yes. immature. Natividad Dayan as suffering from a mixed personality disorder. and did not understand what it meant to be a husband and what it meant to have a real family life  Dr. Flores. Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. particularly dependent and self-defeating personality disorder Issue: WON  the  petitioner’s  marriage  is  null  and  void  on  the  grounds   of psychological incapacity on his part . Santos-Halili Facts: Lester Benjamin Halili (petitioner) filed a case to declare his marriage to Chona Santos-Halili null and void on the basis of psychological incapacity on his part  His allegations o that  he  wed  Chona  thinking  that  it  was  a  “joke” o they never lived together as husband and wife but maintained a relationship o they started fighting a year after the wedding o he started seeing other women and stopped seeing Chona o he received prank calls that he should stop seeing other women  since  he’s  already  married  so  he  made  inquiries   and  found  out  that  his  marriage  was  not  “fake”  Lester was diagnosed by his expert witness Dr. Castillo.

;  his  brothers’  marriages  also  ended  in   separation  Respondent’s  answer. Castillo. Cristina Gates interviewed the petitioner but not the respondent who was abroad o Respondent is afflicted with Borderline Personality Disorder as shown by his pattern of instability in his interpersonal relationships. Gravador. A. that he never exerted any effort to find a job and was only able to work as a seaman with the help of her brother o While working as a seaman. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. inflicted physical violence upon her and tried to kill her with a bolo o She never saw the respondent after that and learned afterwards that he jumped ship and is now living in LA o Her  parents  are  happily  married  while  that  of  Eduardo’s   are  separated. w/ very low morality.Digested by: De Guzman. Flores. accuse her of having an affair. depending on WON the damage done by marijuana and alcohol was minimal Just  in  case  ma’am  asks  about  this:  Petitioner also filed a petition for annulment of her marriage with the Matrimonial Tribunal of the Diocese of Alaminos. without provocation. Salanguit. Rumbaua 184 . J. The evidence presented by petitioner regarding respondent’s physical violence or grossly abusive conduct towards respondent and his abandonment of his wife without justifiable cause are grounds for legal separation only and not annulment of marriage The totality of evidence submitted by the petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essentials of marriage The  root  cause  of  the  respondent’s  alleged  psychological   incapacity was not sufficiently proven or shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable  Expert witness. Pangasinan and her petition was granted o The Court still held NO since  Petitioner presented addtl set of witnesses in the Matrimonial Tribunal who were not presented in the Court  The Matrimonial tribunal confirmed the decree of  nullity  of  petitioner’s  marriage  because  the   respondent suffered from grave lack of discretion of judgment and not psychological incapacity Padilla-Rumbaua vs. Madarang. Felizmenio. his marred self-image. he would quarrel with her. and guilty of infidelity Issue: WON their marriage is null and void on the grounds of respondent’s  psychological  incapacity Held: No. of dubious integrity. and self-destructive tendencies. respondent.; o Petitioner was incurably immature. his uncontrollable impulses o His  disorder  can  be  traced  to  his  parents’  separaton   aggravated  by  his  mother’s  meddling  in  his  life o The ingestion of alcohol and marijuana are also known to cause irreparable damage organically as seen by respondent’s  violent  and  abusive  behavior o The  chances  of  curability  of  respondent’s  disorder  were   nil. Morales. was dependent on her since he was jobless. smoke marijuana and drink o In one of their quarrels. respondent never gave her financial support o Whenever he comes home. o At the time of their marriage.. Yu. Eduardo.

 Petitioner’s  expert  witness.  Tayag  did  not  examine   respondent  and  based  his  conclusions  on  petitioner’s   statements  Dr. Castillo. Salanguit. Madarang. and representing himself as single in transactions Aspillaga vs. Facts:  Rowena Padilla Rumbaua (petitioner) filed for the declaration o nullity of marriage against Edward Rumbaua (petitioner) based on psychological incapacity of the respondent  Her allegations: o He reneged on his promise to live with her after finding work o He failed to support her financially o He  blamed  her  for  his  mother’s  death o He represented himself as single in his transactions o He pretended to be working in Davao when in fact he was cohabiting with another woman in Novaliches Issue: WON marriage is null and void on the grounds of physical incapacity Held: No. Felizmenio. Flores. Aspillaga Facts:  Rodolfo Aspillaga (petitioner) filed for annulment of marriage on  the  ground  of  psychological  incapacity  on  Aurora’s   (respondent) part  His allegations o Aurora is domineering and frequently humiliated him even in front of his friends o She is spendthrift as she overspent the family budget o She made crucial family decisions w/o consulting him o She was tactless. suspicious. Gravador. Maaba stated that their psychological incapacitation will hamper both to comply with their marital obligations.  Dr. Morales.  blaming  her  for  his  mother’s  death. Maaba failed to reveal these personality traits were grave or serious enough to bring about incapacity to assume the obligations of marriage o He  failed  to  link  the  parties’  psychological  disorders  to   his conclusion that they are psychologically incapacitated to perform their obligations as husband and wife o Dr. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. Yu.  Tayag’s  report  did  not  mention  the  cause  of  the   respondent’s  so-called narcissistic disorder o It  did  not  discuss  the  respondent’s  childhood  and  this   failed  to  give  the  Court  an  insight  into  the  respondent’s   developmental years  Expert witness failed to establish the permanence and incurability and the incapacitating effect of the disorder  The petitioner’s  claims  merely  showed  that  the  respondent  is o irresponsible for his refusal to live with her o forgetful or emotionally immature for failing to greet her on her birthday.Digested by: De Guzman. mere difficulty is not synonymous to incapacity 185 .. A. given to nagging and jealousy  Her allegation o He has an affair with her cousin w/c led to the disintegration of their marriage Issue: WON marriage is null and void on the grounds of physical incapacity Held: No. sending her cards during special occasions.  Expert witness examined both respondent and petitioner and found both of them to have personality traits o Dr.

 they  stayed  in  petitioner’s   grandparents’  and  parents’  house  They had three children  Petitioner supported the family  Respondent  wanted  to  live  separate  from  petitioner’s  parents  One October day. o There’s  no  evidence  that  the  claimed incapacity is incurable and permanent  Also. Gravador. also took the  petitioner’s  passport. but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded Paz vs. Yu. respondent found the petitioner in a compromising situation with the stay-in caregiver of his grandmother  This incident was recorded in a police blotter and was front page in Abante  Respondent left the house with their three children. Flores. 186 Lim vs. A.. fell in love and got married  As is customary  for  Chinese  people.Digested by: De Guzman.     Jordan’s   motion for recon is denied. Cheryl Sta-Cruz Lim (respondent) met. and unsupported by separate psychological tests. Cruz-Lim Facts:  Edward Lim (petitioner) and Ma. he amended his complaint three years later and included his own alleged psychological incapacity . J. Sta.  or   personality  The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion.  thinking. Morales. Dr.  jewelry  and  a  land  title  Petitioner filed for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage to  respondent  on  the  grounds  of  respondent’s  psychological   incapacity. Castillo. Paz Petition for review on the resolution of the CA dismissing Jordan Chan Paz’s  appeal  of the Decision of the Pasig RTC which granted Jeanice Pavon   Paz’s   petition   for   declaration   of   nullity   of   marriage. Madarang. cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. Salanguit. Villegas only interviewed petitioner but not respondent  Her conclusions about the respondent were all from information supplied by the petitioner  Her testimony did not lead to the conclusion that the parties were psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations  She did not conduct tests that would have been able to measure specific  aspects  of  a    person’s  intelligence. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  Expert. the couple seemed to have a harmonious relationship for 8  years  before  Rodolfo’s  infidelity  was  discovered  Disagreements regarding money matters is common and even normal and is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void  Evidence only showed that parties are incompatible and have irreconcilable differences o Both he and respondent have psychological disorders— dependent personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder Issue: WON marriage is null and void on the grounds of physical incapacity Held: No.

Two months later. their parents sought them and brought them back to Binan. Jeanice alleged that Jordan had a tendency to lie about his whereabouts and had the habit of hanging out and spending a great deal of time with his friends. Jordan would allegedly just stay home. Jocelyn urged Angelito to find work  and  violent  quarrels  often  resulted  because  of  Jocelyn’s  efforts. Facts: Jeanice was just 19y/o while Jordan is 27 y/o when they met. Suazo v. not refusal or neglect or difficulty. Without any means to support themselves. Issue: WON Jordan is psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations Held:  Jeanice  Failed  to  Prove  Jordan’s  Psychological  Incapacity. Soon. Marriage subsists and remains valid. After being gone for 3 days. Jeanice further alleged that Jordan was heavily dependent on and attached to his mother. Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. Suazo Appeal by Jocelyn Suazo from the decision of the CA which reversed the judgment of RTC thus nullifying her marriage with Angelito Suazo on the ground of psychological incapacity. on the other hand.    His   incapacity is not shown to be so grave and so permanent to deprive him of the awareness of his duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond. J. Salanguit. Jocelyn went from Laguna to Manila with Angelito and some friends. they became a couple. Angelito thereafter found another woman with whom he has since lived. Jocelyn and Angelito lived with   Angelito’s   parents   after   their   marriage. their marriage was arranged and they wre married in a ceremony officiated by the Mayor.  a  doctor. his predisposition to become violent and abusive whenever his whims and caprices were not satisfied. Four months later they were formally engaged. Angelito. Gravador. Flores.     They   had   by   this   time   stopped  schooling. What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity is downright incapacity. Castillo. Madarang. Felizmenio. It is manifested in his uncontrollable tendency to be self-preoccupied and self-indulgent. 187 . RTC ruling is reversed.. Petition granted and the resolution of the CA is set aside.  Gates. Jordan also demanded from his mother a steady supply of milk and diapers for their son. They had one son. Gates also failed to explain how such a personality disorder made Jordan psychologically incapacitated to perform his obligations as a husband. much less ill will Furthermore.  did  not  particularly  describe  the  “pattern   of  behavior”  which  showed  that  Jordan  indeed  suffers  from  Borderline   Personality Disorder. After a big fight she left their home (a year after their son was born). She alleged that he is psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage. After giving birth to their son. Seven months later Jeanice filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. They now have children. refused to work and was most of the time drunk. Jeanice noticed that Jordan resented their son and spent more time with his friends rather than help her take care of their son. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. tinker with the Play Station. They had their civil wedding two months after and two more months after they had their church wedding. After months of courtship. Facts: Jocelyn and Angelito were 16 years old when they first met.    Jocelyn  took  odd  jobs  and  worked  for   Angelito’s   relatives as household help. and ask Jeanice to lie to his brothers about his whereabouts. Morales. A. born five months after. Jocelyn left Angelito a year later. Evan Gambert.

he realized that their marriage was hopeless. Eleven  years  later. 188 Ligeralde v. They then lived   separately. Gravador. The couple started a new life. as no basis exists   to   declare   Jocelyn’s   marriage   with   Angelito   a   nullity   under   Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence. In order to avail of the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. May confessed that she had no more love for him.Digested by: De Guzman. irresponsible and carefree. during their marriage. Patalinghug Petition to set aside the decision of the CA which reversed the decision of the RTC declaring the marriage between Silvino Ligeraldo and May Ascension Patalinghug null and void. 1997. His persuasions would often lead to altercations or physical violence.  May  arrived  home  at  4:00  o’clock  in  the  morning. as amended. He searched for her and found her in a nearby apartment drinking beer with a male lover. but admitted later to have slept with her Palestinian boyfriend in a hotel. Felizmenio. gravity and incurability of Angelito’s  alleged  psychological  condition. negligence and nocturnal activities. Held: Silvino should have filed for a petition for a review on certiorari. Petition denied.   immature   and   immoral   behavior. characterized their marital relations. Facts: Silvino and May got married and were blessed with four children. the petition has no merit. Salanguit. CA decision is affirmed. and the commitment of May to reform dissuaded him from separating from her. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. This was demonstrated when Silvino arrived home one day and learned that she was nowhere to be found. he observed that May had several manifestations of a negative marital behavior.     With   May’s   irresponsible. The CA committed no reversible error of law in setting aside the RTC decision. or on October 8. Her infidelity. however. Morales. Substantially. Madarang. Ten years after their separation. Yu. the petitioner must clearly show that the public respondent acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction. Castillo. Jocelyn’s   evidence   insufficient   to   establish   Angelito’s   psychological   incapacity to perform essential marital obligations. Silvino tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her duties as wife and mother. In   the   midst   of   these. he claimed. His pleas were ignored. A..   Her excuse was that she had watched a video program in a neighboring town. Jocelyn filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Issue: WON Angelito is psychologically incapacitated and is their marriage void? Held: Court finds the petition devoid of merit. She claimed that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. He described her as immature.   Silvino’s   deep   love   for   her. Silvino came to believe that she is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. A few months after. procedurally speaking. Silvino claimed that. He still wanted to reconcile with her. Later. Flores. Issue: WON the CA has jurisdiction and WON May is psychologically incapacitated. . May was back again to her old ways. Both the psychologist’s   testimony   and   the   psychological   report   did   not   conclusively show the root cause.   the   thought   of   saving their marriage for the sake of their children.

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants. but not the same mother. (b) Incestuous Marriages FC Art. four from his first cousin. 967. 963. (918a) NCC Art. arbitrary or capricious in its findings. ascent is made to the common ancestor. A series of degrees forms a line. gravity and incurability   of   private   respondent’s   condition. Gravador. The direct line is either descending or ascending. 964. or the same mother. Felizmenio. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy: (1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or 189 . as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons. Thus. Upon close scrutiny of the records. Castillo. (915) NCC Art. a person is two degrees removed from his brother. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.   NicdaoBasilio failed to show the root cause of her psychological incapacity.Digested by: De Guzman. we find nothing whimsical. whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate: (1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree. Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father.. who is the brother of his father. Petition denied. excluding the progenitor. Morales. the Court finds no commission of a grave abuse of discretion in the rendition of the assailed CA decision dismissing petitioner’s   complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. 965. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning. 966. (916a) NCC Art. Madarang. In this case at bench. In the collateral line. In the direct line. but not the same father. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. Private respondent's act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder. (920a) (g) Marriages Against Public Policy FC Art. but who come from a common ancestor. Salanguit. Petitioner's testimony did not prove the root cause. the acts of private respondent do not even rise to the level   of   the   “psychological   incapacity”   that   the   law   requires. and (2) Between brothers and sisters. A. In the line. the child is one degree removed from the parent. (81a) NCC Art. 38. and so forth. ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is to be made. whether of the full or half blood. and three from the great-grandparent. J. three from his uncle. two from the grandfather. Thus.   Even   Dr. More importantly. Flores. 37. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. which may be either direct or collateral. Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the same mother. (917) NCC Art. A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants. Each generation forms a degree. Yu.

They also averred that Reyes was never married to Asuncion because she was already married to Lupo Ebarle. (2) Between step-parents and step-children. (3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law. or descendants. shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Parricide. and stepmothers and stepsons. Two months later. (n) RPC Art. CA Petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the CA allowing or admitting the will of Torcuato J. (4) Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 83. between the latter and the surviving spouse of the former. whether legitimate or illegitimate. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the male and female respectively. the natural children of Torcuato with estebana Galolo (Manuel. antiques. (6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter. NCC Art. the RTC 190 . 1993. and (9) Between parties where one. (82) NCC Art. Salanguit. Number 2. and between the former and the surviving spouse of the latter. Felizmenio. The following marriages shall also be void from the beginning: (1) Between stepfathers and stepdaughters. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (3) Between the legitimate children of the adopter and the adopted. Torcuato executed his last will and testament which states in paragraph II that he is giving wife Asuncion the properties (a) all his shares of their personal properties (including jewelries. — Any person who shall kill his father. (4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child. Madarang. Castillo. 1992.Digested by: De Guzman. Gravador. On Apr. Flores. or any of his ascendants. killed that other person's spouse. up to the fourth civil degree. 82. or his spouse. even with the consent of the parents. 3. Julio Vivares filed a petition for probate of the will before the RTC. illegitimate. (7) Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and other marriages specified in Article 82. Morales. (7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter. Mila and Danilo) and his natural children with Celsa Agape (Lyn and Marites) filed an opposition (a) last will and testament was not executed and attested in accordance with the law and (b) Asuncion executed undue and improper influence at the time of the execution. A. with the intention to marry the other. (6) Those where one or both contracting parties have been found guilty of the killing of the spouse of either of them.. (8) Between adopted children of the same adopter. Yu. (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license. J. (2) Between the adopting father or mother and the adopted. or child. He died on May 12 of that year and nine days later. save marriages of exceptional character. 80. (28a) Reyes v. and (b) all his shares consisting of half of all the real estate he own in common with his brother Jose. (5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child. (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages. Vivares as executed without bond but declaring that paragraph II of the will and testament including subparagraph a and b as valid (contrary to the decision of RTC saying it is null and void) Facts: On Jan. or his or her own spouse. coins. Reyes to probate and directing the issuance of letters Testamentary in favour of Julio A. etc. 246. mother. 23. (5) Incestuous marriages mentioned in Article 81.

and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. 1985. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. Madarang.A petition under Article 36 of Family Code shall specially allege the complete facts showing the either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriages at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. 1974.M. J. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. Salanguit. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe. (n) A. Gravador. (c) Imprecriptibility of action or defense.Digested by: De Guzman. The declaration that she was his wife did not have to be scrutinized during the probate proceedings. at the time of the celebration. 1997. The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations. Ninal vs. the children submitted this case arguing also that Torcuato and Asuncion were collateral relatives on the 4th civil degree (niece of Torcuato). Pepito died in a car 191 .An action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage shall not prescribe. 2. Bayadog Facts: Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26. A marriage contracted by any party who. One year and 8 months after. Issue: Is the paragraph II valid? WON the formalities of the will had been complied with. Morales. (h) Non-compliance under FC 53 2. Out of their marriage were born herein petitioners. Also. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CA. as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Castillo. A. No. It does not determine nor prejudge  the  validity  or  efficacy  of  the  will’s  provisions. FC Art. Yu. Who can invoke nullity FC Art. As a general rule. On February 19. . Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. Felizmenio. 02-11-10-SC Sec.. Held: The decision of the CA is affirmed. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. 36. 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. 40. Petition denied. Ratio: The petition is said to be devoid of merit. the failure of the children to show the marriage certificate of Asuncion and Lupo during the probate proceedings constituted a waiver and this cannot be entertained in the CA nor in the SC. (n) (b) Where to file. curts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. declared that the will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law and that the relationship Torcuato and Asuncion had was an adulterous one. (a) Who may file. FC Art. (d) What to allege. if any.The petition shall be filed in the Family Court. 39. Flores. . Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11. . .

Allegations: (1) no marriage license. From the time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent. RTC denied the petition. 02-11-10-SC saying that “A  petition  for  declaration  of  absolute  nullity  of  void   192 .. Issue: WON the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after his death Won the second marriage of plaintiffs' deceased father with defendant is null and void ab initio. the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58. and (3) by virtue of AM No 02-11-10-SC Sec 2. petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. there are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with. However. Won plaintiffs are estopped from assailing the validity of the second marriage after it was dissolved due to their father's death Held:(a and c) The marriage is already extinguished the moment the father died. only about twenty months had elapsed. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with respondent. only the contracting parties while living can file an action for the nullity of marriage. it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day. Eulogio B. Morales. The case was filed under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect petitioner's successional rights. A. Flores. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code. However. argued that (1) she lived with Eulogio publicly for 21 years (2) a marriage ceremony was held in Lal-lo. for determination of heirship. Lolita on the other hand. Felizmenio. Medinaceli and Trinidad CatliMedinaceli Facts: Heirs of Eulogio and Trinidad Mecinaceli filed for an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Eulogio and petitioner Lolita Enrico. the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. accident. Oetition is granted and the case is reinstated to the RTC Ratio: The two marriages involved herein having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the FC. RTC dismissed the complaint based on Sec 2 of AM No. (2) their marriage was barely 3 months from the death of the 1st wife. (b) it is void ab initio In this case. Enrico v Heirs of Sps. Trinidad. Castillo. the applicable law to determine their validity is the NCC which was the law in effect at the time of their celebration. therefore no extraordinary circumstances and (3) lack of a marriage ceremony because Eulogio was already seriously ill that time. Yu. Cagayan and was solemnized by the mayor. Gravador. at the time of Pepito and respondent's marriage. Salanguit.Digested by: De Guzman. J. Madarang. referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. one of which is that provided in Article 76. After their father's death. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among the persons who could file an action for "annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family Code.

3) were given and registered in the name of Teofilo. Carlos v Sandoval Facts: Spouses Felix B. 02-11-10-SC and concluded that AM No. Lots 5 and 6 were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II (respondents). They left six parcels of land to their two sons. A. Also. Madarang. Held: No Administrative matter No. And so the court got confused (haha!) and said that they needed to reconcile the invoked ruling and AM No. Although NCC is silent as to who can bring an action to declare a marriage void. the heirs already have a vested right over whatever property the deceased left. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. 02-1110-SC applies only when both spouses are still living. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Morales. dividing the rest of the first parcel of land. judgment on pleadings and summary judgments are not allowed. (b) status of a child. and (e) sum of money and damages. Upon the death of the parent.Digested by: De Guzman. he was survived by his spouse Felicidad and their son Teofilo Carlos II. There is no need to reconcile AM with the ruling in Ninal because Ninal was under the scope of the NCC and not the Family Code. Teofilo Carlos and Juan De Dios Carlos (petitioner). The parties signed an approval of a compromise agreement acknowledging their respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the first parcel of land.” But RTC reversed itself when respondents filed for a motion for reconsideration and invoked the ruling on Ninal v Bayadog. 1992. 1994. The first three parcels of land (1. petitioner filed for (a) declaration of nullity of marriage due to their lack of marriage license. RTC declared marriage null and void via a summary judgment. Flores. The language is CLEAR. 2. The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proven. 02-11-10-SC. The marriage contested was celebrated at the time when NCC was the governing law. By issuing the summary judgment.. On September 17. since he is not the natural nor the adoptive son of Teofilo . Issue: WON a marriage may be declared void ab initio through a judgement on the pleadings or a summary judgement and without the benefit of a trial and WON anyone other than the spouses themselves has a capacity to bring the action for nullity of marriage. Respondents can bring up the question of marriage validity in the settlement proceedings of the estate. (d) reconveyance to Juan of the said properties. Felizmenio. the SC has ruled 193 . They now have a legal standing in court. Teofilo II. Issue: WON the heirs of the deceased can raise a petition for nullity of marriage. Held: No and no. the second parcel of land was divided in a supplemental compromise agreement executed on August 17. Salanguit. 1994. Two more contracts were signed dividing the third and fourth parcels of land. (c) recovery of property by cancellation of the certificates of titles issued to the respondents. Confession of judgment. the parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition. Yu. Sec 2(a) – sole right of husband or wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage plus in Sec 1 – this rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family Code. J. Lot 4 was registered in the name of Juan De Dios. Gravador. Upon the death of Teofilo. In August 1995. marriage  may  be  filed  solely  by  the  husband  or  the  wife. When Teofilo died in May 13. Castillo. RTC divested the state of its lawful right and duty to intervene in the case.

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph. (n) FC Art. that only persons who have material interest or who stand to be benifited or injured by the judgment of the suit can bring action. 237. (2). Castillo. The reason is that there exists the task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution and that requires vigilance and zealous participation. the state did not participate in the proceedings. Madarang. A. When to file an action for declaration of nullity FC Art. J. While it can be argued that this lack of participation cured the lack of participation on the part of the fiscal. 3. Salanguit. no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. If any provision of this Code is held invalid. Felizmenio. Gravador. with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. 194 . (88a) Malcampo-Sin v Sin Facts: Florence and Philipp Sin were married in 1987. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. (n) 4. 7 years later. FC Art. it is not the case.” Issue: WON the fiscals of the lower courts made sure that there was no collusion Held: No Throughout the trial.”  RTC   dismissed petition and CA dismissed appeal and motion for reconsideration. all the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain valid. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 42. Petitioner appealed to the SC invoking FC Art 48 saying that. Flores. The annulment or declaration of nullity of the marriage of a minor or of the recorded agreement mentioned in the foregoing. Morales. While Fiscal Jabson filed a manifestation stating that he found no collusion between the parties.. “in  all   cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. Florence filed  a  complaint  for  “declaration  of  nullity  of  marriage. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. 255. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties an to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Yu. Articles 234 and 235 shall revive the parental authority over the minor but shall not affect acts and transactions that took place prior to the recording of the final judgment in the Civil Register. he did not actively participate therein. Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity (a) Requisite for valid marriage (see previous notes) (b) Safeguards against collusion FC Art. Case remanded to determine WON petitioner is a real party in interest to seek the declaration of nullity of the assailed marriage and to determine Teofilo II filiation. 48. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person. not mere pro forma compliance.

Ancheta v Ancheta Facts: Marietta and Rodolfo are married and had 8 children. In his petition he stated that the summon can be served in Las Pinas when he knew for a fact that Marietta has already moved to Carmona. Eventually.Digested by: De Guzman. unless barred by laches. when in truth. that the summon was only published in a local circulation. lived in the place where Marietta allegedly lives. if the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint. Rodolfo. Marriage was declared void ab initio and then Rodolfo got married again. Marietta filed a petition against Rodolfo alleging that Rodolfo committed gross misrepresentation in his petition when he declared that she was a resident of Las Piñas. but still nothing was heard from her.. When the return of summons was submitted to the court by the sheriff. Issue: WON   CA   erred   in   dismissing   Marietta’s   original   petition   and   denying the admission of the amended petition and WON the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Rodolfo is null and void. A judgment rendered by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and void and may be assailed anytime either collaterally or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked. he knew very well that she was residing in Cavite. and that the latter is a sufficient cause of action for the nullification of the assailed order. they had dissolution of their conjugal partnership and a judicial separation. 2000. the court cannot just declare him or her in default. Held: Yes and yes. Marietta was unable to respond to the summon. CA failed to consider the material allegations of the petition. So then the summon was published in the Visayan Post. Marriage was declared null and void. Decision of RTC null and void. Morales. She alleges that the order of the trial court then was null and void (1) for lack of jurisdiction over her person and (2) due to the extrinsic fraud perpetrated by Rodolfo. Salmingo v Rubica Facts: Rubica filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Liza Estano. Madarang. But now. that a copy of his petition wasn’t  served  to  the  OSG  and   195 . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Rubica filed a complaint against his lawyer because he allegedly  concealed  the  address  of  Liza  so  she  couldn’t  be  served  with   the summons. In the spirit of protecting marriages as an inviolable institution. Latter left the conjugal home and abandoned his wife and his children. So evidence were presented ex parte without the participation of the City Prosecutor. Salanguit. 1st that the petition was based on extrinsic fraud and 2 nd that the RTC lacked of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The summon for Estano was returned unserved for she could not be found in her last known address. his father only showed him the summon and the complaint and made him sign it. that she only knew about this on January 11. It should first order the prosecuting/solicitor general attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. Because of this. which the court granted because Marietta did not show up on the date of trial. Flores. There was also no mention that Venancio. and that she was deprived of her right to be heard in the said case allowing Rodolfo to secure a favorable judgment without any opposition. no statement was made to the effect that there was an impossibility in locating the defendant or that the effort was actually made. Yu. who supposedly received the summon. Felizmenio. Gravador. wanting to get married again filed in the court for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Castillo. A. Then Rodolfo filed an Ex-Parte motion to declare defendant as in default. a local weekly newspaper. no copy was furnished. As it turns out. J. That her son failed to deliver to her the copy of the petition in the summons.

1963 – Court denied the motion for summary judgment o the ground that before the court can pass upon the prayer for declaration of nullity of marriage to Ricardo. 1958 – Gloria Jocson was married to Ricardo Robles Jocson VS Robles     It was alleged that prior to such. the court directed the dismissal of the action Ricardo notified the court below of his intention to appeal to the SC. dated April 15. she was subjected to maltreatment that resulted to the premature birth of their first child Ricardo. the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Void Marriages took effect on March 15. threat and intimidation. Yu. Ricardo had contracted a marriage with Josefina Fausto February 4. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) The civil status of persons. assailed the validity of the marriage o He  charged  Gloria’s  parents  with  having  compelled  him   by force. The appeal bond and amended record o appeal. Robles had a previous and subsisting valid marriage Ricardo’s  plea  to  have  his  marriage  declared  as  having  brought   about by force and intimidation was also denied. Gravador.. there was no need for the summons to be  published  in  a  nationwide  circulation  and  it  is  the  court’s   duty to inform the OSG and City Prosecutor. notwithstanding their knowledge that he is a married man Ricardo filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of fact is involved in the case December 23. there is necessity for proof that when she contracted marriage. Madarang. and that he did not cause the registration of the decree of nullity with the Civil Reg. the court finding indications of collusion between the parties in their attempt to secure the nullification of said marriage March 9. Before that. City Prosecutor. (3) Any ground for legal separation. to contract the marriage with her. (4) Future support. (6) Future legitime. in his answer. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Held: No. A. 1963 – Gloria commenced in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and action for the annulment of her marriage on the ground that it was bigamous o Gloria further demanded from Ricardo damages. Felizmenio. (1814a) (d) AM No 02-11-10-SC. (5) The jurisdiction of courts. 1964 – when both parties failed to appear at the hearing. Flores.Digested by: De Guzman. 1964 were approved     Issues:  WON the Court of Domestic Relations correctly denied the motion for summary judgment 196 . 4 Mar 2003 Nature:  Appeal from a judgment of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Facts:  May 27. (c) No confession of judgement NCC Art. J. claiming that during their cohabitation. The rules on which the complainant bases his complaints on. Morales. 2035. (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation. Rubica failed to follow the proper rules on the proceedings for nullification of marriage. Salanguit. 2003 (case is not under the scope of this because it was filed on Jan 2003). Issue: WON Atty. Castillo.

No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. Gravador. CFM is asked to represent the state at the trial of the case to prevent fabrication of evidence Romulo is directed to furnish CFM with copies of complaints and other documents necessary July 3. the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated. Flores. Helen failed to file a responsive pleading June 13. Madarang. J. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. Art. 101. and that they did not live as husband and wife immediately after the Tolentino VS Villanueva celebration. No judgment annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. 1962 – Romulo prayed the respondent Judge to set the date for the reception of his evidence for the City Fiscal has not submitted a report of his findings despite the lapse of 60 days November 6. Castillo. 1962 – Romulo filed a petition to declare Helen in default and set the date for the presentation of evidence June 28. 1959 – Romulo Tolentino and Helen Villanueva’s  marriage  was  solemnized  January 1962 – Helen was discovered to be residing in San Francisco. In case of non-appearance of the defendant. Cebu  April 1962 – Romulo filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to Helen on the ground that his consent was obtained through fraud because immediately after the wedding. Yu. Felizmenio. (n) o The affidavits annexed to the petition for summary judgment practically amount to these methods not countenanced by the Civil Code Nature:  Petition to annul a order of the Juvenile ad Domestic Relations Court of Manila Facts:  September 28. he found out that Helen was pregnant despite the fact that he had no sexual relations with her prior to the marriage ceremony. 1962 – Romulo submitted to the CFM only a copy of his complaint Assistant City Fiscal Rafael Jose issued a subpoena to Romulo’s  counsel  to  bring petitioner with him as well as copies of other documents in connection with the annulment case on August 27. Morales. 1962 – Romulo’s   counsel   informed   the   Assistant   City   Fiscal  that  he  can’t  comply  with  the  subpoena  for   it  will   expose his evidence October 29. 1962 – Judge declared that Helen is in default but referred the case to the City of Fiscal of Manila (CFM) to determine if there whether collusion exists between the parties o Report should be submitted within 60 days from receipt thereof o In the event of negative finding. 1962 August 24. A.Digested by: De Guzman. 1962 – Judge denied the motion of Romulo unless he submits himself to the City Fiscal to determine if there is collusion between parties 197          . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Art. Salanguit. Helen left his house and her whereabouts were unknown to him Despite being served with summons.. Held:  Yes Ratio:  In view of Article 88 and 101 of the Civil Code. If there is no collusion. 88.

. J. A.  paragraph  2. where the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. HOWEVER.” “In  case  of  non-appearance of the defendant. Morales.  shall  be  observed. 1964 – Romulo’s   motion   for   reconsiderations were denied so he then filed for petition to annul the order of the Judge and to compel the Judge to receive his evidence  May 2. 1963 and April 11.  101. not a certiorari Issues:  WON  Romulo’s  petition  has  merit Held:  No Ratio:  Article 88 and 101 of the NCC specifically provides that “Art.;   trial court admitted all of Romulo’s  offered  evidence Teresita filed a petition for certiorari assailing the admission in evidence of the cassette tapes June 10.  No  judgment  annulling  a  marriage  shall  be  promulgated  upon   a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. Castillo. the provisions of article 101. the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists.  88.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. such is correctible by an appeal.  (n)”  The prohibition expressed is predicated on the fact that the institutions of marriage and of the family are sacred and thus as much the concern of the state  And so when the defendant fails to appear. Felizmenio. If there is no collusion. 1990 – Rafael Ortanez filed with the RTC of QC a complaint for the annulment of marriage with damages against Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez on grounds of lack of marriage license and/or psychological incapacity Rafael presented his evidence.”   “In  case  of  non-appearance of the defendant.” “Art. The proper remedy is an ordinary appeal incorporating the grounds for assailing the interlocutory order. Gravador. the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress 198 . orally formally offered in evidence (exhibits A to M) Among the exhibits were 3 cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between Teresita and unidentified persons June 9. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu.  July 29. Madarang.  No  decree  of  legal  separation  shall  be  promulgated  upon  a   stipulation  of  facts  or  by  confession  of  judgment. 1993 – CA ruled that tape recordings are inadmissible per se. and that a petition for certiorari is notoriously inappropriate to rectify a supposed error in admitting evidence adduced during trial. 1992 – Teresita submit her Objection/Comment to Rafael’s   oral   offer   of   evidence. the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff  is  not  fabricated. the law enjoins the court to direct the prosecuting officer to intervene for the state in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of marital bonds Salcedo-Ortanez VS CA Nature:  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals Facts:      Issues:  WON the remedy of certiorari was properly availed of by Teresita in the CA  WON the tape recordings are admissible as evidence Held:  Yes  No Ratio:  The extraordinary writ of certiorari is generally not available to challenge an interlocutory order of a trial court.

Morales. and for being immature. the trial court ordered the city prosecutor to look into a possible collusion between the parties  August 3. an answer. invoked by her. so as to warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage. 1975 – Lorna Pesca and Zosimo Pesca got married  The union begot 4 children  1988 – Lorna Pesca alleged that her husband began to show signs of psychological incapacity for being a habitual drinker. as so provided for in Article 68 of the Family Code Facts:  March 3. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. Reyes found no evidence to establish that there was collusion between the parties  Issues:  WON   Lorna  and  Zosimo’s  marriage  is  null  and  void  ab  initio   due to psychological incapacity Held:  No Ratio:  Lorna has utterly failed. and violent  November 19. and for other purposes) Pesca VS Pesca   January 11. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Felizmenio. without leave of court.  The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity 199 . Madarang. 1994 – Prosecutor Rosa C. irresponsible. J. let alone at the time of solemnization of the contract. both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence. although filed late. 1992 – Lorna and children left their house and began to live with her sister  Two months later. and the same. 1994 – Summons. was admitted by the court November 15. 1995 – Zosimo belatedly filed.. together with a copy of the complaint.Digested by: De Guzman. to make out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent. Lorna forgave her husband and went back to their house  March 22. seeking custody of her children  April 25. Gravador. 4200 (An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication.  The inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. A. Salanguit. Act No. Castillo. Flores. 1995 – Trial court rendered its decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent to be null and void ab initio on the basis of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent and ordered the liquidation of the conjugal partnership The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent valid and subsisting on the ground that Lorna failed to prove that Zosimo showed signs of mental incapacity as would cause him to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenant. 1994 – Zosimo once again assaulted Lorna  After going through medical examination. cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. Lorna filed a case against respondent for slight physical injuries  Zosimo was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City and sentenced to eleven days of imprisonment  Lora and children then left their conjugal home and sued Zosimo for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. was served on Zosimo  As Zosimo failed to file an answer or to enter his appearance within the reglementary period. Yu.

(b) status of a child – neither a natural nor the adoptive son of Teofilo. Flores. Morales. Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. (c) recovery of property. he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo to avoid payment of inheritance taxes. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.   Parcel   5   and   6   were registered under Felicidad and Teofilo Carlos II  Juan De Dios filed a suit against Felicidad and son o In the said case. illegitimate. the parties submitted and caused the approval of a partial compromise agreement. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate  They left 6 parcels of land to their compulsory heirs. Yu. he was survived by Felicidad and their son.. Salanguit. in turn. Gravador. or legally adopted child of Teofilo o Juan De Dios as the sole owner of lands Felicidad and son appealed to the CA which reversed the RTC judgment      Issues:  WON marriage may be declared void ab initio through judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment and without the benefit of a trial 200 . Under the compromise. Teofilo. Teofilo Carlos and Juan De Dios Carlos  During the lifetime of Felix. Juan De Dios Carlos o First  3  parcels  were  under  Teofilo’s  name o Parcel  4  was  under  Juan’s  name  Teofilo died intestate. 1995 – Felicidad and son submitted their answer: dearth of details regarding the requisite marriage license did not invalidate her marriage to Teofilo and that Teofilo II was the illegitimate child of the deceased with another woman o Felicidad prayed for the dismissal of the case on the grounds of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter Before parties could proceed to pre-trial. Felicidad and son moved for summary judgment (attached was the affidavit of justice of peace who solemnized the marriage and the certificate of live birth of respondent designating Teofilo and Felicidad as parents) o Juan De Dios opposed the motion for summary judgment on the ground of irregularity of the marriage contract and the absence of a record of birth of Teofilo II as attested by the Local Civil Registrar of Calumpit Office of the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa discounted the possibility of collusion between parties RTC rendered judgment o Marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad is rendered null and void ab initio o Teofilo Carlos II is not the natural. A. Carlos VS Sandoval Nature:  Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Facts:  Felix B. Teofilo Carlos II o Upon   Teofilo’s   death. J. undertook to deliver ad turn over the share of the other legal heir. dividing the remaining land of the first parcel between them  The division was incorporated in a supplemental compromise agreement and was approved accordingly. equally dividing the 3rd and 4th parcels of land  Juan De Dios commenced an action against Felicidad and son with the following causes: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage in view of the absence of marriage license. Felizmenio. (d) reconveyance. the parties acknowledged their respective shares in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the first parcel of land  September 17. and (e) sum of money and damages October 16. 1994 – parties executed a deed of extrajudicial partition. two more contracts were entered into.

Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A. the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children. FC Art. So is the confession of judgment disallowed. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2). Madarang. J.. has the capacity to bring the action for nullity of marriage o Jose is a real party in interest to seek the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage because if the subject marriage is found to be void ab initio. o With the advent of A. In general. 02-11-10-SC and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code o Section 2 (a) of A. EFFECTS OF PENDENCY OF ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY FC Art. Effects of final judgment declaring nullity a. Gravador. Felizmenio. No. 02-11-10-SC. (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to 201 Held:  No  Yes Ratio:  The grounds for declaration of nullity of marriage must be proved. not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity of the marriage but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts o The case is remanded for further proceedings 5. 49. Castillo. M.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu. 02-11-10-SC marks the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse but it never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs f their successional rights  They can still question the validity of marriage of the spouses. 50. the question on the application of summary judgments or even judgment on the pleadings in cases of nullity of annulment of marriage has been stamped with clarity: Sec. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. or confession of judgment shall be allowed. Flores. (n) 6. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. M. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed. 17 (2) – The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. M. 1962) under scrutiny. No. who is not a spouse. A. No judgment on the pleadings. the new rule extends only to marriages covered by the Family Code which took effect on August 3.M.  A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife as provided . (3). No. No. summary judgment. then he succeeds to the entire estate o A. Salanguit. 1988 o The applicable law for the marriage (May 14. 02-11-10-SC makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage o However. The Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code is the Civil Code which is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the marriage void .  WON Jose. During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses.

live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. the same shall not affect third persons. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article. FC Art. Madarang. the custody and support of the common children. Castillo. Flores. The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either of both of the parents. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. In the partition. by mutual agreement judicially approved. shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129. properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. In the absence of proof to the contrary. otherwise. J. 51. computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court. But see. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. In said partition.chan robles virtual law library Art. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. property or sound securities. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in 202 . Gravador. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate. and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes. 54. but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.. the subsequent marriage shall be null and void. Art. A. (n) Art. the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. Morales. Salanguit. work or industry. 53. unless the parties. and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment. 52. (n) Art. Felizmenio. shall be delivered in cash.Digested by: De Guzman. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children. unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage. had already provided for such matters. marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. otherwise. Yu. 147. the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated.

Felizmenio. custody of the children was awarded to Jesse  28 June 2004 . In the absence of proof to the contrary. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another. such share shall belong to the innocent party. In the absence of descendants. the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. a compromise agreement on the custody of children. until after the termination of their cohabitation. Flores. property. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article. Chan-Tan vs. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. in June 2001.Petitioner filed an MR and alleged that she and her children went abroad for fear of their lives because her husband allegedly beat her and because of his pernicious gambling and womanizing  12 October 2004 – petitioner’s   MR   denied   since   it   was   filed   beyond the 15-day reglementary period  4 November 2004 – petitioner filed for a motion to dismiss and MR o Claimed she was no longer interested in the suit and prayed that an order be issued vacating all prior orders and leaving the parties at the status quo ante the filing of the suit  28 December 2004 – trial court denied both motions and held that the decisions have become final and executory upon the lapse of 15-day reglementary period  15 Feb 2005 – trial court issued a Cert of Finality of the decisions Issue: WON the 30 March 2004 and the 17 May 2004 decisions have attained finality despite the alleged denial of process Held: Yes. his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants.Digested by: De Guzman. 148. Justin and Russel  After 12 years of marriage. Madarang. Salanguit. The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith. Morales. In all cases. common. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.RTC approved the agreement and granted the annulment on the grounds of mutual psychological incapacity  17 May 2004 . only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money.Susie did not fulfill her part of the agreement and so. Castillo. Yu. Susie filed a case for the annulment of marriage under Art 36 of FC  Along with the petition. without the consent of the other. each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a) Art. If one of the parties is validly married to another. Gravador. . J. A. Tan Facts: 203  Susie Tan (petitioner) and Jesse Tan (respondent) married in June 1989 and had two children. division of property of the spouses was also submitted  30 March 2004 . his or her shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

J. Flores. Castillo. WON it was void or merely voidable  Lilia contested the validity of the pre-trial order and asked the court for an opportunity to present evidence that her 1st marriage was done through force and that her 1st husband was married to someone else when they got married  Judge Sempio-Dy ruled against the presentation of evidence because the parties has already agreed that there was an existing force on the 1st marriage Issue: WON the order compelling the parties to submit for resolution based   on   “agreed   facts”   is   final   and   executory   and.   lawful Held: Yes.. the issues there should be laid to rest. 7. Morales. Motion to dismiss. that any other ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer. it becomes immutable and unalterable. A. the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law. at the risk of occasional error. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. 1972) but alleged that she and first husband were forced into that union making the marriage null and void  The case was filed in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan  In the pre-trial.Digested by: De Guzman.   therefore. Salanguit. even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. (Emphasis supplied) Obiter: Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory. Sempio-Dy Facts:  Karl Heinz Weigel (respondent) filed for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage (July 1978) to Lilia Wiegel (petitioner) on the ground that the latter has a subsisting marriage to one Eduardo Maxion  Lilia admits the first marriage (June 25. both parties agreed that the issue was the status of the first marriage (assuming that both parties were forced into it). Wiegel vs. provided. however. – No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. FC Art. Felizmenio. 204 . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 40. Yu. The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that. Once a judgment has become final and executory. The same may no longer be modified in any respect. filing motion after motion  Petitioner seems to be the one negligent in pursuing the case since   her   counsel’s   manifestation showed she was incommunicado during the time she was supposed to file her appeal  Petitioner cannot use Sect 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Viodable Marriages since it applies only to respondent and not to petitioner: SEC. On remarriage.  The resolution of the trial court had become final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal  The   alleged   negligence   of   petitioner’s   counsel   w/c   resulted   to   her loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for vacating the trial  court’s  judgment  She cannot claim she was denied due process since records show that she actively participated in the proceedings. b. Madarang. Gravador.   the court’s  denial  of  petitioner’s  motion  to  present  evidence  in  her  favor.

Salanguit. the Court resolved to suspend the respondent from the practice of law until he appears and/or files his answer to the complaint September 28.. Castillo. appointed investigator by the OSG. 1986 – another hearing wherein respondent was given a warning that if he fails to appear again. Flores. their marriage was merely voidable (Art 85. Jason Terre  1981. he thought she was single only to find out after that she was already married to Merlito o That Dorothy drove him out of their home when he confronted her about her prior marriage o That Dorothy told him that Jason is the son of Merlito (Dorothy avers that she put Jason as dependent of Merlito because her pregnancy was risky) o That he believed his marriage to Dorothy is void ab initio  that’s  why  he  got  married  again The  Court  denied  the  respondent’s  motion   January 6.after 3 and a half years of no answer from respondent. Morales. petitioner still need a judicial declaration of its nullity Terre vs. 1985 – respondent filed an Answer with Motion to Set Aside and/or Lift Suspension Order o Averred that when he married Dorothy. and recommendation Solicitor Pio Guerrero. Yu. then a law student. 1986 – respondent did not appear again. A. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. 1985 . set 3 hearings with notice to both parties o July 7. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Jordan disappeared  Dorothy learned Jordan contracted marriage with Helina Malicdem  She filed the following cases: o Abandonment of minor o Bigamy o Administrative Case with the Commission on Audit where the respondent worked o Administrative Case in the Supreme Court since Jordan is a member of the Philippine bar The Court resolved to require the respondent to answer the complaint Respondent was able to evade 5 attempts to be served a copy of the  Court’s  Resolution  by  moving  from  one  place  to  another April 24. Civil Code) and is valid until annulled  It is clear that when petitioner married respondent. the 205        . J. Gravador.  There is no need for petitioner to prove that her 1 st marriage was entered into against their will because if this is so. was able to convince Dorothy that her marriage to Merlito is void ab initio and that there was no need to go to court to declare it as such  Jordan and Dorothy got married on June 14. 1986 – Dorothy appeared and presented her evidence ex parte since respondent did not appear o August 19. Madarang. 1977  Jordan   continued   his   studies   with   his   parents’   and   Dorothy’s   support  The two had a son. her 1 st marriage was still subsisting making the 2nd marriage void  There is no need to present evidence about the 1 st marriage since even if the said marriage was void. complainant finally presented her evidence and rested her case o October 2. report. Terre This is an administrative case in the Supreme Court for grossly immoral conduct. 1986 – the complaint was referred to the OSG for investigation. Facts:  Dorothy Terre (complainant) was married to a Merlito Bercenilla who is allegedly her 1st cousin  Jordan Terre (respondent).

1986 – Dorothy submitted hers o Respondent did not  February 26. Flores. she learned that Roberto was cohabiting with another woman  She also discovered that he was selling some of her properties w/o her knowledge or consent  She appointed her brother Moises Avera as her attorney-in-fact to take care of her properties 206 . Castillo. Madarang. knew or should have known that for purposes of determining WON a person is legally free to contract a 2nd marriage. being a lawyer. 1991 – Delia Soledad A. his marriage to Dorothy is deemed valid and his marriage to Helina is bigamous Domingo vs. J..  The conduct of respondent in inveigling Dorothy to contract a 2nd marriage w/ him. 1990 – OSG submitted its Report and Recommendation to the Court Issue: WON Jordan Terre is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and should be disbarred Held: Yes. Morales. Salanguit. Yu. 1976 at the YMCA Youth Center Bldg (as shown by their MC with ML)  She did not know that Roberto had a previous marriage until 1983 when they were sued for bigamy by the first wife. she has been working in Saudi Arabia and would come to the Phil only during her annual one-month vacation  From 1983 to the present (1993). in contracting a 2nd marriage when his marriage was still subsisting constituted grossly immoral conduct under Sect 27 of Rule 138 of the ROC affording more than sufficient basis for disbarment o Jordan. Gravador. Felizmenio.Digested by: De Guzman. a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab initio is essential o Therefore. respondent did not appear  Solicitor considered respondent to have waived his right to present evidence and declared the case submitted for resolution  The parties were given time to submit their memoranda o December 8.000 which were under the possession and administration of Roberto  In 1989. A. while on vacation. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Domingo filed a petition before the RTC of Pasig for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation property against the petitioner in this case (Roberto Domingo) o She alleged the following:  They were married on November 26. in abandoning the complainant after she cared for him and supported him through law school. Emerlinda dela Paz  From January 23. she purchased real and personal properties amounting to P350. 1979 to the present (1993). in leaving her w/o means for the safe delivery of his child. Roberto has been unemployed and relies only on her for support  Out of her personal earnings. case will be deemed submitted for resolution. CA This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA Facts:  The  petition  seeks  to  reverse  the  CA’s  ruling  that  the  RTC  did   not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied the petitioner’s   motion   to   dismiss   the   petition   for   declaration   of   nullity of marriage and separation of property  Backstory: o May 29.

GSIS which states that there is a need for declaration of nullity of marriage An MR was filed stressing that the use of the precedent is erroneous and that there is no justiciable controversy as to the nullity of marriage September 11. Yu. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 1992 – CA dismissed the petition stating that the case Yap vs. instead. If it is.. Flores. WON the same should be filed only for purposes of remarriage 2. Felizmenio. a civil action of certiorari and mandamus on the ground that RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied the motion to dismiss  o Feb 7. WON a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. De Consuegra vs. proceed w/ the trial and in case of an adverse decision. Yes. A. reiterate the issue on appeal o The petitioner filed an MR w/c was also denied for lack of merit Issues: 1. Salanguit. WON   Delia’s   petition   is   the   proper   remedy   of   private   respondent to recover certain real and personal properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively Held: 1. Castillo. Gravador. J. 1991 – MR was denied and petitioner was given 15 days after he received the order to file his answer The petitioner filed. Ca cited by the petitioner and Consuegra vs. Madarang.   The   Court   held   that   Roberto   and   Delia’s   marriage   is   indeed   void   ab   initio   since   Roberto’s   1st marriage was still 207 o o o o o o . declaring it to be such would be superfluous and unnecessary  That no property of Delia is in his possession August 20. 1991 – MD was denied for lack of merit  The lower court relied on the precedent of Vda.Digested by: De Guzman. Roberto failed and refused to turn over the properties to Moises  She alleges that Roberto is not authorized to administer and possess the properties since their marriage is null and void She prayed that a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining Roberto from exercising any act of administration over the properties  That their marriage be declared null and void  That she be declared sole and exclusive owner of all properties acquired at the time of their void marriage  And that her brother be declared administrator of her properties Roberto filed a Motion to Dismiss (MD) on the ground that the petition has no cause of action  That since their marriage is void ab initio. GSIS relied upon by the RTC do not have relevance to this case because these cases dealt w/ successional rights of the second wife while the case here prays for separation of property corollary w/ the declaration of nullity of marriage  Separation and subsequent distribution of the properties acquired during the union can be had only upon proper determination of the status of the marital relationship bet said parties  The declaration of nullity of marriage may be invoked in this proceeding together w/ the partition and distribution of the properties involved  The alleged error in refusing to grant the motion to dismiss is merely one of law for w/c the remedy ordinarily would be to file an answer.

 whose  “death  benefits”  is   now the subject of the controversy bet the two Susans he married  June 20. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Cariño This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Facts:  The issue here is the validity of the 2 marriages contracted by the  deceased  SPO4  Santiago  Cariño. (n)  Petitioner argues that the word solely means that judicial declaration should be had only if one wants to remarry. Yes. and a cert from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan. a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of marriage is required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense.   The   private   respondent’s   prayer   for   separation   of   property is a necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. Also. as well as an action for the custody and support of the children and delivery of the children’s  presumptive  legitimes. according to Judge Diy. 1992 – he married again. this declaration cannot be made solely for the purposes of remarriage. 1992 – SPO4 passed away under the care of Yee who spent for his medical and burial expenses  Both Nicdao and Yee filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from various gov’t  agencies  Nicdao collected P146k while Yee got P21k  December 14. 40 of FC: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. This could also be invoked for purposes wherein the validity of marriage needs to be ascertained like in cases of liquidation. Madarang. partition..  The petition is denied. Note: Art. Cariño vs. Metro Manila which states that they have no record of the ML bet Nicdao and SPO4  RTC ruled in favor of Yee  CA  affirmed  RTC’s  decision 208 . However. subsisting when he married Delia. Sahlee and Sandee  November 10. 1993 – Yee filed a case against Nicdao for collection of at least one-half of the P146k  Nicdao failed to file her answer.Digested by: De Guzman. 2. J. Salanguit. Morales. Yu. Felizmenio. Gravador. as in the Wiegel vs.  But during the deliberations of the Committee. this time to Susan Yee (defendant) with whom he had no children after almost ten years of cohabitation starting from 1982  1988 – SPO4 fell ill and bedridden because of diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis  November 23. solely refers to the final judgment. Sempio-Diy case and as explicitly stated in the FC. CA concluded that the prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be raised together with the other incident of their marriage such as the separation of their properties. This is to protect both parties from committing bigamous marriages. Flores. Castillo. A. distribution and separation of properties. prompting the trial court to hold her in default  Yee admitted that her marriage to SPO4 took place while his 1st marriage was still existing and w/o a judicial declaration of the nullity of the 1st marriage  She claimed that she didn’t   know   such   marriage   existed   until   during the wake of SPO4 where she met Nicdao who told her she  was  SPO4’s  wife  Yee contended that the 1st marriage was void ab initio since it was solemnized w/o an ML and even presented the MC w/c had no ML no. 1969 – SPO4 married Susan Nicdao (petitioner) with whom he had two children.

It is also void ab initio since it was contracted w/o the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. Since both marriages are void ab initio. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. children and household. it does not mean that the marriage bet Yee and SPO4 is valid. Salanguit. the applicable property regime is not absolute community or conjugal partnership of property but. WON Yee is entitled to half of the death benefits received by Nicdao Held:  Yes. such share shall belong to the innocent party. Gravador. the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.  No. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. or spiritual or moral inspiration. these benefits will pass to his legal heirs Art. their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. work or industry. In all cases.  147  since they were legally capacitated to marry but whose marriage was nonetheless void for other reasons. industry. a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. The disputed money is the earnings of the deceased and unless Yee can prove that she contributed money. rather Art. properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. Morales. Castillo. xxx xxx xxx When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. (144a)  Nicdao’s  marriage  falls  under  Art. wages and salaries of each party belong to him or her exclusively. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants. Madarang. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article. or property in the acquisition of these benefits. void for lack of ML (the two were married before enactment of FC). Yu. wages and salaries earned by either party shall be owned by the parties in equal 209 . For purposes of this Article. 147 and 148 of FC: Art. Issues: 1. only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money. each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. Flores. In this property regime (actual joint contribution). In the absence of descendants. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit. and shall be owned by them in equal shares. However.. A. the share of the party in bad faith in the coownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children.  Yee’s  marriage  to  the  deceased  falls under Art. Under this provision. 148. live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. property. 148 since it is a bigamous marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. In the absence of proof to the contrary. indeed. she has no right to claim the same. or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. Instead. J. even though the marriage bet Nicdao and SPO4 is. Felizmenio. This includes contributions in the form of care of the home.Digested by: De Guzman. In the absence of proof to the contrary. 147. WON there is a need for a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of marriage 2.

share and will be divided equally between them even if only one party earned the wages and the other did not contribute thereto. Only then can a marriage be declared void and so long as there is no such declaration. RTC decision reversed. only competent courts having such authority. (Another woman was mentioned Julia Sally Hernandez) With this in mind. Bobis vs. A. Criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case on declaration of nullity. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit. He then filed for a civil action for judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his 1st marriage on the ground that it had no marriage licnse. J. Resolution of issue determines WON criminal action may be proceed Held: RTC erred in suspending the criminal case for bigamy. . entitling Nicdao to half of the benefits if there is no allegation that the marriage was entered into in bad faith..determines the guilt/innocence of the accused . Imelda filed for an information for bigamy against Isagani. first marriage exists and the 2nd marriage void. Civil action involves issue similar to criminal action 2. Gravador. 40 is not an excuse. Morales. Petition granted. Flores. And it is ordered to immediately proceed with criminal case.) It is not a prejudicial question. (Isagani also erred in seeking the declaration of nullity only after the case on bigamy has been filed. Since both parties of the first marriage is presumed to be in good faith. Facts: Isagani Bobis contracted a marriage a second marriage with Imelda Marbella – Bobis while his first marriage with Ma. He was married when he contracted 2nd marriage so any decision in civil case would not ease the fact that he entered into a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of the 1st one. Castillo. Madarang. The first marriage is governed by the NCC while the 2nd one is under FC. Art 147 creates a co-ownership. Issue: WON 1 marriage was void for lack of marriage license is a matter   of   defense   because   there’s   still   no   judicial   declarationof   its   nullity at the time of the 2nd marriage was contracted. Ignorance of FC Art. Felizmenio. Bobis Petition for certiorari of a decision of RTC suspending the criminal case filed against Isagani Bobis. Nicdao will get half of the death benefits while the other half will go to her children w/ SPO4 The petition is GRANTED.determinative of the criminal case 2 elements of PQ 1. Dulce Javier is still not annulled. st whether the filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. *Prejudicial question – one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involvd therein. Yu. it was denied). He also filed for a motion to suspend proceedings on the petition of Imelda (granted but after morion for reconsideration filed by Imelda. Ratio: Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity. 210 .Digested by: De Guzman.

2nd marriage had the requisites for validity. Gravador. J. Felizmenio. Tan Petition for certiorari on decision of CA convicting Dr. All the elements of bigamy are present. Later on. the 1st marriage (civil wedding) was declared void (no marriage license). 1st marriage has not been legally dissolved/ spouse not yet presumed dead according to NCC 3. This was used by Vincent as a defense in the criminal case. 2nd marriage is Valid. Facts: (This case is before Wiegel. The 2 nd marriage was contracted in 1979 between Reyes and Ofelia Ty (civil wedding). In 1991. Justice Vitug “Marriages”void   ab   initio   need   not   be   declared   by   the   Court. One month later. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. Ratio: Elements of Bigamy: 1. Ty vs. Flores. Offender has been previously legally married 2.Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo. Facts: Vincent contracted a marriage with Maria Consuelo Tan (1 child with her) while still married to Thelma Oliva (2 children here). A. Therefore. It was declared null and void. Vincent alleged he is single as written in the marriage contract of his 2nd marriage. 211 . Tan filed a letter-complaint for bigamy against Vincent. FC not retroacted because it will prejudice the rights of the petitioner and the children. In 1982. Petition should be granted. CA Petition for certiorari of a decision of CA declaring the marriage void ab initio. Madarang. Crime has already been consummated (declaration of nullity should be obtained before a 2nd marriage).     Art. the 2nd marriage’s  church  wedding was held. he filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of his 1 st Marriage (Art. 40 is only for VALID or VOIDABLE 1st marriages alleged to be void. (She was well aware of the existence of the 1 st marriage when she married him. Mercado vs. Salanguit. Morales. Issue: WON the 1s6t element of bigamy is present WON  he’s  guilty  of  bigamy WON he is acquitted (WON Tan should receive relief for damages) Held: Petition is not meritorious. Yu. He contracted a 2nd marriage 4. Both marriages are under NCC) The 1st marriage was contracted between Edgardo Reyes and Anna Maria Regina Villanueva in 1977. 4. followed on 1982 when the church wedding was declared void also (no consent of both parties). and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 3. He is guilty of bigamy. it was declared void because there is no marriage license and Reyes was still married when he married Ty. Issue: whether the decree of nullity of 1st marriage is required before a subsequent marriage can be entered into validly Held: There is no need for judicial declaration because 1 st marriage is before Wiegel. Vicente Mercado of bigamy.) Petition denied.. 36).

2nd marriage is valid for all the essential and formal requisites are complied with. J. Salanguit. Petition granted and awards to the children are ratified and maintained. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. In 1995. A. an annulment case was filed by him against Narcisa. She also discovered he had a 2nd marriage in 1989 with Zenaida Binas. she left for Japan to work and when she returned in 1992 she learned he was having an affair and cohabiting with Fe Corazon Plato. Facts: 1st marriage was between Salvador and Narcisa Arceno in 1967 (had 4 children).. it was amere signing of marriage contract without a solemnizing officer. Morales. Lucio filed for a suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the civil case for udicial declaration of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Lucio Morigo was first married to Lucia Barreto. No damages to be given since it will be from conjugal/common funds (absurd). There is no marriage ceremony so there is no need for judicial declaration. There is no marriage ceremony. People Review on certiorari convicting Salvador Abunado of bigamy. Wiegel said that there is a need for judicial declaration of a void marriage. Madarang. She filed for a bigamy case against him that same year. Abunado vs. 1988. Bigamy is mala in se. Marriage license is valid. Morigo vs. Felizmenio. good faith and criminal intent are complete defense. He is acquitted. Lucia went to Canada and had their marriage divorce (1992). Gravador. Castillo. When Lumbago filed for the bigamy case. Yu. Lucio married Maria Jececha Lumbago who later filed for a criminal case of bigamy against Lucio. Flores. After Lucia left. The 1 st marriage was declared null in 1993 because there is no marriage license. Issue: WON criminal intent is a dispensable requisite WON he committed bigamy WON good faith is valid Held: Divorce with Lucia is not recognized because neither of the spouses had their domicile in the place where divorce was granted she only went there to get a divorce. After a year. This was granted but later on denied. People Review for certiorari on CA decision that Morigo is guilty of bigamy. Issue: WON he was sufficiently informed of the nature of the case filed against him WON he committed bigamy 212 . Ratio:  NCC  doesn’t  say  judicial declaration is needed. The 1st element for bigamy is not present meaning he was never married and so it was not bigamy.Digested by: De Guzman.

1979. July 29. Thereafter. April 16. RTC ruled that Jarillo is guilty of bigamy (with 6-10 years imprisonment). J. Morales. while it retroacts to the date of the celebration of marriage. Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married in a civil wedding ceremony. Said decision became final and executory on July 9. For her defense. knew about her marriage to Alocillo as far back as 1978 (15 years has already elapsed. On October 29. CA invoked the Tenebro ruling saying that the subsequent declaration of nullity of her first marriage. Facts: On May 24. At the time of this decision he is already 70 yrs ols which is a mitigating circumstance. 1974. Jarillo filed against Alocillo a declaration of nullity of their marriage before the RTC of Makati City. on March 28. Gravador. He said that the penalty is improper. 2004. 1975. Carpio General rule: If marriage is void ab initio. Jarillo and Uy exchanged marital vows in a church wedding ceremony. Jarillo was charged with bigamy before the RTC of Pasay City. they again . 2001. the said marriage is not without legal consequences among which is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. On May 4. Castillo. 2003. But this can only suspend the bigamy case. through her mother. Jarillo contracted a second marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy. o The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s   two   marriages   with   Alocillo   cannot   be   213 Jarillo vs People Overview: Jarillo was charged with bigamy for having contracted a second marriage with Uy when her previous marriage with Alocillo was still subsisting. 2003. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner said Narcisa consented the 2nd marriage but the Court   ruled   that   it   is   not   established   and   her   consent   doesn’t   extinguish his criminal action since it is also a crime against the State. Salanguit. MRC was denied. He said it is a prejudicial question The Court held that proceedings on bigamy should be suspended during annulment case. Yu. Flores. Uy filed for the annulment of their marriage.   RTC   of   Makati   City   declared   Jarillo’s   marriage with Alocillo null   and   void   ab   initio   on   the   ground   of   Alocillo’s   psychological   incapacity. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2000.). 1995.. Jarillo is guilty of bigamy. October 5. Madarang. He is guilty of bigamy. there should be no need for a judicial declaration. On November 26. Rachelle Alocillo was born. July 21. July 8. August 2. In 1999. 1975. Jarillo insisted that (1) her marriage with Alocillo was null and void because he was still married to a certain Loretta Tillman at that time (2) her marriage with Alocilllo and Uy were null and void for a lack of a valid marriage license (3) action has prescribed since Uy. Numbers of years in prison is celebrated marriage in a church wedding ceremony. 2003. A. Meanwhile. modified. Concurring Opinion. Issue:  WON Jarillo committed bigamy when she contracted another marriage with Uy? Held and Ratio:  Yes.Digested by: De Guzman. Civil case has no bearing on the criminal case. Held: Bigamous marriage was contracted in 1989 and not in 1995. It was a typographical error. 2001.

Issue: Could the marriage bet Angel and Romana be valid and should the respondents be disbarred? Held: (1) Yes.   he   wasn’t   a   lawyer   yet. . And instead of making legal amends to that marriage when the first wife died he went running off with another woman and bore a child with her.  chance  na!  Kahit  may  asawa  na   pwede  na  rin”!  hahaha)  and  that  she  didn’t  say  a  word  about  it  when   everything was still favorable to her. this was confirmed by another child who said that she saw her father  with  another  woman  in  Robinson’s  Ermita.e.  She  investigated  and   eventually found out the truth and filed a disbarment case against Angel and Romana. Angel Garrido and Atty. but the Court could not believe the honesty of Romana’s  belief  that  the  2nd marriage was really void. For the part of Romana she said that Maelotisea actually knew of their marriage (“Yes. Gravador. Mother was not called to the witness stand. Besides. Corazon Salvador 214 Garrido vs Garrido Petitioner: Maelotisea Garrido. Salanguit. Herein. he married Romana in Hongkong and eventually left the house to live with her. A. the crime of bigamy was already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second marriage. DISBARRED. And that at the time when he contracted all his marriages. Yu. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Maelotisea only had a suspicion of this second marriage when the daughter from the second marriage secretly called and told one of her children that she was a child of Angel from another woman. the fact is she took away a man from his wife and six kids and prevented him from legalizing his first marriage when the first wife died.   petitioner’s   marriage   to   Alocillo. Constancia was already dead. And that at the time he married Romana. 1 day imprisonment). (What does that say about his morality?haha) He even went as far as using his expertise in order to avoid liability. the marriage is void-bigamous but it should be borne in mind that he misrepresented himself as a bachelor to Maelotisea. Re: Complaint of Mrs.   so   the   court   shouldn’t   take   that   against his practice. Disposition: Petition is partly granted. 4 months and 1 day imprisonment – 8 years.Digested by: De Guzman. considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy considering that the second marriage was contracted without the previous one being declared null and void. there was yet no judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage at the time they were married. Any strand of decency in her body would tell her to stay away from him but she didn’t  and   she should be held responsible for that. But still. After years of marriage and 6 children. (2) In a strict legal sense the third marriage could be considered as valid.. Castillo. Felizmenio. Respondents: Atty. the fact still remains that the man has six children and a wife who believed that their marriage was valid. o Jarillo failed to present sufficient evidence to support her allegation that 15-years has already elapsed (i. Romana Valencia Facts: Angel was married to Maelotisea. so technically his lawful wife is Romana and not Maelotisea. Penalty is modified (2 years. was deemed valid and existing. Immoral. Angel said that his marriage with one Constancia was subsisting at the time he married Maelotisea so that their marriage was actually null and void. DISBARRED. Madarang. While it is true that the second marriage was null and void. prescription began to ran as of 1978). J. Flores.   which   had   not yet been declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction.

On the property regime of the marriage FC Art. the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children. No. Felizmenio. unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. No. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation.. Madarang. (2) and 63. or unless there has been a voluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. c. the innocent spouse. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2). the following procedure shall apply: (4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets. the custody and support of the common children. but the fact is at the time they were married. As it turned out in the investigation. if there are none. J. 50. (2). partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. 102. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. Art. his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or. But the respondents said that the previous marriage had already been declared void by the court. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime. shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129. both parties actually had subsisting marriages at the time they got married. and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes. they were legally impeded. Facts: (This is a messed up case about passionate grudge and money haha!) So many facts but the relevant ones are: Corazon filed an administrative case against Noel and Amelia asserting among others that they had committed bigamy when they married each other because Noel was married to one Rosemary and Amelia knew of this. Art. But also both were eventually declared void. Compare with 215 . For purpose of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43. Yu. A. Salanguit. but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith. The subsequent declaration of nullity of both their first marriages does not change the fact that they have already and knowingly committed bigamy. the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution. the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated. Flores. Issue: Could the subsequent declaration of nullity of a previous marriage make legal an otherwise bigamous marriage? Held: NO! Yes the previous marriages were judicially declared void. In the partition.Digested by: De Guzman. 43. unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage settlements. Gravador. which shall be divided equally between husband and wife. On rights and obligations between the former spouses d. Castillo. shall be dissolved and liquidated. (3). as the case may be.

50. So the court admitted evidence and based the decision solely on that presented by Albano-Sales. each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Sales vs Sales Facts: Marriage between Albano-Sales and Sales was declared void ab initio due to the psychological incapacity of both parties. one of them being that Albano-Sales had been collecting rent on several of their townhouses but had misappropriated those funds and also sold some of the units without his approval. Sales opposed this and prayed that the partition be withheld until all the issues have been resolved. So the properties were partitioned as she wanted. Madarang. Morales. properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. 216 . Gravador. When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith. Art 147 could not apply. the court ordered a dissolution of their conjugal properties. Flores. 147 in relation to Art. Yu. 147. But Sales filed a case with the court and said that he had been deprived of his properties without due process as the matters he mentioned above has not yet been dissolved. Salanguit. the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.Digested by: De Guzman. A. such share shall belong to the innocent party. with no legal impediment. and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Also. Castillo. 51. (144a) Valdez vs QC-RTC Facts: The marriage between Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez was declared null and void due to the psychological incapacity of both parties.. In the absence of proof to the contrary. therefore. without the consent of the other. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. FC Art. AlbanoSales filed a motion for execution and manifestation with a list of the properties that have to be apportioned. In the decision. In all cases. The co-ownership evoked in this provision applies when a man and a woman. the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In the absence of descendants. until after the termination of their cohabitation. As a result. Consuelo filed a Motion for Reconsideration asserting that there are no provisions in the FC that govern the procedure for liquidation of common property in unions without marriage. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants. a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. exclusively live together as husband and wife with a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. while the other two were put under the care of their mother. and 52 of the family code. Issue: Does Art 147 apply in this case? Held: Yes. The court set a trial for this but Sales failed to show up even if it had already been reset twice. For purposes of this Article. three of the children were given the choice as to whom they wanted to live with (they chose their father). the court directed that the liquidation of the property be commenced according to Art. live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. FC 147 applies to void marriages irregardless of the cause thereof. work or industry. Felizmenio. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common.

000.00 monthly regular support to Javy Singh Buenaventura o That custody of Javy is to his mother o That Isabel can revert back to the use of her maiden family name Noel appealed to the CA Isabel filed a motion to increase the P15. Yu. Buenaventura v CA Facts  July 12. partitioned and ditributed is that of equal co-ownership  The parties were legally married on July 4. 1992 – Noel Buenaventura filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of alleged psychological incapacity of his wife.Digested by: De Guzman. Felizmenio. Issue:   Did   the   court   err   when   it   granted   the   respondent’s   appeal   considering that a writ of execution considering that under the rules of the court no appeal can be taken from an order of execution? Held: No. Castillo. or registered in the name of one or both spouses. Gravador. 1995 – RTC promulgated a decision o That marriage is null and void ab initio o That Noel pay Isabel moral damages of 2. 1997 – Petition for Review on Certiorari and the Petition for Certiorari were consolidated by the court  In the petition for review on certiorari. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.000 monthly support Noel filed an opposition praying that it be denied September 2.000. 1996 – CA issued a resolution increasing the support to P20. Madarang. Thus the case is REMANDED. Salanguit. contracted. is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved 217     ..00 plus costs o That assets of the conjugal partnership property be liquidated o That Noel give a P15. whether the acquisition have been made. indeed there are still issues that need to be resolved before a fair and reasonable distribution of the properties can be made.000  Noel appealed but appellate court dismissed such  Noel filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied  Noel filed an instant petition for review on certiorari  November 13. J. 1996 – through  a  resolution.5 million pesos and exemplary damages of 1 million pesos with 6%  interest.000.  plus  attorney’s  fees  of  P100.00 o That Noel pay Isabel expenses of litigation of P50. A. 197 and therefore all property acquired during the marriage. Morales. Flores.  CA  denied  Noel’s   motion for reconsideration of the September 2 resolution  Noel filed a petition for certiorari to question the two resolutions  July 9. Noel contends that CA gravely abused  its  discretion  when  it  refused  to  set  Isabel’s  motion  for   increased  support  for  the  parties’  son  for  hearing Issue (on the topic):  WON assets of conjugal partnership property be liquidated in the event of declaration of annulment of the marriage Held  Yes Ratio  In case a marriage is declared void ab initio. the property regime applicable and to be liquidated. Isabel Singh Buenaventura  Isabel then filed an answer but Noel then amended his petition stating that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated  Isabel denied the allegation  July 31. Noel contends that CA decided the case not in accord with law and jurisprudence  In the petition for certiorari.

In the partition. A. Castillo. For purposes of this Article. work or industry. otherwise. there had been no marriage settlement between the parties. The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either of both of the parents. (3). Gravador. shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129. 51. nor had there been any voluntary waiver or valid forfeiture   of   the   defendant   wife’s   share   in   the   conjugal   partnership properties Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found both by the trial court and the CA to have been acquired during the union of the parties. the same would be covered by the co-ownership and support of the common children. but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts. (n) FC Art. by mutual agreement judicially approved. shall be delivered in cash.  Art. In said partition. live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. J. In the absence of proof to the contrary. Yu. (n) 218   (e) On legitimes of the common children FC Art. Felizmenio. Madarang.Digested by: De Guzman. FC Art. property or sound securities. In this case. the custody . a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. the same shall not affect third persons.. had already provided for such matters. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2). unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. 50. Flores. unless the parties. (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45. the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children. computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation. The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation. 52. and the delivery of third presumptive legitimes. Salanguit. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage. Morales. The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment. and shall be owned by them in equal shares. 147 of the FC: When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses.

Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition. as previously stated. A. Flores. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half. Javy Singh Buenaventura. by way of donation. in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir. called compulsory heirs. Every compulsory heir. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. deducting all debts and charges. Yu. support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes. 908. on motion of either party. shall be added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation. 1061. 219 . Legitime is that part of the testator's property which he cannot dispose of because the law has reserved it for certain heirs who are.Digested by: De Guzman. FC Art. otherwise. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. during the lifetime of the latter. 886. NCC Art. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. To the net value of the hereditary estate. unless such matters had been adjudicated in the previous proceedings. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. J. the law states that the final judgment therein shall provide for the liquidation. (808a) FC Art. (287a) NCC Art. the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.. Morales. custody. shall proceed with the liquidation. in case of appeal. the Family Court. including custody. has attained the age of majority. the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered. at the time he made them. support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. 176. (1035a) Section 21 of AM no 02-11-10-SC. the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother. partition and distribution. 53. Salanguit. The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article. with regard to the issues on support raised in the Petition for Certiorari. who succeeds with other compulsory heirs. and in the account of the partition. and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. . 888. Castillo.  However. Madarang. (806) NCC Art. owing to the fact that the son. must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent. Except for this modification. subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided. Felizmenio. upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition. (818a) NCC Art. these would now be moot. Liquidation. all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. Gravador. To determine the legitime. or any other gratuitous title. which shall not include those imposed in the will. Buenaventura v CA See Facts above Issue  WON Javy Singh Buenaventura is entitled to a support Held and Ratio  Yes supposed to be because when a marriage is declared void ab initio. therefore. or.

paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction Issue  WON the trial court has jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement on  the  joint  custody  of  the  parties’  child   Held  The  trial  court  has  jurisdiction  to  entertain  petitioner’s  suit  but   not to enforce the Agreement which is void Ratio:  Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. Yu. Castillo. including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent. and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. Branch 60 (trial court) to enforce the Agreement Herald alleged that in violation of the Agreement. American.Digested by: De Guzman.   lack   of   jurisdiction   because   of   the   Illinois   court’s   retention of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree RTC held that (1) it is precluded from taking cognizance over the  suit  considering  the  Illinois  court’s  retention  of  jurisdiction   to enforce its divorce decree. Herald sued Sharon in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. among others. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. J. An action for specific   performance. 220 .. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother. petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie       The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement Sharon undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order “relinquishing”  jurisdiction  to  Philippine  courts In 2004. born on 21 September 1995  In June 1999. Art. Sharon sought and obtained from the Circuit Court. were married in Manila in April 1994  They have one daughter. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and (3) the Agreement is void for contravening Article 2035. awarded to Sharon sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes  On 28 January 2002.   such   as   petitioner’s   suit   to   enforce   the   Agreement on joint child custody. Filipino. Flores. (f) On the status and custody of children FC Art. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate. Salanguit. and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. 54. the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent. Felizmenio. Illinois (Illinois court) a divorce decree against petitioner  In its ruling. Stephanie. 176. (2) the divorce decree is binding on petitioner following the   “nationality   rule”   prevailing in this jurisdiction. 19th Judicial Circuit. (287a) Dacasin v Dacasin Facts  Petitioner Herald Dacasin. Lake County. Sharon exercised sole custody over Stephanie Sharon sought the dismissal of the complaint for. A. all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional rights shall remain in force. statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. Madarang. Except for this modification. At the time petitioner filed his suit in the trial court. belongs to this species of actions. Gravador.

Section 12. Yu. A.  then  the  law  and  the  courts  have   no business vetoing their decision. J. Castillo. Salanguit.  (g) On use of surnames Yasin    v  Honorable  Judge  Shari’a  District  Court Facts  Hatima  Yasin  filed  in  the  Shari’a  District  Court  in  Zamboanga   City a Petition to resume the use of maiden name  She said that she was formerly married to a certain Hadji Idris Yasin but they were granted a decree of divorce by the Mindanao Islamic Center Foundation. If they resolve on their own that shared parental custody is  in  their  child’s  best  interest. Morales. On the contrary. Madarang. other than sole maternal custody. the mother takes sole custody under the law if the child is below seven years old and any agreement to the contrary is void  Thus. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Separate Opinion  J. Inc. for their child of tender age  No legislative policy is violated if separated parents are allowed to voluntarily agree to a child custody arrangement other than sole maternal custody.Digested by: De Guzman. Abad – uncomfortable with the proposition that an agreement between the mother and the father on a joint custody over a child below seven years of age is void for being contrary to law and public policy  Such is because the 1987 Constitution acknowledges in Article II. It is not the policy of the state to prohibit separated parents from compromising on child custody even if the child is of tender age. for a child within this age bracket. and that her former husband is now married to another woman  The respondent court held that the petition filed is not sufficient in form and substance and that the pleading must be rectified  Hatima filed a motion for reconsideration but again was denied by the respondent court on the ground that the petition is substantially for change of name and that compliance with the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court on change of name is necessary if the petition is to be granted as it would result  in  the  resumption  of  the  use  of  petitioner’s  maiden  name   and surname  Thus. it has also been repudiated by the mother when she refused to allow joint custody by the father. Flores. the law decides for the separated or divorced parents how best to take care of the child and that is to give custody to the separated mother. voluntary custody agreements are generally favored as it can only work for the best interest of the child The agreement between petitioner Herald and his estranged wife providing for joint custody of their then six-year-old child is a valid exercise of parental discretion and authority. the natural and primary right and duty of parents to nurture their children and that the State must support them in this respect  The law does not take away from a separating couple the authority and competence to determine what is best for their child. the law suspends the joint custody regime for (1) children under seven of (2) separated or divorced spouses. Felizmenio. Simply put...  The Agreement is not only void ab initio for being contrary to law. this petition alleging that respondent court erred in applying rule 103 to this case 221 . The Agreement would be valid if the spouses have not divorced or separated because the law provides for joint parental authority when spouses live together  However. Gravador.  The second paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code should not be read as prohibiting separated couples from agreeing to a custody arrangement. upon separation of the spouses.

not obligatory  Furthermore. and after the death of the husband is permissive and not obligatory except in case of legal separation  Under   article   371   of   the   civil   code   states   that   “in case of annulment  of  marriage…  if  she  is  the  innocent  spouse. in her Petition to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations She asserted that despite her marriage. Flores.Digested by: De Guzman. she has continuously used her maiden name in all her transactions. Uy – Timosa   Josephine P. o Such is our nation's response to the increasing clamor of women worldwide for gender equality 222 . 1625 – Josephine P. Gravador.  the  use  of  husband’s  surname  during  the   marriage. Morales. petitioner does not seek to change her registered maiden name but just to be allowed to resume the use of her maiden name in view of the dissolution of her marriage to Hadji Yasin  Under  the  civil  code. after annulment of the marriage. and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men". Uy. or (2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname."  This provision clearly indicates that the wife's use of her husband's surname is optional. Yu. 370. Section 14. J. she need not apply and/or sseek judicial authority o  use  her  husband’s  name…  similarly. A married woman may use: (1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband's surname. prayed that she be allowed to use her maiden name. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. such as "Mrs. Salanguit. Uy-Timosa. but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife. However. Madarang. Castillo. or (3) Her husband's full name. except in her school records and those in the CHED and other offices.   unless…   she   or   the   former  husband  is  married  again  to  another  person”  When a woman marries a man. Felizmenio. Issue  WON a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for change of name  WON the petitioner can resume her use of maiden name Held  No  Yes Ratio  The true and real name of a person is that given to him and entered in the civil register. In this case.  she  may   resume   her   maiden   name   and   surname.. all her records in the University of Santo Tomas reflect her maiden name She contended that she and her husband have been separated since May 2000 and that a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is now pending before the RTC  Issue  WON  the  court  can  grant  the  petitioner’s  request Held  Yes Ratio  Article 370 of the Civil Code reads: ART. A. the widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former husband’s  name  is  optional and not obligatory  Rule 103 of the rules of court on change of name should not be applied to judicial confirmation of the right of a divorced woman to resume her maiden name and surname Facts Bar Matter No. Article II of the 1987 Constitution states that: "The State recognizes the role of women in nation building. Josephine P.  when   the marriage ties no longer exists.

 So.Digested by: De Guzman. Prior to the expiry of the validity of her passport.   placing   her   case   outside of the purview of Section 5(d) of RA 8239 (as to the instances when a married woman may revert to the use of her maiden name).  such  as  “Mrs. she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport. 8239 (RA 8239) or the Philippine   Passport   Act   of   1996   “offers   no   leeway   for   any   other   interpretation than that only in case of divorce. Since   petitioner’s   marriage   to   her   husband   subsists.” We  agree  with  petitioner  that  the  use  of  the  word  “may”  in  the   above  provision  indicates  that  the  use  of  the  husband’s  surname  by  the   wife is permissive rather than obligatory.S. Remo is a married Filipino citizen whose Philippine passport was then expiring. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit. DFA petition for review on the decision of Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Office of the President. 370. applied for the renewal of her passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago.  the   DFA additionally requires the submission of an authenticated copy of the marriage certificate. or (3)      Her  husband’s  full  name. U. Gravador.    If   she  chooses  to  adopt  her  husband’s  surname  in  her  new  passport. Uy in her Petition to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations Remo vs. petitioner has the right to use her maiden name Jospehine P.. DENIED Ratio: Section 5(d) of Republic Act No.   the   following   entries   appear   in   her   passport:   “Rallonza”   as   her  surname. A. Being married to Francisco R. J. which in turn affirmed the decision   of   the   Secretary   of   Foreign   Affairs   denying   petitioner’s   request to revert to the use of her maiden name in her replacement passport. Otherwise. Held: The petition lacks merit. a married woman may either adopt  her  husband’s  surname  or  continuously  use  her  maiden  name. Facts: Maria Virginia V.” Title XIII of the Civil Code governs the use of surnames.  and  “Remo”  as  her   middle name. petitioner. the DFA allows a married woman who applies for a passport for the first time to use her maiden name. Such an applicant is not required to adopt her husband's surname. annulment. Yu. Illinois. In the case of a married woman. if she prefers to continue using 223 . Madarang. In fact. Felizmenio. or (2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname. Morales. A married woman may use: (1)       Her   maiden   first   name   and   surname   and   add   her   husband’s   surname. does not prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name in her passport. including its implementing rules and regulations. Castillo. Article 370 of the Civil Code provides: ART.A. Her petition was denied. whose marriage still subsists. despite the subsistence of her marriage. RA 8239. can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport. or declaration [of nullity] of marriage may a married woman revert to her maiden  name  for  passport  purposes.  “Maria  Virginia”  as  her  given  name. in recognition of this right.  but  prefixing  a  word  indicating  that  she   is  his  wife. Flores. clearly. Rallonza. In the case of renewal of passport.  who  originally  used  her  husband’s  surname   in her expired passport. with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport.. Issue:  whether  petitioner.

freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. Yu. 4. criminally and administratively liable. Madarang. a married woman's reversion to the use of her maiden name must be based only on the severance of the marriage. and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable. once  a  married  woman  opted  to  adopt  her  husband’s   surname in her passport. Voidable marriages 1. voidable marriages FC Art. A. with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. Morales. Otherwise stated. except as stated in Article 35 (2).Digested by: De Guzman. she may still do so. guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party.. Void v. her maiden name. unless after attaining the age of twenty-one. (5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other. The DFA will not prohibit her from continuously using her maiden name. 45. Felizmenio. (3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. Flores. she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport.  Since  petitioner’s  marriage  to  her  husband   subsists. Wiegel See digests above Terre 224 . (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force. On hereditary rights i. (n) Art. A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly. A basic tenet in statutory construction is that a special law prevails over a general law. J. (2) divorce. intimidation or undue influence. the provisions of RA 8239 which is a special law specifically dealing with passport issuance must prevail over the provisions of Title XIII of the Civil Code which is the general law on the use of surnames. in that order. such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife. existing at the time of the marriage: (1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. Castillo. (2) That either party was of unsound mind. Effect of death Castro vs. or (6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a) Wiegel vs. Even assuming RA 8239 conflicts with the Civil Code. unless such party afterwards. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. unless such party after coming to reason. These instances are: (1) death of husband. except in the cases enumerated in Section 5(d) of RA 8239. h. Gravador. unless the same having disappeared or ceased. Salanguit. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. she may not revert to the use of her maiden name. Castro H. (3) annulment. or (4)   nullity  of  marriage. and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents. However.

Felizmenio. Chief of the Female Services of the National Mental Hospital. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. or by any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane.   during. 4. (n) Lim vs. (61a) b. Morales. NCC Art. Art. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. Nelly Lim had gone to Dr. Facts: Nelly Lim and Juan Sim are lawfully married. mother. or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity. or in the form of an affidavit made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law to administer oaths. not having been emancipated by a previous marriage.. Salanguit. In case either or both of the contracting parties. the consent to their marriage of their father. or by the parent or guardian or person having legal charge of the minor. at any time before the death of either party. surviving parent or guardian. 14. at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one. Acampado is privileged. A. if one is executed instead. 225 . Castillo. and the affidavit. Yu. exhibit to the local civil registrar. by the same spouse. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party. in the order mentioned. 47. 2. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45. specializing in Psychiatry. unless such party after coming to reason. Madarang. Gravador. 45. J. Nelly Lim objected to this witness since the testimony sought from Dr. Lydia Acampado. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles. All other actions whose periods are not fixed in this Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the right of action accrues. they shall.Digested by: De Guzman. are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.” Juan Sim had 4 witnesses. Insanity Art. 1149. CA Overview: This is about the rule on the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship Issue: WON the CA denied due course to a petition to annul the order of the trial court allowing a Psychiatrist of the National Mental Hospital to testify as an expert witness and not as an attending physician of petitioner. 47. The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. One is Dr. Flores. 1987: Juan Sim filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that petitioner Nelly Lim has been allegedly suffering   from   a   mental   illness   called   schizophrenia   “before. Art. absence for parental consent FC Art. or persons having legal charge of them. within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one. who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar. shall be attached to said applications. November 25. who had no knowledge of the other's insanity. Art. Grounds for annulment a. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. existing at the time of the marriage: (2) That either party was of unsound mind. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose parent or guardian did not give his or her consent. except as stated in Article 35 (2).   and  after  the  marriage  and  until  the  present.

Nelly Lim was never interviewed alone and thus. Besides. All they discussed was hypothetical and did not mention specifically Nelly Lim. through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties. (n) Art. are not in themselves fraudulent. unless made by an expert and the other party has relied on the former's special knowledge. Yu. Art. by the injured party. he would not have agreed to. existing at the time of the marriage. (86a) Art. 1341. Felizmenio. (3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease. Gravador. A. as when the parties are bound by confidential relations. 1339. A mere expression of an opinion does not signify fraud. since Nelly Lim did not object when she found out that the doctor was going to testify. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45. unless such party afterwards. when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts. Castillo. (n) Art. J. Fraud Art. she had waived her right to object. within five years after the discovery of the fraud. (1269) Art. NCC Art. The doctor was allowed to testify since she would be testifying as an expert and not as an attending physician. (n) Art. Only disclosures made to the physician to enable him safely and efficaciously to treat his patient are covered by the confidentiality rule.Digested by: De Guzman. Misrepresentation by a third person does not vitiate consent. even if the information was privileged. Madarang. rank. health. when there is a duty to reveal them. has destroyed the confidential nature of the communication between doctor and patient. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. unless such misrepresentation has created substantial mistake and the same is mutual. habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. Lastly. The usual exaggerations in trade. Acampado in a professional capacity and had diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia. 1340. There is fraud when. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. her testimony cannot be excluded. 1342. constitutes fraud. 45. Held: Nope. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. without them. Flores. Since expert witness and she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination of Nelly Lim. existing at the time of the marriage: (3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: (1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude. (n) Art. 1338. Failure to disclose facts. with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character. 46. regardless of its nature. fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. 47. Morales. (n) 226 . c. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. (2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage. or (4) Concealment of drug addiction. Misrepresentation made in good faith is not fraudulent but may constitute error. Salanguit. the other is induced to enter into a contract which. 1343.

Facts: Conchita Delizo. and 7. Felizmenio. gave birth to a child. She said that the child was conceived out of lawful wedlock between her and the plaintiff. Gravador. Catherine Bess Aquino showing her date of birth to be April 26. at the time of her marriage to plaintiff and her having hidden this fact from plaintiff before and up to the time of their marriage. Issue: Held: Court ruled in favour of defendant Luida. 4. Pictures of defendant showing her natural plumpness as early as 1952 to as late as November. the third child of Cesar Aquino and defendant. the date of plaintiff's marriage to defendant. J. the November. Catherine Bess Aquino. Buccat Facts: Petitioner and defendant met and fell in love. Conchita Delizo admitting her pregnancy by Cesar Aquino. 1954 photo itself does not show defendant's pregnancy which must have been almost four months old at the time the picture was taken. After 89 days. Delizo petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Court of First Instance which dismissed petitioner's complaint for annulment of his marriage with respondent Conchita Delizo. Plaintiff was a student of 1st yr Law. no birth certificate was presented to show that the child was born within 180 days after the marriage between the parties. 1954. Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. Affidavit of Albert Powell stating that he knew Cesar Aquino and defendant lived together as husband and wife before December 27. and with whom defendant has begotten two more children. 3. at the date of her marriage to Fernando Aquino concealed from the latter that she was pregnant by another man. Morales. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable. it should be serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties. and that he and defendant hid her pregnancy from plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's marriage to defendant. her brother-in-law. 5. Affidavit of defendant. 1954. her brother-in-law and plaintiff's own brother. and holding that concealment of pregnancy as alleged by the plaintiff does . in common-law relationship) admitting that he is the father of defendant's first born. and about four months after their marriage. aside from her first born. On this event. it is alleged. 1344. Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages. Luida Mangonon-Buccat gave birth to their child. Madarang. 227 Buccat vs. not constitute such fraud sa would annul a marriage — complaint is dismissed. Aquino vs. the second child of defendant with Cesar Aquino. Birth Certificate of defendant's first born. In CFI. Birth Certificate of Carolle Ann Aquino. Birth Certificate of Chris Charibel Aquino.. he left her and never returned. 2. Castillo. Salanguit. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 6. Issues was there a fraud? Held: Case is remanded to CFI wth the new evidences: 1. A. Flores. 1955. Art. Affidavit of Cesar Aquino (defendant's brother-in-law and plaintiff's brother.

1954 – Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation   Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint of Fernando. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage. the enlargement of a woman's abdomen is still limited to the lower part of the abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may. par. (3). Flores. be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of the abdomen. Madarang. If. Castillo. as claimed by plaintiff. Felizmenio. Anaya vs. Ratio: Under the new Civil Code. Fernando had divulged that several months prior to their marriage. he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his Aurora contended that such non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret on the part of the defendant that definitely wrecked their marriage. and granting Aurora’s  counterclaim While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated. if noticed. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen. making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. 1953 – Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married  January 7. merely by looking. especially since she was "naturally plump" or fat as alleged by plaintiff. 85. upholding the validity of the marriage. (4) in relation to Art. J. Gravador. A. defendant is "naturally plump". whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage more so because she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Yu. At that stage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. According to medical authorities. concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. which apparently doomed to fail even before  it  had  hardly  commenced  constituted  “fraud” Aurora prayed for the annulment of the marriage and for moral damages Fernando denied the allegations and set up the defenses of lack of cause of action and estoppel for her having prayed the validity of marriage and her having enjoyed the support that had been granted to her Fernando counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint but for its dismissal with respect to the alleged moral damages      Issues  WON the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with another woman constitute fraud and therefore is a ground for annulment of marriage  WON   Aurora’s   contention   that   Fernando   paid   court   to   her   without any intention of complying with his marital duties and obligations and covertly made up his mind not to live with her constitute fraud and therefore is a ground for annulment of marriage Held 228 . he could hardly be expected to know.. (Art. even on the 5th month of pregnancy. Morales. Salanguit. 86. her pregnancy was not readily apparent. She was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage. par. Palaroan Nature  Appeal from an order of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Facts  December 4.

He exhibited the vice of entering into marriages and later leaving the woman behind..   “no   other   misrepresentation  or  deceit  as  to…  chastity”  shall  give   ground for an action to annul a marriage  Aurora’s   contention   that   Fernando   paid   court   to   her   without   any intention of complying with his marital duties and obligations and covertly made up his mind not to live with her does not constitute fraud and therefore is not a ground for annulment of marriage o This ground is already barred o Any   secret   intention   on   the   husband’s   part   not   to   perform his marital duties must have been discovered by the wife soon after the marriage.   providing   that.Digested by: De Guzman. According to respondent. Gravador. her action for annulment based on the fraud should have been brought within four years after the marriage o The wedding was celebrated in December 1953. Madarang. Flores.   No No Macarrubo vs. Macarrubo Florence Teves Macarrubo filed a complaint for disbarment of Atty. After this. Castillo. he admitted that he was married but he said it was void. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and this ground was only pleaded in 1966 . No. He also showed evidence showing fully paid educational plans for the education of his children. which may be a cause of annulment. Issues: Did he commit gross misconduct and fraud in his marriages? Held: He is guilty of gross misconduct. he actually lived with her and bore with her a second child. 229 Ratio  Non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman does not constitute fraud and therefore is not a ground for annulment of marriage o Fraud as a vice of consent in marriage. A. It is not easy to believe that a lawyer like him could easily be cowered to enter into any marriage. she knew he was married and he was dragged   by   her   to   a   “sham   wedding”   because   she   was   then   pregnant     He also declared that their marriage was void ab initio. hence. J. Ratio:. Salanguit. he was suspended for 3 months. Edmundo Macarrubo with IBP alleging he deceived her into marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with Helen Esparza. 4 of the Civil Code o Such fraud is limited exclusively by law to those kinds of fraud enumerated in Article 86 o Non-disclosure   of   a   husband’s   pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment and it is further excluded by the last paragraph   of   the   article. She averred that he also have a third marriage with Josephine Constantino and he abandoned her and her children without support IBP remanded the case to the Investigating Commissioner.     Even   if   his   claim   of   being   under   duress during the wedding. Yu. Having his 2nd marriage void ab   initio   doesn’t   clean   his   case. comes under Article 85. He is disbarred. Pictures of a happy familydo not lie about the relationship he had with complainant. After their marriage. Felizmenio. Morales.

Lower court should have dismissed the case for evidence   doesn’t   support   claims   under   Art. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. RTC decision reversed. After 11 years. 45. Morales. Yu. within five years from the time the force. d. He belied he is cruel to his children. There is violence when in order to wrest consent. She noticed his closeness with his male companions. The marriage is considered  valid  and  dissolution  of  manuel’s  share  in  property  regime   is unwarranted. intimidation and undue influence Art. caught him while in the middle of a telephone conversation talking about a guy he likes and saw him kissed a guy. 36 but on Art. by the injured party. RTC held the marriage is void ab initio not on Art. . Castillo. Force. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45. Art. such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil 230 Concealment of homosexuality is the correct ground and not homosexuality per se. Flores. A. They remain joint administrators of community property. defended his closeness with his mother and he allegedly avoid female companions because Leonida is overly jealous. 47. she filed for petition to annul their marriage on the ground that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform obligations of marriage She alleged that he was a very harsh disciplinarian. He was laso alleged to have concealed his homosexuality. Valentina del Fonso Garcia. He said all these claims were due to their professional rivalry. Gravador. 1335. She interviewed her and had one time interview with Manuel and their eldest child. 45. RTC of Las Pinas Petition for review on certiorari of decision of CA denying petition for annulment of judgment and affirming the decision of RTC Facts: Manuel Almelor and Leonida Trinidad were married and had three children. Concealment of homosexuality raises the issue of consent. intimidation or undue influence. NCC Art. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. Dr. Homosexuality is only a ground for legal separation. unreasonably meticulous and too attached with his mother. J. Psychologist. proved her claims. Madarang. Leonida failed to prove nullity of marriage and fraud. Almelor vs. Petition granted. existing at the time of the marriage: (4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force. Errors of manuel should be pointed to the negligence of his counsel who has committed a lot of errors during the trial. Salanguit. unless the same having disappeared or ceased. Felizmenio.   36   but   rather   shows   the   homosexual tendencies of Manuel.. Issue: WON he employed fraud in their marriage Held: This case is exempted from the rule that wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal shall be dismissed. Trial to annul marriage is dismissed. serious or irresistible force is employed. intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased.

The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein: (5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45. Madarang. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. 45. he left the conjugal home two nights and one day after they had been married. 1337. although it may have been employed by a third person who did not take part in the contract. Alcazar vs Alcazar 231 . abduction. To determine the degree of intimidation. 1336. Physical incapacity/impotence FC Art. The following circumstances shall be considered: the confidential. Felizmenio. upon his person or property. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and because of these. (1267a) Art. (87a) Jimenez vs Canizares Nature: Appeal for the judgment of CFI. the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. acts of lasciviousness and rape. accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes. sex and condition of the person shall be borne in mind. Yu. Facts: Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling his marriage to Remedios Canizares before a judge of the municipal court in Zamboanga City. e. Castillo. existing at the time of the marriage: (5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other. Issues: whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband Held: The decree of CFI that annuls the marriage is set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable. to give his consent. if the claim is just or legal. descendants or ascendants.. family. Gravador. Last paragraph In cases of seduction. or the fact that the person alleged to have been unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness. (n) RPC Art. A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority. A. (1268) Art. spiritual and other relations between the parties. by the injured party. that the condition of her genitals existed at the time of the marriage and continues to exist. Morales. the age. Salanguit. 47. does not vitiate consent. Flores. 344. Violence or intimidation shall annul the obligation. depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice. J. or upon the person or property of his spouse. There is undue influence when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the will of another. upon the gorund that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. within five years after the marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals. or was ignorant or in financial distress. Art.

J. After 12 days from their marriage. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage. She was surprised that she was not advised by his arrival. Madarang. In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph.    Upon  learning  of  this. Felizmenio. an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. Morales.  they  went  back  to  Manila  but  Rey   did not live with Veronica. She tried to call him 5 times but he never answered. A marriage contracted by any party who. Instead. 36.  she  went   to her brother-in-law who claimed that he was not aware of his whereabouts. Rey left for Riyadh where he worked. About a year and a half. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of 232 . When he arrived. he proceeded  to  his  parents’  house. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. After their wedding the two lived for five days in the hometown of  Rey’s  parents. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. at the time of the celebration. 41. he did not communicate with his wife by phone or by letter. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. I. A.    She  then  went  to  Rey’s  parents’  house  where  she   was informed that he had been living with his parents since his arrival. She concluded that he was physically incapable (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) of consummating his marriage with her. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code. Salanguit. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Gravador. he did not go home to her house. Flores. he never contacted her. Nature: Petition for Review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals that denied her petition for annullment Facts: Veronica Alcazar alleged that she was married to Rey Alcazar.. FC Art. While working there. Marriage when one spouse is absent FC Art. a co-teacher informed her that he was about to come home to the Philippines. She asserted that since his arrival. Castillo. the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a wellfounded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. Art. without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.    Thereafter. 42. Issues: WON Rey is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations Held: Petition is denied for Veronica failed to prove that his husband was really psychologically incapacitated. (83a) Art.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu. 48.

during his or her lifetime. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. or if the absentee. Madarang. or by either spouse of the subsequent marriage during the lifetime of the other. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person. Felizmenio. A. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes. said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. that the former husband or wife believed to be dead was in fact living and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. Art. the innocent spouse. even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects: (1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate. 87. shall be dissolved and liquidated. (3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid. reappearance of the absent spouse. (2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership. (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy. 44. (n) (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved. (n) Art. but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith. his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance. such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law. Number 2. The action for annulment of marriage must be commenced by the parties and within the periods as follows: (2) For causes mentioned in Number 2 of Article 85. is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage. 83. 85. or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. as the case may be. (29a) CC Art. J. existing at the time of the marriage: (2) In a subsequent marriage under Article 83. Yu. Gravador. Morales. (n) Art. unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 233 . by the spouse who has been absent. if there are none. or (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive. with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. Flores. except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith. unless: Art. Salanguit. 43. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. though he has been absent for less than seven years. the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children. and (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession.

it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee  The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee  For the celebration of civil marriage. and the properties were turned over to the respective grantees by virtue thereof. publication thereof having been made in the Official Gazette  and  in  “El  Ideal” o May 6. and in accordance with section III. but in that of April 23. A. 1921 – the court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence (1 st order). the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage. Art. filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her mother. her daughter by her first marriage (a minor). the date of the celebration of the marriage. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved. at the instance of Marciana Escaño. Morales.Digested by: De Guzman. only 6 years and 14 days elapsed. 68. J. 1934. 1933. to have her husband judicially declared an absentee o April 23. that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living. Castillo. it was null and void  The fact states that o In December 1914 – Marciana Escaño married Arthur W. Angelita Jones. her widower by her second marriage. and they signed the certificate of marriage Angelita Jones contends that the declaration of absence must be understood to have been made not in the order of October 25.. Yu. or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. Salanguit. of General Orders.  On May 3. Jones o January 10. and Felix Hortiguela. Flores. her widower Felix Hortiguela was appointed judicial administrator of her entire estate  In an order issued on May 9. No. 1921. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Bigamy. the deceased Marciana Escaño  She contends that there never was a valid marriage between her mother and Felix Hortiguela or that had such marriage been celebrated. 349. 1919. 1932. paragraph 2. 1927 – Felix Hortiguela and Marciana Escaño were married before the justice of the peace of Malitbog. the marriage so contracted by Felix Hortiguela and Marciana Escaño is null and void  Issues  WON Felix Hortiguela's alleged marriage to Marciana Escaño was valid Held  Yes Ratio  For the purposes of the civil marriage law. and that from the latter date to May 6. Gravador. however. the heiress Angelita Jones. 1918 – Jones secured a passport to go abroad and thereafter nothing was ever heard of him o October 1919 – proceedings were institute in the Court of First Instance of Maasin. were declared her only heirs  The project of partition and final account were approved in an order of June 26. 1927. that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead 234 . Madarang. Leyte. Jones v Hortiguela Facts  Marciana Escaño had died intestate. Leyte. then married to Ernesto Lardizabal. Felizmenio.

treated Hortiguela as her true stepfather. Gravador. 1927. Jones was received. No. J. Madarang. she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under the law Issues  WON Lourdes should be declared widow Held  No Ratio  Based on Szartraw case . would still be a prima facie presumption only and would still be disputable Gue v Republic Facts  Angelina Gue was married to William Gue  January 5. and they had not acquired any property during the marriage  Angelina asked the court for a declaration of presumption of death of William Gue  Trial Court issued the order of dismissal on the ground that no right had been established by Angelina upon which a judicial decree may be predicated. since she lived with her mother after the latter had married Hortiguela. and the spouse present so believe at the time of the celebration of the marriage (section III. 1933  Francisco left Lourdes after a violent quarrel and since then has not been heard from despite diligent search made by her  Lourdes believes that he is already dead because he had been absent for more than twenty years. therefore. but since then. more than nine years elapsed. General orders. Said marriage is. Jones to be dead when she contracted her second marriage. 1946 – William Gue left Manila and went to Shanghai Chia. and lived and traveled with him together with her mother. even if final and executory. Castillo. the appealed order dismissing the petition is affirmed Ratio  Angelina invoked Article 390 of the New Civil Code and 191 of the Old Civil Code o But said provision was repealed by the Code of Civil Procedure and continued to be repealed by the Rules of Court 235   Lukban v Republic Facts  Lourdes Lukban married Francisco Chuidian on December 10. A. paragraph 2. Salanguit. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. She certainly would not have behaved so if she had not believed her father to be dead. as it is clear that he did not leave any  Thus. Morales. he had not been heard of  Despite   Angelina’s   efforts   and   diligence. Her daughter Angelita Jones herself was of the same belief. and because she intends to marry again. the date on which the last news concerning Arthur W. Yu. Felizmenio. this appeal Issues  WON  Angelina’s  appeal  should    be  granted Held  No. o A   petition   for   judicial   declaration   that   petitioner’s   husband is presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law o A judicial pronouncement to that effect. and such action is not for the settlement of the estate of the absentee.   she   failed   to   locate   him. 68) The absence of Marciana Escaño's former husband should be counted from January 10. Flores. valid and lawful Furthermore. 1918. Marciana Escaño believed Arthur W. and from said date to May 6..

Felizmenio. brother and guardian of Alice Diaz.. 1998 – Clemente died (a member of SSS since 1960 and a retiree pensioner)  Teresita filed a claim for funeral benefits. 1955 – Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz were married  August 8. Salanguit. (2) Elisa. 1970 – Clemente filed a petition to declare Alice presumptively dead  January 30. Morales. Yu. o Only a mere disputable presumption of death was available to any party o Solicitor-general cites the Lukban case decided long after the new civil code went into effect Based on Szartraw and Lukban case o The rule invoked is merely one of evidence which permits the court o presume that a person is dead after the fact that such person has been unheard from in seven years had been established o The petition does not pray for a declaration that the petitioner’s   husband   is   dead. his marriage with Teresita is void being bigamous SSC  ruled  that  Teresita’s  marriage  to  Bailon  was  void  and  she   was just a common law wife SSS is ordered to pay Alice the appropriate death benefit SSC ratiocinated that contrary to the declaration of CFI of Sorsogon. Flores. also claimed the  death  benefits  accruing  from  Bailon’s  death Alisa Diaz filed an affidavit stating that o Clemente cannot have her declared presumptively dead because he could have easily found her because she was just living with her parents o Hence. the first wife never disappeared as the deceased member represented in bad faith o Marriage to Teresita is therefore void o Teresita therefore is not entitled as a primary beneficiary  to  Bailon’s  death  benefit  and  that  behoves   her to refund the amount previously paid to her Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration having been denied. would still be a prima facie presumption only and would still be disputable SSS v Jarque vda. an additional claim for death benefits  Cecilia Cecilia Yap.   but   merely   asks   for   a   declaration that he be presumed dead o A judicial pronouncement to that effect. (3) Teresita – all of whom are still alive   Issues  WON the 2nd marriage is null and void upon the reappearance of the missing spouse Held  No Ratio  The two marriages involved having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. J.Digested by: De Guzman. Gravador. De Bailon   Hermes Diaz. A. she filed a petition for review before the CA and CA ruled in favor of her SSS present petition for review on certiorari     Facts  April 25. 1983 – Clemente married Teresita Jarque  October 9. Madarang. who claimed to be the daughter of Clemente and one Elisa Jayona claimed that she together with her siblings should be granted the benefits because they were the  ones  who  paid  for  Clemente’s  medical  and  funeral   expenses  She claimed that Bailon contracted three marriages: (1) with Alice. even if final and executory. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code  Article 83 of the civil code maintains that a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is 236 .

Bailon’s  and  Teresita’s  marriage  prior  to  the  former’s  death  in   1998. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court As no step was taken to nullify. illegal and void ab initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or dissolved or contracted under any of the circumstances: o The first marriage was annulled or dissolved.   Virgilio’s   application   for   naturalization filed with the US State Department of Homeland Security  was  denied  because  Angelita’s  marriage  to  Sofio  was   still subsisting March 29.Digested by: De Guzman. his whereabouts or even if he was alive or not June 20. however. respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse-beneficiary of Bailon    After that. Salanguit. 2007 – Petition was dismissed for lack of merit on the ground that Angelita was not able to prove the wellgrounded belief that Sofio Polborosa was already dead o RTC found that  She did not find her husband anymore in light of their agreement to live separately  Nancy was prevented to look for her father  There is a strong probability that Sofio is still alive  because  he’s  only  61  at  this  time  that  there   is no evidence presented that Sofio still continues to drink and smoke until now Angelita filed a Motion for Reconsideration stating that the Civil Code applies in her case since the marriage with Sofio was celebrated before the Family Code RTC denied such Thus. Castillo. Felizmenio. is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage. J. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Angelita married Virgilio Subsequently. Gravador. Angelita did not hear any news of Sofio.. 1985 – believing that Sofio was already dead. 1971 – Angelita Valdez married Sofio  December 13. Morales. this petition    Valdez v Republic Facts  January 11. or if the absentee. or o The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive. 2007 – Angelita filed a petition before the RTC of Tarlac seeking the declaration of presumptive death of Sofio November 12. A. 1971 – Nancy was born  Angelita and Sofio argued constantly because the latter was unemployed and did not bring home any money  March 1972 – Sofio left their conjugal dwelling  May 1972 – Angelita  went  back  to  her  parent’s  home  in  Tarlac  3 years passed without any word from Sofio  October 1975 – Sofio showed up  They agreed to separate and executed a document to this effect  Such was the last time Angelita saw Sofio    Issues  WON  Angelina  and  Virgilio’s marriage is legal and valid Held  Yes Ratio  The marriage of Angelita to Sofio and Virgilio were both celebrated under the Civil Code 237 . in accordance with law. or if the absentee is presumed dead according to Articles 390 and 391. Yu. Flores. Madarang. though he has been absent for less than seven years.

Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment NCC Art. Gravador. J.Digested by: De Guzman. or to the status.  A   petition   for   judicial   declaration   that   petitioner’s   husband   is   presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law o Under the Civil Code. Morales. proof of well-founded belief is not required promulgated. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and valid there as such. Sofio is to be presumed dead starting October 1982 Consequently. A. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments . denied the adultery imputed to defendant. even though living abroad. Dela Rama Facts:  This is an action for divorce on the ground of abandonment and adultery  The answer charged the plaintiff with adultery. Yu. and those which have. Laws relating to family rights and duties. the presumption of death is established by law and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise o Since death is presumed to have taken place by the 7 th year of absence. (17a) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. public order. 15. and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. and asked for divorce  CFI: granted the divorce to plaintiff and 81. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country. (As amended by Executive Order 227) Benedicto vs.. Felizmenio. Salanguit. (5) and (6). Castillo. the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. 042. 17. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. 3637 and 38. Prohibitive laws concerning persons.   there  existed  no  impediment  to  petitioner’s  capacity  to  marry And considering that CC applies. 26. wills. The forms and solemnities of contracts. (9a) Art.court assumed that the provisions of the civil code relating to divorce contained in title 4 of book1 are still in force  Backstory: o Agueda Benedicto and Esteban de la Rama were married in July 1891 and were happily together until August 1892 o The defendant suddenly without any previous warning took his wife to the house of her parents. Madarang. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines. shall also be valid in this country. Flores. for their object. left her there and never lived with her afterwards 238   J. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized.   at   the  time   of   petitioner’s  marriage   to   Virgilio. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. 76 pesos as her share of the conjugal property. their acts or property. (11a) FC Art. (4). except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1).

without such order to suspend the operation of the code b) The order of suspension is inoperative –did not mention the book of this code in which the suspended titles 4 and 1q2 were to be found c) Title 4: relates to marriage and divorce . any part of the canon law which by proper action of the civil authorities had become a civil law stood upon same footing as any other law in Spain 7) COUNCIL OF TRENT—these decrees have in spain the force of a civil law 8) It may be doubted if these decrees. title 12: to civil registry (book 1) SC: this is an error Ratio: 1) July 31. furnish any aid in the solution of the question 9) CANONISTS: declare adultery to be a ground for divorce— however. alimony.Digested by: De Guzman. But that basis was wanting in these islands. 1889 2) On dec 31. o The plaintiff: complains that husband committed adultery with one GREGORIA BERMEJO in 1892 o Other two charges relate to 1899 and 1901 –insufficient evidence  ARGUMENTS: a) The power of the gov gen. Flores. an order was published which states that titles 4 and 12 of the CC are suspended in the archipelago. suit money and other temporal affairs shall pertain to ordinary courts 13) PARTIDAS: contain provisions relating to the subject of divorce—states that when spouses are separated by law. even if considered as extended to the phils and in force here. and prior to the promulgation of the CC in 1889. 1889. J. but the written law and the impediment existing between them 14) Two forms of separation with two reasons: one is religion and the other the sin of fornication 15) Religion –if on desires to take holy orders and the other should grant permission—with authority of the church 16) Divorce due to adultery or fornication—brought before the judge of the holy church. Salanguit. Madarang. Yu. includes spiritual fornication 239 . Felizmenio. except arts 44 to 78 which were promulgated in 1883 4) It is claimed that if these are suspended. no part of the law was in force here. Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. As a consequence of the religious liberty proclaimed in the consti of 1869. the only marriages in the islands would be canonical and the only courts competent to declare a divorce would be ecclesiastical 5) There can be no doubt that the order of suspension refers to titles 4 and 12 of book 1 and it has always been understood— follows that arts 42-107 of the CC were not in force here 6) The canon law had not as such any binding force outside the church-however.no decree can be found published in the Gaceta 3) The history of Law of Civil Marriage of 1870 is well known. it is not then considered that man separates them. the Civil Code as it existed in the peninsula was extended to the phils and took effect on dec 8. A. Morales. the causes for divorce are nowhere distinctly stated therein 10) The laws of the church which do state what these causes are have not the force of civil laws 11) The DECRETAL LAW –abolishing in the peninsula the special jurisdictions was extended to the phils 12) DECRETAL LAW STATES: ecclesiastical courts shall continue to take cognizance of matrimonial and ellemosynary causes and of ecclesiastical offenses in accordance with provisions of canon law and have jurisdiction over causes of divorce and annulment of marriage as provided by the Council of Trent—but incidents with respect to the deposit of a married woman. the whole of the law was in force in the peninsula. Castillo.

The complete separation of the church and the state under the American govt while it changed the tribunal in which this right should be enforced. those laws of the PARTIDAS herein before referred to relating to divorce.The jurisdiction formerly possessed by them is now vested in CFI by virtue of ACT no.By the operation of this law (TORO). Yu. he commits adultery. first enacted in 1530. Morales. this result was. 136 . Gravador. as to certain laws.RECOPILACION de lasLEYES de INDIAS—provision that— and as to all matters not provided for by the laws of this compilations. Flores.B) that the only ground therefore is adultery .Adultery of the plaintiff is however.The general rule was that laws of the Peninsula did not rule in the colonies unless they were expressly extended to them. Castillo.C) that the action on that ground can be maintained by husband and .Being in force on august 13.Digested by: De Guzman. accomplished in another way . Felizmenio.Letter: confession of guilt? MAIN ISSUE: adultery 1) The lack of evidence destroys the theory of the court below and of the appellee that the defendant expelled the plaintiff from his house because he was tired of her and desired the company of other women 2) Not adequate to explain the sudden termination of their marital relations 3) Testimony of the defendant correctly explained the theory—he stated that on his return from an inspection of one his estates his 240 . there is a waiver of the judgment Issue: Were these provisions of the partidas in force in the island prior to 1889? .The PARTIDAS recognized adultery as a ground for divorce— therefore according to the civil as well as canonical law in force in august 13.The adultery of the defendant was fully proved . J.D) that the decree does not dissolve the marriage bond DECISION: the CFI of Iloilo therefore committed no error in assuming the jurisdiction of this case . Madarang.That provision of the substantive civil law was not repealed by the change of sovereignty . 1898—the commission of the offense gave the injured party the right to a divorce . the laws of the compilations and the PARTIDAS of these kingdoms of the Castile shall be followed in the decisions of causes in accordance with the following law . 1898—they continued to be in force with other laws of a similar nature . however.. could not affect the right itself .The fact that ecclesiastical courts no longer exercise such power is not important .A) the courts of CFI have jurisdiction to entertain suit for divorce . Salanguit. neither one of them can contract second marriage at any time excepting in the case of separation granted by reason of adultery in which case the surviving spouse may remarry after the death of the other 18) No other person but the spouses themselves can make an accusation for such a cause and it ought be made before the bishop or the ecclesiastical judge either by the parties themselves of their attorneys 19) This divorce did not annul the marriage 20) That either spouse has been guilty of adultery is a defense to his or her suit so is the fact that she has pardoned her—if after a divorce has been granted to the husband.The RESULT: . A. plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence (PROOF—letter) . 17) In here the spouses are separated but the marriage still subsists. upon the discovery and settlement of the Phils became at once effective therein—they have remained in force since all civil laws of the state as distinguished from laws of the church . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.

. A. both Filipinos. Castillo. Alfredo (defendant) left for the US as a member of the US Navy (he was already part of this since 1927)  Salud left her residence in Maragondon. State of Alabama.The court has not only reversed the judgment of the trial court but has entered a judgment against the plaintiff . is inequitable and unjust Arca vs.Condoned offence not being sufficient as a cause for divorce. Gravador. told what had occurred and left her there 5) If The plaintiff is guilty the defendant has condoned the offense—no factual evidence on this claim PRINCIPLE: a)    Law  6  . Cavite to live w/ Alfredo’s  parents  at  Naic  Friction  occurred  bet  Salud  and  Alfredo’s  parents. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Javier Facts:  This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI of Cavite ordering appellant to give a monthly allowance of P60 to plaintiffs  and  to  pay  them  attorney’s  fees  Salud Arca and Alfredo Javier. 1940 – Salud received a copy of the divorce complaint and filed an answer where she averred: 241 . USA alleging as ground abandonment by his wife  September 23.Condonation: offending party is restored to the same position he or she occupied before the offense was committed the only condition being that the offense must not be repeated .To deprive the plaintiff of the judgment which she has obtained and make a final determination of the case here without giving her an opportunity of correcting this error. named ZABAL 4) She admitted the genuineness of the letter. Alfredo filed an action for divorce against SAlud before the Civil Circuit of Mobile County. Felizmenio.  title  9  partida  4. on December 2. Flores.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu.  the  couple’s  relationship  became  strained   that on August 13.Immaterial which law governs . 1931  In 1938. wife‘s  maid  gave  him  a  letter  in    the    handwriting    of    his    wife    and   directed to her lover.JUDGMENT REVERSED COOPER. 1940.  so  she  went   back to Maragondon  After  that  incident. Alfredo Javier. since under each causes for divorce are substantially the same. if such exists. one of which is adultery . a Spanish corporal of the civil guard. DISSENTING . fell upon her knees and implored him to pardon her—that same day he took her to the home of her parents. Salanguit. Morales.  the  wife  can  defeat    the    husband‘s    suit     for divorce by proving that he has pardoned her but no laws in the partidas which say that the effect of the pardon would be so farreaching as to entitle her to a divorce against him in a case like this present one CONCLUSION: .Higher court not to review the findings of the lower courts—more competent since they have the witnesses . got married on Nov 19. 1937  They had a son. J.Neither of the party is entitled to a divorce—both committed adultery . Jr.Not proper to say that just because plaintiff has once been guilty she would forever lose her right to a divorce—makes condonation conditioned—party granting it shall forever have the right to commit the same offense himself with impunity . J. is not a bar to divorce in favor of the plaintiff condonation restores equality before the law . Madarang.

and the court has acquired jurisdiction upon the appellant. Flores. the same cannot be said of the plaintiff  In short. defendant married an American citizen. Salanguit. he returned to the Phil where he married a 3rd time  It could.  the  foreign  court  granted  defendant’s  complaint   for divorce and dissolved the marriage bet the two on April 9. plaintiff must be domiciled in good faith in the State in which it is granted (Cousins Hix vs. the wife is not bound to live w/ her husband if the latter has fone to ultramarine colonies o Prayed that the divorce complaint be dismissed Nevertheless. married Maria Odvina (April 19) Salud filed for bigamy on July 25. his legal residence was still in the Phil and not at Mobile County because he was still in the service of the US Navy and was merely renting a room where he used to stay during his occasional shore leave for shift duty  Also.Digested by: De Guzman. 1941 July 1941 – after the divorce. Madarang. o The defendant was not a resident of the State of Alabama but of Naic. A. the Mobile County Court of Alabama had not acquired jurisdiction over the case because at the time Alfredo filed the complaint. Cavite o It is not true that she left her husband. he moved to NYC and after he retired. 1950 CFI: o Acquitted defendant on the basis that he married Maria in good faith and in the honest belief that his marriage to Salud has been dissolved by the divorce decree from Alabama o Defendant had no criminal intent when he contracted a subsequent marriage while the 1st one was still subsisting Held: NO  One of the essential conditions for the validity of a decree of divorce is that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and in order that this may be acquired. therefore be said that he only went to Mobile County to obtain a divorce from his wife  Another reason for not granting the divorce is our concept of moral values w/c always looked upon marriage as an inviolable institution 242       Issue: WON the divorce decree has a valid effect in the country . Gravador. Felizmenio.. Fluemer) o A person must be a bona fide residence of the State or county of the judicial forum o He should not be living in that State or county only to obtain a divorce and w/o intention of remaining o Otherwise. Thelma Francis and bought a house and lot in NYC 1949 – Thelma filed for divorce 1950 – defendant retired from the Navy and returned to the Phil o Armed w/ two divorce decrees. Morales. one against Salud and the other against him. Yu. Since her husband is a member of the US Navy. he had to leave for the US w/o her o Defendant has always supported her and their son o She  did  not  abandon  defendant’s  home  in  Naic o their separation is due to physical impossibility for they were 10 thousand miles away from each other o Under the old Civil Code. defendant never intended to live there permanently as shown by the fact that after his marriage to Thelma. his residence there is not enough to confer jurisdiction on the courts of the State  It is not the citizenship of the plaintiff for divorce which confers jurisdiction upon a court but his legal residence w/in the State o Even if his residence had been taken in good faith. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. J. Castillo.

J.   their   acts or property. Felizmenio.. 1950 – decree of divorce was rendered final and absolute o 1951 – Escańos  filed  a  petition  with  the  Archbishop  of   Cebu  to  annul  their  daughter’s  marriage  to  Pastor o September 13. 1950 – she filed a verified complaint for divorce in the State of Nevada the ground of extreme cruelty.Digested by: De Guzman. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. just freedom of plaintiff from supporting his wife and acquiring properties to the exclusion of wife Thus. Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Castillo. Salanguit. Russell Leo Moran o August 8.  even  though  living  abroad. par 3 – “Prohibitive   laws   concerning   persons.  et  al   (defendants-appellees) Related Provisions  NCC 15 – “Laws  relating  to  family  rights  and  duties. and those which have for their object public order. Madarang. Morales.  Escańo. this appeal  Issues  Whether  or  not  Vicenta  and  Pastor’s  marriage is valid  Whether or not their marriage is subsisting and undissolved  Whether  or  not  Vicenta’s  divorce  and  second  marriage  is  valid Held  Decision under appeal is hereby modified 243 . 1955 – Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance  of  Cebu  against  the  Escańos  whom  he  charged   for dissuading their daughter from him  Falsely  charged  the  Escańos  which  caused  them   unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages  The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation. entirely mental in character o October 21. and finally. Tenchavez (plaintiff-appellant)  v  Vicenta  F. 1948 – Mamerto  Escańo  received  a  letter   disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor and one Pacita Noel o June 1948 – the newlyweds were already estranged o June 24. A. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. 1950 – Vicenta applied for a passport indicating in her application that she was single and that her purpose was to study and that she was domiciled in Cebu. 1948 – Vicenta   Escańo   (27)   exchanged   married vows with Pastor Tenchavez (32) without the knowledge of her parents (duly registered with the local civil register) o February 26. Yu. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated.”  NCC 17. 1954 – Vicenta married an American.  or  to  the   status.  The decision appealed from is affirmed Pastor B. Flores. that she intended to return after two years o August 22. 1958 – Vicenta acquired an American citizenship o July 30.” Nature of the Case  Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Facts  Significant dates o February 24.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" Respondent says that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy. She should not be obliged to live together with.  he  is  no   longer the husband of petitioner.  Jun 1983: Respondent filed a case against petitioner stating that petitioner's business in Ermita. Felizmenio. that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot. The latter should 244 . Gravador. Madarang. Castillo. the petitioner is still married to respondent. and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business. Morales. He is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court and is thus estopped by his own representation (that they had no community property) before that Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property..   Issue:  What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal properties in the Philippines? Held:  The divorce decree effectively divests the respondent the standing to sue in this case.  1982: They were divorced in Navada and petitioner subsequently married Theodore Van Dorn. and render support to private respondent. and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. o It cannot be said that under our law. A. 1948 marriage is valid o Both parties were above the age of majority o Both consented to the marriage o Marriage was performed by a Catholic Priest in the presence of competent witnesses o The very act of Vicenta suing for divorce implies admission that her marriage to plaintiff was valid and binding  Their marriage is subsisting and undissolved under the Philippine   law. J. Yu. especially if it is contrary to public policy. Flores. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. observe respect and fidelity.;   Vicenta’s   divorce   and   second   marriage   is   not   valid o The Civil Code does not admit absolute divorce o Vicenta’s   marriage   and   cohabitation   with   Russell   Moran entitles Techavez to a decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery Van Dorn v Romillo Facts:  1973: Petitioner (Filipino) married respondent (American) in Hongkong and thereafter. o Pursuant  to  the  respondent’s  national  law.Digested by: De Guzman. Salanguit. divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction. o Pastor is entitled to a legal separation o Vicenta is sentenced to pay Pastor for damages and attorneys’  fees o Pastor   is   sentenced   to   pay   the   Escańos   by   way   of   damages  and  attorneys’  fees  Tenchavez falsely charged which caused them unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages Ratio  February 24. begot two children. Manila is conjugal property of the parties.

Manila . Somera Facts:  September 7. not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. Arturo died without a will. got married at Friedensweiler in Federal Republic Germany. A.. 1980. Morales. 1986 – Schoneberg Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses o Custody of the child was given to Imelda o Records show that under German law.  Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC of QC for issuance of letters of admin concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Phil Trust Company 245 . Salanguit. They later resided in Malate. that said court was locally and internationally competent for the divorce proceeding and that the dissolution of the said marriage was legally founded on and authorized by the applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction  June 27. Gravador. 1954 – she obtained a final judgment of divorce  Three weeks after. a Filipino citizen. on the other hand. Yu. They had a kid Isabela Pilapil Geiling on April 20. 1986 – more than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree. To a certain Wernimont  On April 1972. the city fiscal approved a resolution directing the filing of the two complaints of adultery Issue: WON he can still file for adultery after German divorce Held: NO . support and separation of property on January 23. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Felizmenio. upon review.344 of RPC – only offended spouse may bring case of adultery to court and should still be spouse when complaint was filed. and Erich Ekkehard Geiling. California  She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately and a settlement of their conjugal properties  July 23. Pilapil vs. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. Marriage in his part was already extinguished thus he cannot sue as spouse anymore Quita vs CA Facts:  Fe Quita married Arturo Padlan (both are Filipinos) on May 18. Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding befor the Schoneberg Local Court o He claimed that there was a failure of their marriage and that they have been living apart since April 1982  Pilapil. Castillo.  Eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in the San Francisco. Since he filed it after the divorce was decreed he is now not considered a spouse and it is now absurd to bring action determined by his status before or subsequent to commencement of adultery. 1979 – Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil. Madarang. Fiscal Jacinto de los Reyes Jr recommended the dismissal of the cases for insufficiency of evidence  But. a German national.  The  two’s  marriage  turned  sour  and  they  separated.Digested by: De Guzman. 1941 but had no children. Flores. Geiling filed two complaints of adultery alleging that Pilapil had an affair with William Chia (1982) and Jesus Chua (1983) while their marriage was still subsisting  Asst. 1983 (this is still pending)  January 15. J. she married Felix Tupaz but this also ended in divorce  She married a 3rd time.    Jan 1983 – after three years and a half. filed an action for legal separation.

which held that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the Civil Code was not entitled to recognition was valid in this jurisdiction. That same year. (1927 – 1957). Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo. he left for the US and she was left in their conjugal home in CamSur. Fe replied that Arturo was a Filipino and as such remained legally married to her in spite of the divorce they obtained. Salanguit. Issue: WON Fe is entitled to inherit in spite of the divorce secured in the United States. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce. Morales. Felizmenio. A. he was given a leave in the Navy to visit his wife. Ruperto Padlan. In 1943. she gave birth to 246 .  Blandina Dandan. Castillo.  Blandina appealed to CA and CA reversed the decisions of the RTC and directed the remand of the case for further proceedings  There still remains the controversy of who is the legitimate surviving spouse of Arturo  During the proceedings. Gravador. It expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo. In 1937. claiming to be the sole surviving brother of the deceased. Llorente. Facts: For 30yrs. o Did not consider valid the extrajudicial settlement of conjugal properties due to lack of judicial approval o Opined  that  there’s  no  evidence  that  Arturo  and   Blandida married and that Arturo recognized the children as his o Found that Ruperto was the brother of Arturo o Declared Ruperto and Fe as heirs  On an MR. Ceferino. And a certificate of neturalization was issued in NY. Blandina was allowed to present proofs that the deceased recognized the children as his legitimate children (except for one)  Partial reconsideration was granted and the Padlan children were entitled to half of the estate while the other half went to Ruperto and Fe  Blandida‘s  marriage  to  Arturo  was  bigamous  since  it  was   contracted on April 1947. he was admitted to the US citizenship. Yu. In 1945.. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War. as co-owners of whatever property she and the deceased Lorenzo N. claimed to be the surviving spouse  She also submitted certified copies of the private writing and the final judgment of divorce between Fe and Arturo  Later. Escano. who alleged that she was married to Arturo on April 1947 and had 6 children with the deceased. when asked by Blandida whether or not Fe was entitled to inherit from decedent considering their divorce.Digested by: De Guzman. Llorente v. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and discarded the divorce between Fe and Arturo. he married Paula. J. CA Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying that of the RTC declaring Alicia F. Madarang. Lorenzo is is an enlisted serviceman of US Navy. Llorente may have acquired during the 25 years that they lived together as husband and wife. Flores. Held: NO  Her statement in the facts implied that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo. intervened  RTC: o The trial court invoked the ruling in Tenchavez v. He found out she was pregnant and living in with his brother.

RTC decision REVERSED and RECOGNIZES as VALID the decree of divorce.   that   the   properties   were   acquired   during   their marriage. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Issue: Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo N. Further. RTC declared the divorce of Lorenzo and Paula void and not applicable in the Philippines and so his marriage with Alicia is void. The next year. when he died. He returned to the US and in 1951. in equal shares. Morales. even though living abroad. (3) they would make a separate agreement regarding their conjugal property acquired during their marital life. both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. She apparently did not know of his marriage to Paula who lived in the same town as they do. They lived together as husband and wife for 25 yrs with their 3 children. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. Gravador. Art. In this docu. they drew a written agreement to the effect that (1) all the family allowances allotted by the US Navy as part of his salary and all other obligations for her daily maintenance and support would be suspended. encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property. intestate and testamentary succession. However. he filed for divorce in California. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Yu. he included in his will that he desired that no relative of his shall bother his family regarding the properties stated. In 1946. Lastly. Llorente? Held: CA decision is SET ASIDE. a baby boy. 15. Then. He also gave her and their children. 247 . Castillo. In the birth certificate it was written that it was not legitimate and the name for the father was left blank. all her real properties. (2) they would dissolve their marital union in accordance with judicial proceedings. Flores. Salanguit. In 1958. On 1985. Madarang. The agreement was notarized by Notary Public Pedro Osabel. Felizmenio. and (4) he would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily admitted her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. Laws relating to family rights and duties. he married Alicia. that his will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children.. including ALL the personal properties and other movables or belongings that may be found or existing there. he gave ALICIA his residential house and lot in CamSur. In 1981. It also declared the execution of the will as void saying that half of the conjugal properties and one third of the properties be given to her (one third also to the 3 illegitimate children). he returned to the Philippines. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. the Court REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic   validity   of   his   will   and   determination   of   the   parties’   successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court.Digested by: De Guzman. He also stated that the said properties shall not be sold to other people but only among themselves. J. or to the status. he executed his last will and testament. She argued that she was Lorenzo’s   surviving   spouse. Ratio: NCC Art. A. the divorce decree became final. Paula filed a petition for letters of administration over his estate in her favor. 16.

1989 – a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by an Australian family court. may be recognized in the Philippines. who are both aliens. o Fortunately  for  respondent‘s  cause.. Grace GarciaRecio. Salanguit. The forms and solemnities of contracts. wills. 17. 1989 was submitted in evidence. Castillo. Recio • July 7. Flores. Madarang. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. condition and legal capacity. 1994 – Rederick married a Filipina. Australia because the marriage had irretrievably broken down Issues • WON the divorce between Rederick Recio and Editha Samson is valid and proven • WON Rederick was proven to be legally capacitated to marry Grace Garcia Held • • Yes No Facts • March 1. Recio. counsel for petitioner 248 . it ought to be noted that before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value. Nature • Petition for review Garcia vs. He is a foreigner and is not covered by our laws on family rights and duties. Morales. o The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court. appearance is not sufficient. Rizal but they lived in Australia • May 18. status. 1998 – while the suit for the declaration of nullity was pending. respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney.Digested by: De Guzman. compliance with the evidentiary rules must be demonstrated. provided it is consistent with their respective national laws o However.  when  the  divorce  decree  of   May 18. Gravador. an Australian citizen. 1992 – Rederick A. Rederick declared that he was single and Filipino • From October 22. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country. Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent  marriage  in  case  the  divorce  is  “validly  obtained  abroad  by   the  alien  spouse  capacitating  him  or  her  to  remarry” o A divorce obtained abroad by a couple. Art. A. • June 26. 1995 onwards – lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage • May 16. their conjugal assets were divided • March 3. However. was married to Editha Samson. and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. 1998 – Grace Garcia-Recio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy Ratio • The divorce between Editha and Rederick is valid and proven o In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner. 1987 – Rederick A. J. Yu. Whether his will is valid and who is to succeed him is under the foreign law. the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City • In his application for marriage license. a Filipino. in Malabon. the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. Felizmenio. Recio became an Australian citizen • January 12. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. 1996 – while the two were still in Australia.

o On its face. Held: There is no basis for the charge of knowingly rendering unjust judgment. a Decree of Divorce was issued to Jorge in Texas which dissolved their marriage. respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws. Australia. Gravador. It means there is a conscious and deliberate intent to do injustice. respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. Lucena Escoto and Jorge de Perio Jr. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. intelligently. with a civil status as single. RTC argued that she is acquitted for there was good faith on her part and she believed that her first marriage was already dissolved. Morales. Castillo 249 Administrative complaint against RTC Judge Silverio Castillo for allegedly Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment and/or Rendering Judgment in Gross Ignorance of the Law Facts:In 1965.. Issue: WON respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or gross ignorance of the law. The first kind terminates the marriage. Lucena used and adopted the name Crescencia Escoto. not to its admissibility. objected. Knowingly means consciously. wilfully or intentionally. The marriage contract shows that she already used her real name. . 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not necessary. Yu.. Castillo. The error committed by the Judge being gross and patent. Flores. while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. In their marriage contract. Hence. Lucena. Eduardo Diego filed a bigamy case against Lucena but she was acquitted. it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the judge.   subject   to   petitioner‘s   qualification. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. o Compliance with the quoted articles (11.   Indeed. By becoming an Australian. Hence. A.   petitioner‘s   failure   to   object   properly   rendered   the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney. But divorces are of different types. Madarang. constitutes ignorance of the law of a nature sufficient to warrant disciplinary action. which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce   ipso   facto   restored   respondent’s   capacity   to   remarry   despite   the paucity of evidence on this matter. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Diego vs. J. but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. Ratio: Knowingly rendering unjust judgment is a criminal offense.”   This   quotation   bolsters   the   court’s   contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. He is FINED with P10. Felizmenio. got married (both Filipinos). Crescencia married Manuel Diego (brother of complainant).Digested by: De Guzman.   A   party   to   a   marriage   who   marries   again   before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits   the   offence   of   bigamy. Complainant. • Rederick was not proven to be legally capacitated to marry Grace Garcia o Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after marriage. the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction   that   reads:   “1. 000 with STERN WARNING that repetition of his acts will be dealt with severely. After 13 years. the court finds no basis for the ruling of the trial court. Salanguit. The crime of bigamy requires the presence of criminal intention to be committed. There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. After 9 yrs. The trial   court   ruled   that   it   was   admissible.

He knew that the judgment is unjust o This is to avoid the absurd situation wherein the Filipino spouse remains married while the alien spouse is not married anymore to him/her o The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of celebration of the marriage. After 6 yrs. He claimed that the petition should be filed in Laguna because this was Felicisimo’s  place  of  residence  prior  to  his  death. filed for review contending that par 2 of Art 26 of the FC is not applicable to this case bec it applies only to marriage bet a Filipino citizen and an alien o Also suggests that Cipriano should file for annulment/legal separation instead Issue: WON Cipriano can remarry under Art 26 of the FC Held:  The  Court  granted  the  Republic’s  petition Par 2 of Art 26 of the FC should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen. In 1993. since the respondent did not submit sufficient evidence that his wife was indeed naturalized and has remarried. She predeceased him. also to remarry . Ozamis City o They had children. Rodolfo. Gravador. Flores. but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry However. Cipriano learned that Myros has been naturalized as US citizen 2000 – Cipriano learned from Kristoffer that Myros divorced Cipriano and married Stanley who she now lives with in California Cipriano filed at theRTC for petition to remarry invoking par 2 of Art 26 of FC which the lower court granted Republic.    He   also claimed that Felicidad has no legal personality to file the petition 250 Facts: REPUBLIC v ORBECIDO III May 24. an American citizen. 1981 – Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva got married at United Church of Christ in Lam-an. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit with whom he had 6 children. Offender is a judge b. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision c.Digested by: De Guzman. They lived together for 18 yrs. his son in his first marriage. Later.. Castillo. filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure to state a cause of action. After his death she sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of his estate. Requisites for this: a. He had three marriages in his lifetime. Judgment is unjust d. she filed for a petition for letters of administration in Makati RTC. Yu. The next yr. She filed for divorce in Hawaii which was granted.. through OSG. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. he then married Merry Lee. 5yrs. with whom he had a son. Felizmenio. Kristoffer Simbortriz and Lady Kimberly 1986 – Myros left for US w/ son Kristoffer A few years later. San Luis Petition for review on the decision of the CA which reversed the decision  of  the  RTC  denying  petitioner’s  motion  for  recon. Facts: This case involves the settlement of the estate of Felicisiomo San Luis who was the former governor of Laguna. who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried. Madarang.. A. the Court is unable to declare that the respondent is now capacitated to marry San Luis vs. J. Morales. he married Felicidad Sagalongos in California (no children). Salanguit.

The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. Insufficient evidence that the third marriage was valid under the US Law. Art.. She proved his residence through Deed of Absolute Sale. It found the second marriage validly dissolved. Salanguit. she has legal capacity to file petition. Felizmenio. criminally and administratively liable. He is proven to be residing in Muntinlupa and so the petition is validly filed in Makati RTC. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the second marriage was validly dissolved. If divorce and third marriage is not proven as valid. In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed. attach a certificate issued by a priest. FC need not retroactivel. proof of membership in Ayala Alabang Village Association and Ayala Country Club Inc. Amor-Catalan vs. Held: Petition for motion for recon lacks merit and so DENIED. (As amended by Executive Order 227) If he is not capacitated to remarry. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles. Madarang. 148 governs (couple living together as husband and wife but incapacitated to marry). A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly. Limited co-ownership in which co-ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money. the party or parties concerned shall. property or industry. 16. Failure to attach said certificates of marriage counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application.y apply (marriage took place 1974). Art. This petition was DENIED. Dacasin K. Castillo. Residence is not the same with domicile. FC Art.Digested by: De Guzman. Ratio: Residence is where Felicisimo resides at the time of his death. Gravador. CA Bayot vs. (n) Art. Issue: whether the venue was properly laid and whether the respondent has legal capacity to file the petition. 4. Morales. 251 . J. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. she may be considered co-owner of properties acquired through their joint efforts during their cohabitation. Yu. imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. coz she is only a mistress. CA Dacasin vs. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. billing statements from Phil Heart Center and Chinese Gen Hospital. Marriages giving rise to criminal liability FC Art. This case is remanded to RTC. The Court of Appeals differentiated residence and domicile and held that he resided in Muntinlupa. Issuance of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage. A. 144 of NCC applies (co-ownership in properties assumed equal). except as stated in Article 35 (2). Flores. Felicisimo still married to Mary Lee.

Felizmenio. x x x. unless in the meantime she has given birth to a child. In case it is the legal husband who is the offender. attesting to the existence of a valid and legal marriage between them. abduction.Digested by: De Guzman. Yu. – x x x. Gravador. People vs. ART. prays that he be absolved of his conviction for the two counts of rape and be released from imprisonment. (n) RPC Art. That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage be void ab initio. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. abduction. shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. and acts of lasciviousness. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 7. — Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect. By the marriage of the offended woman. he alleges that he and private complainant contracted marriage last year. — Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the date of the death of her husband. He is absolved and ordered released. Concepts of separation and Divorce. 84. Issue:Dis he commit rape? Held:Motion granted. seduction. Madarang. the other party must be present at the counseling referred to in the preceding paragraph. and rape. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved. Art. or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. In the instant motion. In cases of seduction. ART. the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided. Morales. VII. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. Castillo. Benedicto vs Dela Rama (please see above digest) 252 . Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. acts of lasciviousness. Appellant. Ecidence presented were: copies of pictures taken after the ceremony. De Guzman Motion for extinguishment of the criminal action and reconsideration fpr SC Decision filed by Ronnie De Guzman Facts: Ronnie was charged with 2 counts of rape in the Pasig RTC. concubinage. 352. (n) NCC Art. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery. 351. 344. as provided in Article 344 of this Code. J. thus. 266-C. rape. No marriage license shall be issued to a widow till after three hundred days following the death of her husband. or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death. Effect of Pardon. – The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. Premature marriages. Attached to the motion is the pertinent Certificate of Marriage and a joint sworn statement executed by appellant and private complainant. Flores. Should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or parental advice. Salanguit. 89. The Law of Separation of the Spouses A. pursuant to Article 266-C of the (RPC). A. Ratio: RPC ART. if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation.

In case of non-appearance of the spouse whose consent is sought. If testimony is needed. Until modified by the Supreme Court. the judge shall endeavor to protect the interests of the non-appearing spouse. Yu. the attendance of the non-consenting spouse is not secured. and. shall describe in detail the said transaction and state the reason why the required consent thereto cannot be secured. (n) Art. upon proof of notice to the other spouse. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. A preliminary conference shall be conducted by the judge personally without the parties being assisted by counsel.(n) Art. If. If the petition is not resolved at the initial conference. Gravador. 247. the court may proceed ex parte and render judgment as the facts and circumstances may warrant. Jurisdiction over the petition shall. despite all efforts. Claims for damages by either spouse. Morales. 240. (n) Art. When a husband and wife are separated in fact. or in the regional trial court or its equivalent sitting in the place where either of the spouses resides. if one exists. Upon the filing of the petition. or one has abandoned the other and one of them seeks judicial authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other spouse is required by law but such consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. and shall require such appearance. whose consent to the transaction is required. and incidents involving parental authority. 239. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. abandonment by one of the other. if the court deems it useful. Salanguit. 1. may be litigated only in a separate action. J. of said petition. In any case. (n) Art. the court shall specify the witnesses to be heard and the subject-matter of their testimonies. a verified petition may be filed in court alleging the foregoing facts. the parties may be assisted by counsel at the succeeding conferences and hearings. embodying the transaction. the court shall notify the other spouse. said petition shall be decided in a summary hearing on the basis of affidavits. if none. Castillo. (n) Art. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition and shall be served at the last known address of the spouse concerned. (n) Chapter 2. In any case. the procedural rules provided for in this Title shall apply as regards separation in fact between husband and wife. The petition shall attach the proposed deed. Separation in Fact Art. 244. After the initial conference. Madarang. documentary evidence or oral testimonies at the sound discretion of the court. Prefatory Provisions Art. 245. except costs of the proceedings. 242. (n) 253 . 243.Digested by: De Guzman. directing the parties to present said witnesses. if possible. Separation in fact SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY LAW Chapter 1. (n) Art. (n) Art. (n) Art. Flores. the final deed duly executed by the parties shall be submitted to and approved by the court. be exercised by the proper court authorized to hear family cases. the court shall inquire into the reasons for his failure to appear. on or before the date set in said notice for the initial conference. if any. A. 246. ordering said spouse to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Felizmenio. 238. 241..

Is the subject lot an exclusive property of Florentino or a conjugal property of respondents 2. Chiong Facts:  Florentino and Elisera Chiong were married in January 1960 but have been separated in fact since 1975  During their marriage. Salanguit. 1992 . 1991 .She filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title w/ Damages  Feb 12. December 1986. the separation in fact bet husband and wife w/o judicial approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership  Also. J. they acquired a certain lot at Dipolog City  In 1985. Elisera can have the sale annulled during the marriage and w/in 10 years from the transaction questioned. but merely viodable  Applying Article 166 of the  civil  code.. Elisera timely questioned the sale 254 Villanueva vs. Morales. Felizmenio. payable in installments  He also allowed petitioners to occupy the lot and build store. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 2000 – RTC annulled the deed and ordered petitioners to vacate the lot and remove all improvements therein . a shop and a house thereon  After their last installment payment.  both  Florentino’s  and   Elisera’s  consent  are  needed  for  the  sale  of  a  conjugal  property  Since  the  sale  was  made  w/o  Elisera’s  consent. Was  its  sale  by  Florentino  w/o  Elisera’s  consent  valid Held:  The property is conjugal  Under Article 178 of the CC.  applying   Article 173 of the Civil Code. 248. all properties acquired by the spouses during marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife o Elisera presented a real property tax declaration acknowledging her and Florentino as owners of the lot o Also. The petition for judicial authority to administer or encumber specific separate property of the abandoning spouse and to use the fruits or proceeds thereof for the support of the family shall also be governed by these rules. Art. under Article 160 of the CC. Gravador. Florentino sold one-half of the western portion of this lot to petitioners.Petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance w/ Damages  The two cases were consolidated  May 13. Madarang. petitioners demanded from the respondents the execution of a deed of sale in their favor  Elisera refused to sign the deed of sale  July 5. Flores.Digested by: De Guzman. A. (n) o Florentino was ordered to return to the petitioners the consideration of the sale w/ interest  CA affirmed the decision of the RTC Issue: 1. Castillo. the spouses Chiong categorically declared in their Memorandum of Agreement they executed that the lot is a conjugal property o The conjugal nature of the lot was also admitted by Florentino in the Deed of Absolute Sale  The sale is not void ab inition but is viodable  The  husband’s  alienation  or  encumbrance  of  conjugal  property   prior to the effectivity of the FC is not viod. 1992 – Florentino executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioners  July 19. Yu.

He said that there was a stipulation in the agreement that the spouses would live together in case of reconciliation. 855. Albano vs. 52 and 216. Yu.. 102 Phil. it was held that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial 255 Judge Gapusan denied that he drafted the agreement. 42 Phil. A. The following shall be void and of no effect: (1) Any contract for personal separation between husband and wife. 254. His belief was that the separation agreement forestalled the occurrence of violent incidents between the spouses. To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family. There is no question that the covenents contained in the said separation agreement are contrary to law. Those stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the family. Ramirez vs. morals and good customs (Biton vs. during themarriage. Cheong Seng Gee. as the case may be. Momongan. Civil Code). "Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution". Flores. 43. Felizmenio. 43 Phil. Gravador. "The family is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Vintar.Digested by: De Guzman. Gmur. 35 Phil. Albano in filing the malpractice charge is in effect asking this Court to take belated disciplinary action against Judge Gapusan as a member of the bar or as a notary. respondent Gapusan notarized a document for the personal separation of the spouses Valentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta of Barrio 6. the transaction should not be entirely voided as Florentino had one-half share over the lot o Lacks merit o Alienation must be annulled in its entirety and not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned  If a voidable contract is annulled. Civil Code). ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Gapusan should be censured because of notarizing the void agreement between the spouses Albano. It was stipulated in that document that if either spouse should commit adultery or concubinage." (Arts. Gapusan FACTS: In 1941 or five years before his appointment to the bench. Salanguit. then the other should refrain from filing an action against the other. HELD: . Marriage and the family are the bases of human society throughout the civilized world (Adong vs. Castillo. Madarang. (He was admitted to the bar in 1937). Goitia vs. J. Brown vs. 7). and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 864. 221. the restoration of what has been given is proper o Restore the parties. Before the new Civil Code. 168). Ilocos Norte and for the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership.  Petitioner contend that assuming arguendo the property is still conjjugal. for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership" (Art. Yambao. He explained that the spouses had been separated for a long time when they signed the separation agreement and that the wife had begotten children with her paramour. 252. 221. to their original situation before the contract was entered into o Petitioners should give back the land w/ its fruits o Respondents should return the payment Agreements to Separate Art. the law considers as void "any contract for personal separation between husband and wife" and "every extrajudicial agreement. insofar as legally and equitably possible. Morales. Campos Rueda. 62 Phil.

RATIO:  As stressed by Justice Malcolm in Panganiban v. The notary public is usually a person who has been admitted to the practice of law. and as such. 1966. Bucana that notarized on November 10.. 1976. that the aforementioned document could not have been notarized if the respondent had only exercised the requisite care required by law in the exercise of his duties as notary public Absolute Divorce Art. supra. May 19. that upon seeing it he recognized that it was immoral and nature and refused to notarized it. must be held responsible for both. except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1). 1975. Fuentes. (5) and (6). and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. De Leon. Matter No. Borromeo. Angela Drilon Baltazar. Notaries were severely censured by this Court for notarizing documents which subvert the institutions of marriage and the family (Selanova vs. that he was planning on destroying the document. sanction was void (Quintana vs. 70 Phil. Miranda vs.   March 23. Iloilo wrote to the Court that notary public. he stated that the document was prepared by his clerk without his knowledge. 1637 July 6. 94 Phil. and valid there as such.. and he inadvertedly notarized it as it was not removed from his desk ISSUE: WON the notary public should be reprimanded HELD: Defendant guilty of malpractice and suspended for six months. Balinon vs. Lerma.. De Luna vs. 277). J. respondent. Linatoc. that he tried to contact the parties but to no avail. Flores. RUFILLO D. BUCANA. Salanguit. 16 SCRA 802. 367. (4). 74 Phil. A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership. 804. 285. A.M. In re Santiago. 66. Mrs. in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized. Momongan. Dumangas. 1975 at Dumangas. 241. Rufillo D. (17a) 256 . 15).  We find. Felizmenio. 64 SCRA 69. FACTS:  February 26. No. 3637 and 38. Gravador. 1976. 26.. however.". Adm. in the commingling of his duties notary and lawyer. 58 Phil. Yu.CJ. 1976. Madarang. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines. Mendoza. which affidavit is contrary to law because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose. Rufillo Bucana A. Iloilo an Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned spouses agreed therein that "in case anyone of them will remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and that the aforementioned Agreement was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to remarry without objection or reservation . April 30. Court Resolution asking respondent to show cause within 10 days of receipt April 21. Panganiban vs. 24 Phil. 4 "it is for the notary to inform himself of the facts to which he intends to certify and to take part in no illegal enterprise.Digested by: De Guzman. Adm. Barangay Captain of Victories. 1976 IN RE: ATTY. Castillo. Case No. In Re: Atty. Borromeo. Biton vs. Morales. shall also be valid in this country.

1889. except arts 44 to 78 which were promulgated in 1883 4) It is claimed that if these are suspended. Flores. Madarang. and prior to the promulgation of the CC in 1889. Felizmenio. without such order to suspend the operation of the code b) The order of suspension is inoperative –did not mention the book of this code in which the suspended titles 4 and 1q2 were to be found c) Title 4: relates to marriage and divorce . no part of the law was in force here. 76 pesos as her share of the conjugal property. THE LAW ON SEPARATION OF THE SPOUSES A. 042. Concepts of separation and divorce Benedicto v. Somera Dacasin vs. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. De la Rama Facts:  This is an action for divorce on the ground of abandonment and adultery  The answer charged the plaintiff with adultery. the only marriages in the islands would be canonical and the only courts competent to declare a divorce would be ecclesiastical 5) There can be no doubt that the order of suspension refers to titles 4 and 12 of book 1 and it has always been understood— follows that arts 42-107 of the CC were not in force here 6) The canon law had not as such any binding force outside the church-however. But that basis was wanting in these islands. any part of the canon law which by proper action of the civil authorities had become a civil law stood upon same footing as any other law in Spain 257 . Escano Van Dorn vs.Digested by: De Guzman. the Civil Code as it existed in the peninsula was extended to the phils and took effect on dec 8. title 12: to civil registry (book 1) SC: this is an error Ratio: 1) July 31. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. left her there and never lived with her afterwards o The plaintiff: complains that husband committed adultery with one GREGORIA BERMEJO in 1892 o Other two charges relate to 1899 and 1901 –insufficient evidence  ARGUMENTS: a) The power of the gov gen. the whole of the law was in force in the peninsula. Morales. denied the adultery imputed to defendant.court assumed that the provisions of the civil code relating to divorce contained in title 4 of book1 are still in force  Backstory: o Agueda Benedicto and Esteban de la Rama were married in July 1891 and were happily together until August 1892 o The defendant suddenly without any previous warning took his wife to the house of her parents. As a consequence of the religious liberty proclaimed in the consti of 1869. Castillo. J. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.no decree can be found published in the Gaceta 3) The history of Law of Civil Marriage of 1870 is well known. Yu. an order was published which states that titles 4 and 12 of the CC are suspended in the archipelago. Gravador. and asked for divorce  CFI: granted the divorce to plaintiff and 81. Salanguit. 1889 2) On dec 31. Dacasin VII. (As amended by Executive Order 227) Tenchanvez vs. Romillo Pilapil vs. A.

A. as to certain laws. 1898—the commission of the offense gave the injured party the right to a divorce 258 . Madarang. suit money and other temporal affairs shall pertain to ordinary courts 13) PARTIDAS: contain provisions relating to the subject of divorce—states that when spouses are separated by law. he commits adultery. those laws of the PARTIDAS herein before referred to relating to divorce. Flores. Castillo. this result was.. Gravador.By the operation of this law (TORO). accomplished in another way . the causes for divorce are nowhere distinctly stated therein 10) The laws of the church which do state what these causes are have not the force of civil laws 11) The DECRETAL LAW –abolishing in the peninsula the special jurisdictions was extended to the phils 12) DECRETAL LAW STATES: ecclesiastical courts shall continue to take cognizance of matrimonial and ellemosynary causes and of ecclesiastical offenses in accordance with provisions of canon law and have jurisdiction over causes of divorce and annulment of marriage as provided by the Council of Trent—but incidents with respect to the deposit of a married woman. Morales. it is not then considered that man separates them. 1898—they continued to be in force with other laws of a similar nature .RECOPILACION de lasLEYES de INDIAS—provision that— and as to all matters not provided for by the laws of this compilations.The general rule was that laws of the Peninsula did not rule in the colonies unless they were expressly extended to them. but the written law and the impediment existing between them 14) Two forms of separation with two reasons: one is religion and the other the sin of fornication 15) Religion –if on desires to take holy orders and the other should grant permission—with authority of the church 16) Divorce due to adultery or fornication—brought before the judge of the holy church.Digested by: De Guzman. however. Yu. includes spiritual fornication 17) In here the spouses are separated but the marriage still subsists. Felizmenio. even if considered as extended to the phils and in force here.Being in force on august 13. 7) COUNCIL OF TRENT—these decrees have in spain the force of a civil law 8) It may be doubted if these decrees. J. the laws of the compilations and the PARTIDAS of these kingdoms of the Castile shall be followed in the decisions of causes in accordance with the following law . neither one of them can contract second marriage at any time excepting in the case of separation granted by reason of adultery in which case the surviving spouse may remarry after the death of the other 18) No other person but the spouses themselves can make an accusation for such a cause and it ought be made before the bishop or the ecclesiastical judge either by the parties themselves of their attorneys 19) This divorce did not annul the marriage 20) That either spouse has been guilty of adultery is a defense to his or her suit so is the fact that she has pardoned her—if after a divorce has been granted to the husband. there is a waiver of the judgment Issue: Were these provisions of the partidas in force in the island prior to 1889? . first enacted in 1530. Salanguit. furnish any aid in the solution of the question 9) CANONISTS: declare adultery to be a ground for divorce— however. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. upon the discovery and settlement of the Phils became at once effective therein—they have remained in force since all civil laws of the state as distinguished from laws of the church . alimony.The PARTIDAS recognized adultery as a ground for divorce— therefore according to the civil as well as canonical law in force in august 13.

could not affect the right itself . .That provision of the substantive civil law was not repealed by the change of sovereignty . J.Condonation: offending party is restored to the same position he or she occupied before the offense was committed the only condition being that the offense must not be repeated . told what had occurred and left her there 5) If The plaintiff is guilty the defendant has condoned the offense—no factual evidence on this claim PRINCIPLE: a)    Law  6  . since under each causes for divorce are substantially the same. one of which is adultery . DISSENTING . Flores.D) that the decree does not dissolve the marriage bond DECISION: the CFI of Iloilo therefore committed no error in assuming the jurisdiction of this case . A.Immaterial which law governs . Salanguit.  title  9  partida  4. Yu. Madarang.Not proper to say that just because plaintiff has once been guilty she would forever lose her right to a divorce—makes condonation conditioned—party granting it shall forever have the right to commit the same offense himself with impunity .. is not a bar to divorce in favor of the plaintiff condonation restores equality before the law 259 .C) that the action on that ground can be maintained by husband and . 136 .B) that the only ground therefore is adultery .The complete separation of the church and the state under the American govt while it changed the tribunal in which this right should be enforced.Condoned offence not being sufficient as a cause for divorce. plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence (PROOF—letter) .Adultery of the plaintiff is however. fell upon her knees and implored him to pardon her—that same day he took her to the home of her parents.Higher court not to review the findings of the lower courts—more competent since they have the witnesses . a Spanish corporal of the civil guard.The adultery of the defendant was fully proved .Neither of the party is entitled to a divorce—both committed adultery . Felizmenio.The jurisdiction formerly possessed by them is now vested in CFI by virtue of ACT no. J.  the  wife  can  defeat    the    husband‘s    suit     for divorce by proving that he has pardoned her but no laws in the partidas which say that the effect of the pardon would be so farreaching as to entitle her to a divorce against him in a case like this present one CONCLUSION: .Letter: confession of guilt? MAIN ISSUE: adultery 1) The lack of evidence destroys the theory of the court below and of the appellee that the defendant expelled the plaintiff from his house because he was tired of her and desired the company of other women 2) Not adequate to explain the sudden termination of their marital relations 3) Testimony of the defendant correctly explained the theory—he stated that on his return from an inspection of one his estates his wife‘s  maid  gave  him  a  letter  in    the    handwriting    of    his    wife    and   directed to her lover. Morales.Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo.The RESULT: . Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. named ZABAL 4) She admitted the genuineness of the letter.JUDGMENT REVERSED COOPER.A) the courts of CFI have jurisdiction to entertain suit for divorce .The fact that ecclesiastical courts no longer exercise such power is not important .

a verified petition may be filed in court alleging the foregoing facts. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition and shall be served at the last known address of the spouse concerned. and shall require such appearance. After the initial conference. or in the regional trial court or its equivalent sitting in the place where either of the spouses resides. (n) Art. if one exists. Morales. embodying the transaction. In any case. 242. 241. if such exists. the attendance of the non-consenting spouse is not secured. and incidents involving parental authority. upon proof of notice to the other spouse. is inequitable and unjust 1. they acquired a certain lot at Dipolog City 260 . the court shall inquire into the reasons for his failure to appear. the court shall specify the witnesses to be heard and the subject-matter of their testimonies. If testimony is needed. (n) Art. (n) Art. A preliminary conference shall be conducted by the judge personally without the parties being assisted by counsel. (n) Art. Felizmenio. (n) Art. 243. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 245. If. shall describe in detail the said transaction and state the reason why the required consent thereto cannot be secured. Yu. J. on or before the date set in said notice for the initial conference. The petition for judicial authority to administer or encumber specific separate property of the abandoning spouse and to use the fruits or proceeds thereof for the support of the family shall also be governed by these rules. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. documentary evidence or oral testimonies at the sound discretion of the court.To deprive the plaintiff of the judgment which she has obtained and make a final determination of the case here without giving her an opportunity of correcting this error. (n) Art. Until modified by the Supreme Court. A.. Madarang. ordering said spouse to show cause why the petition should not be granted.The court has not only reversed the judgment of the trial court but has entered a judgment against the plaintiff . the final deed duly executed by the parties shall be submitted to and approved by the court. the procedural rules provided for in this Title shall apply as regards separation in fact between husband and wife. except costs of the proceedings. if the court deems it useful. Flores. (n) Art. the parties may be assisted by counsel at the succeeding conferences and hearings. In any case. The petition shall attach the proposed deed. 248.Digested by: De Guzman. Gravador. 247. 238. (n) Villanueva vs Chiong Facts:  Florentino and Elisera Chiong were married in January 1960 but have been separated in fact since 1975  During their marriage. . despite all efforts. 246. (n) Art. Claims for damages by either spouse. if any. the court shall notify the other spouse. (n) Art. if possible. Salanguit. Castillo. 240. and. the judge shall endeavor to protect the interests of the non-appearing spouse. whose consent to the transaction is required. (n) Art. be exercised by the proper court authorized to hear family cases. Upon the filing of the petition. may be litigated only in a separate action. or one has abandoned the other and one of them seeks judicial authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other spouse is required by law but such consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. the court may proceed ex parte and render judgment as the facts and circumstances may warrant. 244. If the petition is not resolved at the initial conference. said petition shall be decided in a summary hearing on the basis of affidavits. directing the parties to present said witnesses. Separation in fact Art. When a husband and wife are separated in fact. Jurisdiction over the petition shall. of said petition. if none. In case of non-appearance of the spouse whose consent is sought. 239. abandonment by one of the other.

 both  Florentino’s  and   Elisera’s  consent  are  needed  for  the  sale  of  a  conjugal  property  Since  the  sale  was  made  w/o  Elisera’s  consent. Is the subject lot an exclusive property of Florentino or a conjugal property of respondents 4.Digested by: De Guzman. 1992 – Florentino executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioners  July 19. Madarang. Felizmenio. Morales. all properties acquired by the spouses during marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife o Elisera presented a real property tax declaration acknowledging her and Florentino as owners of the lot o Also. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.She filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title w/ Damages  Feb 12. Elisera timely questioned the sale  Petitioner contend that assuming arguendo the property is still conjjugal. a shop and a house thereon  After their last installment payment. under Article 160 of the CC. insofar as legally and equitably possible. Elisera can have the sale annulled during the marriage and w/in 10 years from the transaction questioned. Yu. Flores. the spouses Chiong categorically declared in their Memorandum of Agreement they executed that the lot is a conjugal property o The conjugal nature of the lot was also admitted by Florentino in the Deed of Absolute Sale  The sale is not void ab inition but is viodable  The  husband’s  alienation  or  encumbrance  of  conjugal  property   prior to the effectivity of the FC is not viod. petitioners demanded from the respondents the execution of a deed of sale in their favor  Elisera refused to sign the deed of sale  July 5. the restoration of what has been given is proper o Restore the parties. J.Petitioners filed a Complaint for Specific Performance w/ Damages  The two cases were consolidated  May 13.  applying   Article 173 of the Civil Code. Gravador.  In 1985.. payable in installments  He also allowed petitioners to occupy the lot and build store. Salanguit. Florentino sold one-half of the western portion of this lot to petitioners. the separation in fact bet husband and wife w/o judicial approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership  Also. 2000 – RTC annulled the deed and ordered petitioners to vacate the lot and remove all improvements therein o Florentino was ordered to return to the petitioners the consideration of the sale w/ interest  CA affirmed the decision of the RTC Issue: 3. A. December 1986. Was  its  sale  by  Florentino  w/o  Elisera’s  consent  valid Held:  The property is conjugal  Under Article 178 of the CC. 1992 . but merely viodable  Applying  Article  166  of  the  civil  code. to their original situation before the contract was entered into o Petitioners should give back the land w/ its fruits Respondents should return the payment 261 . the transaction should not be entirely voided as Florentino had one-half share over the lot o Lacks merit o Alienation must be annulled in its entirety and not only insofar as the share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned  If a voidable contract is annulled. 1991 .

58 Phil. 1975. respondent Gapusan notarized a document for the personal separation of the spouses Valentina Andres and Guillermo Maligta of Barrio 6. Lerma. Brown vs. 35 Phil. Mrs. Angela Drilon Baltazar. 62 Phil. Dumangas. Adm. 15). Salanguit. supra. In re: Atty. morals and good customs (Biton vs. 43 Phil. Yu. Judge Gapusan denied that he drafted the agreement. Notaries were severely censured by this Court for notarizing documents which subvert the institutions of marriage and the family (Selanova vs. Miranda vs. 367. 285. 1966. Albano in filing the malpractice charge is in effect asking this Court to take belated disciplinary action against Judge Gapusan as a member of the bar or as a notary. It was stipulated in that document that if either spouse should commit adultery or concubinage. Rufillo D. Goitia vs. Civil Code). 52 and 216. Case No.Digested by: De Guzman. Flores. 168). Yambao. 2." (Arts. (He was admitted to the bar in 1937). The following shall be void and of no effect: (1) Any contract for personal separation between husband and wife. 66. HELD: There is no question that the covenents contained in the said separation agreement are contrary to law. Barangay Captain of Victories. then the other should refrain from filing an action against the other. Those stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the family. 277). 252. To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Borromeo. 43. during themarriage. Campos Rueda. "The family is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Bucana that notarized on November 262 . Matter No. Balinon vs. Ilocos Norte and for the extrajudicial liquidation of their conjugal partnership. Linatoc. He said that there was a stipulation in the agreement that the spouses would live together in case of reconciliation. 804. Castillo. Albano vs Gapusan FACTS: In 1941 or five years before his appointment to the bench. 241.CJ.. 855. 254. 864. Gmur. the law considers as void "any contract for personal separation between husband and wife" and "every extrajudicial agreement. Mendoza. May 19. Vintar. A. 64 SCRA 69. 70 Phil. Biton vs. 16 SCRA 802. 7). His belief was that the separation agreement forestalled the occurrence of violent incidents between the spouses. Momongan. Ramirez vs. Felizmenio. A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudically dissolving the conjugal partnership. Marriage and the family are the bases of human society throughout the civilized world (Adong vs. Fuentes. Agreements to separate NCC Art. 74 Phil. Before the new Civil Code. 102 Phil. Rufillo Bucana FACTS:  February 26. 1976. it was held that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without judicial sanction was void (Quintana vs. Gravador. De Luna vs. 24 Phil. 221. Iloilo wrote to the Court that notary public. Madarang. Cheong Seng Gee. 94 Phil. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Gapusan should be censured because of notarizing the void agreement between the spouses Albano. Panganiban vs. as the case may be. April 30. Adm. Civil Code).. 42 Phil. for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership" (Art. Morales. In re Santiago. "Marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution". 221. Momongan. J. De Leon. He explained that the spouses had been separated for a long time when they signed the separation agreement and that the wife had begotten children with her paramour.

Court Resolution asking respondent to show cause within 10 days of receipt April 21. 1950 – Vicenta applied for a passport indicating in her application that she was single and that her purpose was to study and that she was domiciled in Cebu. 4 "it is for the notary to inform himself of the facts to which he intends to certify and to take part in no illegal enterprise. Gravador. Absolute divorce (a) Divorce under the Family Code Art. 1976. Borromeo. and as such. RATIO:  As stressed by Justice Malcolm in Panganiban v. Madarang. A. 26. (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. (As amended by Executive Order 227)   Tenchavez v.Digested by: De Guzman. 1975 at Dumangas. Felizmenio. that upon seeing it he recognized that it was immoral and nature and refused to notarized it.". that she intended to return after two years 263 ISSUE: WON the notary public should be reprimanded HELD: Defendant guilty of malpractice and suspended for six months. 1948 – Vicenta   Escańo   (27)   exchanged   married vows with Pastor Tenchavez (32) without the knowledge of her parents (duly registered with the local civil register) o February 26. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. March 23. Iloilo an Agreement executed by the spouses Gonzalo Baltazar and Luisa Sorongon wherein the afore-mentioned spouses agreed therein that "in case anyone of them will remarry both parties offer no objection and waive all civil and criminal actions against them" and that the aforementioned Agreement was "entered into for the purpose of agreement to allow each and everyone of them to remarry without objection or reservation . 1976. Castillo. the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Salanguit. that he tried to contact the parties but to no avail. Flores.  We find.. Escano Nature  Direct appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Facts  Significant dates o February 24. and he inadvertedly notarized it as it was not removed from his desk 3. that he was planning on destroying the document. however. that the aforementioned document could not have been notarized if the respondent had only exercised the requisite care required by law in the exercise of his duties as notary public . Yu. 1948 – Mamerto Escano received a letter disclosing an amorous relationship between Pastor and one Pacita Noel o June 1948 – the newlyweds were already estranged o June 24. The notary public is usually a person who has been admitted to the practice of law. he stated that the document was prepared by his clerk without his knowledge.. J. in the commingling of his duties notary and lawyer. and finally. Morales.. which affidavit is contrary to law because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose. must be held responsible for both. 10.

1958 – Vicenta acquired an American citizenship o July 30. Castillo. o August 22. Flores. o The Civil Code of the Philippines. The marriage between Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and undissolved under Philippine law. 1950 – decree of divorce was rendered final and absolute o 1951 – Escańos  filed  a  petition  with the Archbishop of Cebu  to  annul  their  daughter’s  marriage  to  Pastor o September 13. and only provides for legal separation o Recognizing the foreign divorce decree would be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state and would. entirely mental in character o October 21. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business. was still a Filipino . notwithstanding the decree of absolute divorce that the wife sought and obtained. begot two children. Salanguit. just freedom of plaintiff from supporting his wife and acquiring properties to the exclusion of wife Thus. now in force.. Morales. 1955 – Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar by a complaint in the Court of First Instance  of  Cebu  against  the  Escańos  whom  he  charged   for dissuading their daughter from him  Falsely  charged  the  Escańos  which  caused  them   unrest and anxiety thus entitling them to recover damages  The appealed judgment did not decree a legal separation. Madarang. At the time the divorce decree was issued. Russell Leo Moran o August 8. She was then subject to Philippine law. give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens. in effect. to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines. Gravador. Manila is conjugal property of the parties.  1982: They were divorced in Navada and petitioner subsequently married Theodore Van Dorn. and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Vicenta Escaño. Van Dorn v Romillo Facts:  1973: Petitioner (Filipino) married respondent (American) in Hongkong and thereafter. 1954 – Vicenta married an American.  Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" 264  Issues  Whether  or  not  Vicenta’s  divorce  and  second  marriage  is  valid Held  No. 1950 – she filed a verified complaint for divorce in the State of Nevada the ground of extreme cruelty.Digested by: De Guzman. A. J. Yu. like her husband. Felizmenio. does not admit absolute divorce. this appeal citizen.  Jun 1983: Respondent filed a case against petitioner stating that petitioner's business in Ermita.

petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983" Issue:  What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal properties in the Philippines? Held:  The divorce decree effectively divests the respondent the standing to sue in this case. were married in Manila in April 1994  They have one daughter. observe respect and fidelity. She should not be obliged to live together with. Filipino. Held:  NO. Felizmenio. He is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court and is thus estopped by his own representation (that they had no community property) before that Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. Pilapil v Ibay-Somera Facts:  Sept 7. the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. Morales. A. he should still be the husband of the petitioner at the time the case was filed. o Pursuant  to  the  respondent’s  national  law. Issue:  WON the petitioner can still be sued for adultery by former spouse when a foreign divorce has already been obtained. Yu. and separation of property. Dacasin v Dacasin Facts  Petitioner Herald Dacasin. especially if it is contrary to public policy. support. Stephanie. Thus  the  respondent  is  no  longer  the  petitioner’s  husband  and   cannot  be  the  “offended  spouse”  contemplated  in  ART  344  of   the RPC. while still married to said respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. Madarang..Digested by: De Guzman. and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin. and render support to private respondent. American.  The divorce obtained by respondent in his country. Imelda (petitioner) filed a case for legal separation.    Jan 1983: Erich (respondent) filed for a divorce in Germany. Jan 1986: Divorce was granted Jun 1986: Respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Flores.  he  is  no   longer the husband of petitioner. that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot. Salanguit. the petitioner is still married to respondent. 1979: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil (Filipino) and Erich Ekkehard Geiling (German) were married in the Federal Republic of Germany.  Respondent says that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy. Gravador. divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction. J. For the respondent to have standing to sue. Under the RPC. o It cannot be said that under our law. born on 21 September 1995 265 . on that same month. the Federal Republic of Germany and its legal effects is recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons.

Castillo. (e) Redemption by the wife (khul'). Felizmenio. 45. (c) Injurious assanilation of the wife by the husband (zihar). (d) Acts of imprecation (li'an). Yu.   lack   of   jurisdiction   because   of   the   Illinois   court’s   retention of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree RTC held that (1) it is precluded from taking cognizance over the  suit  considering  the  Illinois  court’s  retention  of  jurisdiction   to enforce its divorce decree. A foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of   the   alien’s   nationality. among others. Art.   In June 1999. 46. Gravador. (2) the divorce decree is binding   on   petitioner   following   the   “nationality   rule”   prevailing in this jurisdiction. and (3) the Agreement is void for contravening Article 2035.   regardless   of   who   obtained   the   divorce. Sharon exercised sole custody over Stephanie Sharon sought the dismissal of the complaint for. Branch 60 (trial court) to enforce the Agreement Herald alleged that in violation of the Agreement. paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction Held   No. 19th Judicial Circuit.        (b) Divorce under the Muslim Code Art. (2) A husband who repudiates his wife. Divorce by talaq. Lake County. even within the jurisdiction of this country. — (1) A divorce by talaq may be effected by the husband in a single repudiation of his wife during her nonmenstrual period (tuhr) within which he has totally abstained from carnal relation with her. Sharon sought and obtained from the Circuit Court. shall have the right to take her back (ruju) within the prescribed 'idda by resumption of cohabitation without need of a new contract of marriage. Salanguit. awarded to Sharon sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes On 28 January 2002. including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to respondent. petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the Agreement Sharon undertook to obtain from the Illinois court an order “relinquishing”  jurisdiction  to  Philippine  courts In 2004. either for the first or second time. Should he fail to do so. (f) Exercise by the wife of the delegated right to repudiate (tafwld). Morales. Madarang. Definition and forms.Digested by: De Guzman.. 266 Issue  WON Herald Dacasin can raise the invalidity of the divorce decree in  order  to  give  effect  to  the  former  spouses’  agreement   on joint custody? . An alien spouse of a Filipino is bound by a divorce decree obtained abroad. or (g) Judicial decree (faskh). — Divorce is the formal dissolution of the marriage bond in accordance with this Code to be granted only after the exhaustion of all possible means of reconciliation between the spouses. Flores. Herald sued Sharon in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. J. the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Any number of repudiation made during one tuhr shall constitute only one repudiation and shall become irrevocable after the expiration of the prescribed 'idda. It may be effected by: (a) Repudiation of the wife by the husband (talaq). (b) Vow of continence by the husband (ila). Illinois (Illinois court) a divorce decree against petitioner In its ruling. the repudiation shall become irrevocable (Talaq bain sugra). A.

Effects of irrevocable talaq or faskh. Castillo. Divorce by faskh. 49. (b) Conviction of the husband by final judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for at least one year..chan robles virtual law library Art. after having offered to return or renounce her dower or to pay any other lawful consideration for her release (khul') from the marriage bond. without prejudice to her right of seeking other appropriate remedies. (d) Obstructs her in the observance of her religious practices. Flores. (b) The spouses shall lose their mutual rights of inheritance. they shall mutually refrain from having carnal relation until he shall have performed the prescribed expiation. Gravador. Morales. 50. (b) Associates with persons of ill-repute or leads an infamous life or attempts to force the wife to live an immoral life. Art. (d) Impotency of the husband. 51. 267 . Art. Divorce by zihar. issue the corresponding decree. (c) The custody of children shall be determined in accordance with Article 78 of this code. 48. Art. Art. — Where the husband accuses his wife in court of adultery. she may be granted a decree of divorce by the court after due notice and hearing. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Art. shall have the following effects: (a) The marriage bond shall be severed and the spouses may contract another marriage in accordance with this Code. or (e) Does not treat her justly and equitably as enjoined by Islamic law. Salanguit. (f)Unusual cruelty of the husband as defined under the next succeeding article. 52. Divorce by Ila.chan robles virtual law library (c) Failure of the husband to perform for six months without reasonable cause his marital obligation in accordance with this code. — A talaq or faskh. Divorce by li'an. as soon as it becomes irrevocable. 47. (e) Insanity or affliction of the husband with an incurable disease which would make the continuance of the marriage relationship injurious to the family. in meritorious cases and after fixing the consideration. Faskh on the ground of unusual cruelty. she may repudiate the marriage and the repudiation would have the same effect as if it were pronounced by the husband himself. The court shall. — The court may. (c) Compels her to dispose of her exclusive property or prevents her from exercising her legal rights over it. 53. Madarang. or (g) Any other cause recognized under Muslim law for the dissolution of marriage by faskh either at the instance of the wife or the proper wali. — If the husband has delegated (tafwid) to the wife the right to effect a talaq at the time of the celebration of the marriage or thereafter. Art. Art. 54. decree a divorce by faskh on any of the following grounds : (a) Neglect or failure of the husband to provide support for the family for at least six consecutive months. — The wife may. A.Digested by: De Guzman. J. . upon petition of the wife. — A decree offaskh on the ground of unusual cruelty may be granted by the court upon petition of the wife if the husband: (a) Habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruel conduct even if this does not result in physical injury. Divorce by khul'. Divorce by tafwid. — Where the husband has injuriously assimilated (zihar) his wife to any of his relatives within the prohibited degrees of marriage. petition the court for divorce.. — Where a husband makes a vow to abstain from any carnal relations (ila) with his wife and keeps such ila for a period of not less than four months. Felizmenio. Yu. a decree of perpetual divorce may be granted by the court after due hearing and after the parties shall have performed the prescribed acts of imprecation (li'an). The wife may ask the court to require her husband to perform the expiation or to pronounce the a regular talaq should he fail or refuse to do so.

(a) Who may and when to file. Callejo. Gravador. li'an and khul'.Effects of other kinds of divorce. (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years.(1) A petition for legal separation may be filed only by the husband or the wife. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. or a child of the petitioner. (7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage. compare with NCC 97 NCC Art. Scope.J. whether in the Philippines or abroad. .. Castillo. or connivance in such corruption or inducement. as the case may be within five years from the time of the occurrence of any of the following causes: (a) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed 268 . Mendoza. Vitug. or (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. and Azcuna. Salanguit. or a child of the petitioner. on leave. subject to the effects of compliance with the requirements of the Islamic law relative to such divorces. Madarang. Sr. to engage in prostitution. J. . No. Felizmenio. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner. CarpioMorales. Puno. A. The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily. Flores. 2003 RE: PROPOSED RULE ON LEGAL SEPARATION RESOLUTION Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Legal Separation. . 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7. Quisumbing. 2003 Davide Jr. (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent. zihar. Grounds for legal separation Art. 97. — The provisions of the article immediately preceding shall apply to the dissolution. RULE ON LEGAL SEPARATION Section 1. (n) 1. even if pardoned. JJ. A petition for legal separation may be filed: (1) For adultery on the part of the wife and for concubinage on the part of the husband as defined in the Penal Code. officially on leave. if stipulated in the marriage settlements. Section 2. shall be dissolved and liquidated. Morales. and (f) The conjugal partnership. Austria-Martinez. Yu. 55.This Rule shall govern petitions for legal separation under the Family Code of the Philippines. Concept of legal separation. or (2) An attempt by one spouse against the life of the other. A. The Rule shall take effect on March 15. C. . (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner. (d)The wife shall be entitled to recover from the husband her whole dower in case the talaq has been affected after the consummation of the marriage. Petition.
Ynares-Santiago. (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner. Sandoval Gutierrez. (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion. B. Panganiban.
Corona. Bellosillo. 02-11-11-SC March 4. a common child. 55.. of marriage by ila. the Court Resolved to APPROVED the same. a common child.chan robles virtual law library (e) The husband shall not be discharged from his obligation to give support in accordance with Article 67. or one-half thereof if effected before its consummation. 2003 March 4. (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent. Art.M. (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation. Carpio.

(2) State the names and ages of the common children of the parties. . a common child. If the petitioner is in a foreign country. provided. (c) Venue. however. Answer. Felizmenio. service of summons may.The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing "or in The case of a non-resident respondent. (h) Sexual infidelity or perversion of the respondent. (b) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation. and (5) a directive for respondent to answer within thirty days from the last issue of publication. or connivance in such corruption or inducement. by leave of court. (c) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner. (f) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent. . whether in or outside the Philippines. Summons. the petitioner may apply for a provisional order for spousal support.(a) The respondent shall file his answer within 269 . custody and support of common children.The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and by the following rules: (a) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. administration of community or conjugal property. to engage in prostitution. (1) title of the case. (3) nature of the petition. Section 4. if any. Morales. even if pardoned. visitation rights. the verification and certification against forum shopping shall be authenticated by the duly authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or legation. No petition may be filed solely by counsel or through an attorney-in-fact. (i) Attempt on the life of petitioner by the respondent. and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period. be effected upon him by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such place as the court may order. Section 5. Flores. a common child. (b) The summons to be published shall be contained in an order of the court with the following data. In addition. or (j) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. . (3) Be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The verification and certification must be personally signed by the petitioner. that any other ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer. furnish a copy of the petition to the City or Provincial Prosecutor and the creditors. if any. and creditors. (b) Contents and form. specify the regime governing their property relations. Gravador. or a child of the petitioner. the properties involved.Digested by: De Guzman. consul or viceconsul or consular agent in said country (4) Be filed in six copies. Yu. a copy of the summons shall be served on respondent at his last known address by registered mail or by any other means the court may deem sufficient. Salanguit. A. (2) docket number. and other similar matters requiring urgent action. or a child of the petitioner. .The petition for legal separation shall: (1) Allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.. The petitioner shall. at the election of the petitioner. Motion to Dismiss. within five days from such filing. J. . against the petitioner. Madarang. Section 3. (d) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years.No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties. (e) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent. (4) principal grounds of the petition and the reliefs prayed for. where he may be found in the Philippines. consul general. (g) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage. If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Failure to comply with the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of the petition.

The answer must be verified by respondent himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact. Yu. and (b) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pretrial briefs in such manner as shall ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-trial. (b) Notice of Pre-trial. Investigation Report of Public Prosecutor. Section 7. he shall state the basis thereof in his report. briefly stating or describing the nature and purpose thereof. the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court on whether the parties are in collusion and serve copies on the parties and their respective counsels. Gravador. A. The parties shall file their respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of copy of the report. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the court shall not declare him in default.. Pre-trial. It shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial. Contents of pre-trial brief. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial. notice of pre-trial shall be sent to respondent at his last known address. (b) If the respondent fails to file an answer. (b) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists. if any. the court shall set the pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed. or upon receipt of the report of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties on a date not earlier than six months from date of the filing of the petition. including expert opinion. Castillo. (2) The notice shall be served separately on the parties and their respective counsels as well as on the public prosecutor. Section 6. Salanguit. and (6) Such other matters as the court may require. (2) A concise statement of their respective claims together with the applicable laws and authorities. (3) Admitted facts and proposed stipulations of facts.-(1) The notice of pre-trial shall contain: (a) the date of pre-trial conference. In case of summons by publication and the respondent failed to file his answer. On motion or motu proprio.-it shall dismiss the petition. The court may also require a case study at any stage of the case whenever necessary. Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding section. fifteen days from receipt of summons. if any.(1) If the petitioner fails to appear personally. (5) The number and names of the witnesses and their respective affidavits. . the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly authorized representative appears in court and 270 . Madarang.(a) Within one one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceeding section.Digested by: De Guzman. Section 9.-A pre-trial is mandatory. Social Worker. Section 8.The pre-trial brief shall contain the following: (1) A statement of the willingness of the parties to enter into agreements as may be allowed by law.The court may require a social worker to conduct a case study and to submit the corresponding report at least three days before the pre-trial. (3) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to the respondent even if he fails to file an answer. The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that parties are in collusion. . indicating the desired terms thereof. Felizmenio. It shall be their duty to appear personally at the pre-trial. Section 10. Flores. J. (a) Pre-trial mandatory. . (c) Where no answer is filed/or if the answer does not tender an issue the court shall order the public prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties. as well as the disputed factual and legal issues. Morales. (c) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists. . (4) All the evidence to be presented. or within thirty days from the last issue of publication in case of service of summons by publication. the court shall set the case for pre-trial.

the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference. and. (c) The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons. (4) Future support. the court may extend for a period not exceeding one month. No delegation of the reception of evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the spouses.The court shall not allow compromise on prohibited matters. or confession of judgment shall be allowed. and (5) Schedule of the presentation of evidence. (b) Should the action proceed to trial. that have been marked and will be presented.(a) The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded.(a) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. including objects and documents. such as the following: (1) The civil status of persons. The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and take steps to prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits. The order shall control the trial of the case unless modified by the court to prevent manifest injustice. Yu.. the action taken thereon. on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the petition. Section 12. (3) Any ground lor legal separation. A.At the pre-trial conference. Felizmenio. (b) The grounds for legal separation must be proved. J. Section 14.Digested by: De Guzman. (d) The parties shall have five days from receipt of the pre-trial order to propose corrections or modifications. Section 11. the court may refer the issues to a mediator who shall assist the parties in reaching an agreement on matters not prohibited by law. Upon termination of the pre-trial. the amendments allowed on the pleadings. admitted. (2) If the respondent filed his answer but fails to appear. . proves a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the petitioner. . the court shall proceed with the pre-trial and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within fifteen days a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion between the parties/ If there is no collusion the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State during the trial on the. The mediator shall render a report within one month from referral which. No judgment on the pleadings. (5) The jurisdiction of courts. Prohibited compromise. . Salanguit. the agreements or admissions made by the parties on any of the matters considered. for good reasons. the court shall issue a pre-trial order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference. Section 13. summary judgment. (2) The validity of a marriage or of a legal separation. (2) Factual and legal issues to be litigated. (c) The parties shall not be allowed to raise issues or present witnesses and evidence other than those stated in the pre-trial order. In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails. Madarang. Such an order may be made if the court determines 271 . Gravador. Pre-trial conference. Morales. and those which need not be proved subject to Section 13 of this Rule. Castillo. including members of the press. Trial. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. . and (6) Future legitime. who do not have a direct interest in the case. (3) Evidence. the order shall contain a recital of the following: (1) Facts undisputed. Pre-trial order. (4) Names of witnesses who will be presented and their testimonies in the form of affidavits. Flores.merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence. including any provisional order that may be necessary or agreed upon by the parties. except as to the ground of legal separation.

and (3) The offending spouse is disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. and support of minor children. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. the court shall forthwith issue a Decree of Legal Separation which shall be registered in the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and in the Civil Registry where the Family Court granting the legal separation is located. in the absence of any property of. Appeal. or. Flores. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon the adverse parties. would violate the party's right to privacy. Morales. However. (d) The parties. including custody and support of common children. with or without the memoranda. including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor. under the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. . (2) There is connivance in the commission of the offense-or act constituting the ground for legal separation.(a) The court shall deny the petition on any of the following grounds: (1) The aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of or has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of.An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial. fear. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to appear in the action.The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. Section 16. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. Section 15. Memoranda. Decision. (2) The obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases. the case will be considered submitted for decision. . Castillo.No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment. the Family Court. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. Liquidation. 272 . . Section 18.the parties. A. on motion of either party. (b) If the court renders a decision granting the petition.Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition. After the lapse of the period herein provided. shall proceed with the liquidation. custody. or (5) The action is barred by prescription. the dispositive part of the decision shall also be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. in case of appeal. upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition. (3) Both parties have given ground for legal separation. on the record othat requiring a party to testify in open court would not enhance the ascertainment of truth. partition and distribution. (a) Pre-condition. Section 17. or would be offensive to decency (d) No copy shall be taken nor any examination or perusal of the records of the case or parts thereof be made by any person other than a party or counsel of a party. it shall declare therein that the Decree of Legal Separation shall be issued by the court only after full compliance with liquidation under the Family Code. Felizmenio. or timidity. would cause to the party psychological harm or inability to effectively communicate due to embarrassment. (4) There is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of legal separation. Gravador. Salanguit. except by order of the court. and provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent spouse are revoked by operation of law..Digested by: De Guzman. (c) The decision shall likewise declare that: (1) The spouses are entitled to live separately from each other but the marriage bond is not severed. Yu. Madarang. (b) Notice of Appeal . shall be served with copies of the decision personally or by registered mail. J. .

before the recording of the petition for revocation in the registries of property shall be respected. the parties shall cause the publication of the Decree once in a newspaper of general circulation.(a) If the spouses had reconciled. liens. Petition for revocation of donations. (b) If the party dies after the entry of judgment. Morales. (b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the approved deed of partition. a joint manifestation under oath. (b) Publication of decree. Decree of Reconciliation. Felizmenio. the spouses shall express in their manifestation whether or not they agree to revive the former regime of their property relations or choose a new regime. Yu. (b) If the reconciliation occurred while the proceeding for legal separation is pending. duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court. in the proper Register of Deeds where the real properties are located. duly signed by the spouses. in the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is situated.(a) Within five (5) years from the date the decision granting the petition for legal separation has become final. (c) Best evidence. Flores. Section 20. decree as best evidence.. Effect of death of a party. (b)The revocation of the donations shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds of Deeds in the places where the properties are located. . . the innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the offending spouse as a beneficiary in any insurance policy even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable.-. Section 21. Registration and publication of the Decree of Legal Separation. the court shall immediately issue an order terminating the proceeding. and encumbrances registered in good faith. (c) If the reconciliation occurred after the rendition of the judgment granting the petition for legal separation but before the issuance of the Decree. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Gravador. (a) Registration of decree. the same shall be binding upon the parties and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts. and (2) registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. The revocation or change shall take effect upon written notification thereof to the insurer. Section 19.(a) The court shall issue the Decree of Legal Separation after: (1) registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition tor legal separation in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry where the Family Court is located.(a) In case a party dies at any stage of me proceedings before the entry of judgment. .Digested by: De Guzman. Section 23. may be filed in the same proceeding for legal separation. A. Section 22. the court shall order the case closed and terminated without prejudice to the settlement of estate proper proceedings in the regular courts. Salanguit. the innocent spouse may file a petition under oath the same proceeding for legal separation to revoke the donations in favor of the offending spouse. Castillo. Issuance of Decree of Legal Separation. .-The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the legal separation of the parties and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner and respondent. and in the National Census and Statistics Office.-The prevailing party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the marriage was registered. J. Madarang. (c)Alienations. the court. He shall report to the court compliance with this requirement within thirty days iron receipt of the copy of the Decree. 273 .In case service of summons was made by publication. (d)After the issuance of the Decree of Legal Separation. The court shall immediately issue a Decree of Reconciliation declaring that the legal separation proceeding is set aside and specifying the regime of property relations under which the spouses shall be covered. (d) If the spouses reconciled after the issuance of the Decree.

and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. he shall be exempt from punishment. Castillo. upon proper motion. Section 25. and (d). and the amounts owing to each. to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age. Section 24. shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. Felizmenio. Who are guilty of adultery. and their seducer. J. unless the spouses have agreed to revive their former regime of property relations or adopt a new regime. (b) The agreement which shall be verified shall specify the following: (1) The properties to be contributed to the restored or new regime. These rules shall be applicable. 274 . — Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. Art. or shall have sexual intercourse. under scandalous circumstances. — Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married. Concubinage. (d) The court shall require the spouses to cause the publication of their verified motion for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Gravador. under the same circumstances. if the reconciled spouses choose to adopt a regime of property relations different from that which they had prior to the filing of the petition for legal separation. the spouses shall comply with Section 24 hereof.2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7. while the daughters are living with their parents. (a) Sexual infidelity Art. it shall issue an order directing the parties to record the order in the proper registries of property within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order and submit proof of compliance within the same period. shall issue a decree of reconciliation declaring therein that the Decree is set aside but the separation of property and any forfeiture of the share of the guilty spouse already effected subsists. Madarang. 247. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind. . Art. shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury. (f) The decree of reconciliation shall be recorded in the Civil Registries where the marriage and the Decree had been registered. their addresses. 334. the parties shall file a verified motion for revival of regime of property relations or the adoption of another regime of property relations in the same proceeding for legal separation attaching to said motion their agreement for the approval of the court. (c) The creditors shall be furnished with copies of the motion and the agreement. If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the offended spouse. and (3) The names of all their known creditors. A. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. and the court decides to grant the motion. (e) After due hearing. Salanguit. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro. Revival of property regime or adoption of another. the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed. Flores. 333. shall suffer the penalty of destierro. or shall cohabit with her in any other place. paragraph (c) above. Effectivity. Morales. (c). (2) Those to be retained as separate properties of each spouse. (a) In case of reconciliation under Section 23. (e) In case of paragraphs (b).Digested by: De Guzman. with a woman who is not his wife. even if the marriage be subsequently declared void. Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Yu. 2003..This Rule shall take effect on March 15.

 Defendant’s  counsel  argue  that  in  a  previous  case  (Don  Ramon   Benso) in Spain.  And that to grant support in an independent suit is equivalent to granting divorce and if the court lacks the power to decree a divorce. Salanguit. within the scope of the constitutional 275 Facts  January 7.  Because of this. People vs Zapata Facts  Andres Bondoc filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against his wife. 1948 (the date of the filing of the 2nd complaint)  The defendants filed a motion to quash on the ground that they would be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense  Trial court quashed the 2nd complaint o Adulterous acts must be deemed one continuous offense o The acts or two sets of acts that gave rise to the crimes of adultery complained in both cases constitute one and the same offense. J. so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the natural and legal duty of the husband. Dalamacio Bondoc for cohabiting and having repeated sexual intercourse from 1946 to March 1947 (the date of the filing of the complaint). A. and her paramour. Issue: WON the husband. it also follows that it lacks the power to decree a divorce. Gravador.  Petitioner continued to refuse to do any act other than legal and valid cohabitation. Yu. Castillo. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Morales. the defendant got exasperated and started maltreating his wife. 1915 – Eloisa Goitia and Jose Campos-Rueda were married  Immediately thereafter. or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. they established their residence at 115 Calle San Marcelina  After a month of living together. Madarang. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter. 1947 to September 17. Dalmacio knowing his codefendant to be a married woman  Guadalupe Zapata entered a guilty plea and was sentenced which penalty she served  In the same court. Flores. the Spanish court had held that neither spouse can be compelled to support the other outside of the conjugal abode unless by a final judgment granting a divorce. Guadalupe Zapata. This obligation is founded not Goitia vs Campos-Rueda . Andres Bondoc filed another complaint for adulterous acts committed by his wife and her paramour from March 15.  Eloisa took refuge   in   her   parents’   home   and   claimed   for   support from his husband. defendant demanded that his wife perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genitals. A judgment for separate maintenance is a calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of society. The enforcement of that obligation is a vital concern of the state that the law will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home.Digested by: De Guzman. Felizmenio.. be compelled to give support to the wife Held: Yes  The mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. considering his conduct towards his wife.

Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. After the last act of adultery had been committed as charged in the first complaint. and unity of criminal intent or purpose. unity of penal provision infringed upon or violated.. 3 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure: After a criminal action has been commenced. in whatever stage it may be found. an encroachment or trespass upon that status constitutes a crime. 1986 – Judge ordered the payment of support pendente lite  Froilan contends that civil action for legal separation and the application for support pendente lite should be suspended in view of the pending criminal case filed against him (Art. there should be plurality of acts performed separately during a period of time. A. the pending civil action arising from the same offense shall be suspended. 111. and the same community represented by the state for its interest in maintaining and preserving such status. Morales. provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense Issues: WON the 2nd complaint should be quashed Held: No  Two or more adulterous acts committed by the same defendants are against the same person – the offended husband. it however does not apply to subsequent adulterous acts Gandionco vs Penaranda Facts  May 29. the defendants again committed adulterous acts not included in the 1st complaint and for which the 2nd complaint was filed o In continuous crime. Madarang. which means that two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim nd  The 2 complaint does not constitute a violation of double jeopardy clause in the constitution Because assuming that the husband should pardon his adulterous wife exempting her from the complaint. until final judgment in the criminal procedure has been rendered) o He contends that decision in Jerusalem v Zurbano applies Issues: WON the civil case should be suspended in view of the pending criminal case WON   Froilan’s   conviction   for   concubinage   will   have   to   be   secured first before the action for legal separation can prosper. Salanguit. the nexus undissolved and unbroken. Castillo. Felizmenio. J. as the basis of the action for legal separation is his alleged offense of concubinage 276 . each constituting a crime. Flores. Yu. Sec.Digested by: De Guzman. 1986 – Teresita Gandionco filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint against Froilan Gandionco for legal separation on the ground of concubinage.  The concept of continuous crime does not apply in this case because the last unity does not exist.  There is no constitutional or legal provision which bars the filing of as many complaints for adultery as there were adulterous acts committed. with a petition for support and payment of damages (civil case)  October 13. culprits perpetrating the crime in every sexual intercourse. And for as long as the status remain unchanged. the same status – the union of the husband and wife by their marriage. 1986 – application for provisional remedy of support pendente lite was filed by Teresita in the civil case  December 10. 1986 – Teresita also filed with the MTC General Santos City a complaint against Froilan for concubinage (criminal case)  November 14.

Felizmenio. Vicente Elizano treated her injuries  William denied her allegations  January 5. Rule 107 simply referred to “civil  action  arising  from  the  offense”  No. that the civil  action  to  be  suspended  is  one  which  is  “to  enforce civil  liability  arising  from  the  offense” o In other words. 1975 – Ong Eng Kiam/ William Ong and Lucita G.Digested by: De Guzman. A. etc. Gravador. a civil action for legal separation. 1. a criminal action for concubinage because  said  civil  action  is  not  one  “to  enforce  the  civil liability  arising  from  the  offense”  even  if  both  the  civil   and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense o Section 1. A decree of legal separation. Jerusalem v Zurbano relied only on Sec. and the same shall be suspended. 55 par. J. as the 1985 rules do. WON support pendente lite can be granted by the judge Held:  No. and granted at the discretion of the judge o Judge  can’t  be  disqualified  from  the  case  on  the  ground   of divergence of opinion  with  a  party’s  counsel  as   regards to applicable laws and jurisprudence considering  that. Support pendente lite as a remedy can be availed of in an action for legal separation. and grossly abusive conduct of his husband towards her o After 3 years of marriage.  judge’s  disposition  of   petitioner’s  motion  are  sound  and  well-taken Ong vs Ong Facts  July 13. 1995 – she asked William to bring Kingston (one of their children) back from Bacolod but a violent quarrel between them ensued. may proceed ahead of. Rule 111 (1985) is specific that it refers to civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged o Whereas the old Sec. or simultaneously with.) o William would also scold and beat the children o December 14. in whatever stage it may be found.. threats. Morales. she and William quarrelled almost every day with physical violence. on the ground of concubinage. shouting invectives at her (putang ina mo.  in  this  case. William hit her and pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house o She   went   to   her   sister’s   house   in     Binondo   and   was   fetched  by  her  other  siblings  and  brought  to  her  parents’   house in Dagupan o Dr. Castillo. 1 of the FC) before the RTC on the grounds of physical violence. may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. 1 of Rule 107 of the then provisions of the Rules of court on criminal procedure: After a criminal action has been commenced. 1998 – RTC decreed legal separation  William appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC decision contending that the gross conduct against Lucita was adequately proven o The straightforward and candid testimonials of the witnesses were uncontroverted and credible 277 . Yu. No criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary  Yes. until final judgment in the criminal procedure has been rendered o Such did not clearly state. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. gago. tanga. intimidation. based on concubinage. Madarang. no civil action arising from the same offense can be prosecuted. Salanguit. Flores. Ong were married  They have 3 children  Lucita filed a complaint for legal separation (Art.

2a. hence. (4a. a decree of legal separation should not be granted. J. Act No. unless the cause for the legal separation has taken place within the territory of this Republic. all William and his witnesses could offer are denials and attempts to downplay the incidents  While William contends that the witnesses of Lucita are not credible because of their relationship with her. (Sec.   Elizano’s   testimony   confirmed   the   injuries   established by Lucita and her sister. habitual alcoholism. Yu. An action for legal separation shall be filed within five years from the time of the occurrence of the cause. An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause occurred. is unacceptable o Such abandonment refers to those without justifiable cause for more than one year (b) Drug Addiction. 99. The spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (e) Other grounds 2. Felizmenio. petition is dened  To the testimonies of Lucita et al. Flores. Castillo.. Gravador. A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when her or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. or homosexuality (c) Attempt on the life of the other spouse (d) Abadonment Art 101 (3). o Dr. Act 2710) Facts  August 18. 102. No person shall be entitled to a legal separation who has not resided in the Philippines for one year prior to the filing of the petition. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. When petition may be filed Art. 1953 – Carmen Lapuz filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on the ground of his cohabitation with Go Hiok on or about March 1949 and that the defendant be deprived of his share of the conjugal partnership profits  Eufemio alleged affirmative and special defences and counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity ab initio of his 278 Lapuz vs Eufemio . 57. the argument of William that since Lucita has abandoned the family. this petition Issues: WON   William’s   gross   conduct   against   Lucita   was  adequately   proven Held: Yes. (102) Art. Linda Lim o The medical certificate also confirmed the evidence presented   and   does   not   deviate   from   the   doctor’s   testimony  He filed for MR but was denied. Madarang. A. lesbianism. 2710) 3. 56 par 4 of the FC which provides that legal separation shall be denied when both parties have given ground for legal separation. Who can ask for legal separation NCC Art.Digested by: De Guzman. following Art. Morales. the court said that relationship alone is not reason enough to discredit and label  witnesses’  testimony  as  biased  and  unworthy  of  credence  The claim of William that a decree of legal separation would taint his reputation and label him as a wife-beater and child abuser does not elicit sympathy from the court because he gave Lucita enough reason to go to court in the first place  And finally. Salanguit.

Flores. 1944  On April 3. 1969 – Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation for it was filed beyond the one year period provided in Art. Felizmenio. they entered into an agreement which states that they are allowing each other to live w/ other people w/o interference from each other. Madarang. A. a ground for legal separation o But it dismissed the case since  Art 102 of the New Civil Code states than an action for legal separation cannot be filed except w/in one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and w/in five years from and after the date when the cause occurred. and that they cannot claim anything from each other starting their separation  January 1955 – Zoilo cohabited with Asuncion Rebulado  September 1. 1948. Morales. 1969 – Carmen died in a vehicular accident before the trial could be completed  June 9. the complaint was filed April 24. 102 of the CC and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation Issues: WON  Carmen’s  death  before  final  decree. CamSur  They separated on May 30. abate the action? Held: Yes  An   action   for   legal   separation   is   purely   personal…   thus. married on January 10. 1956  It was filed out of time and for that reason the action is barred  Art 100 on the other hand.. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit.  in  an  action  for  legal   separation.Digested by: De Guzman. 1943 at Iriga. provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or consubinage  The agreement Socorro entered with Zoilo expresses her consent to the commission of concubinage Issue: WON the CFI erred in dismissing the case Held: NO 279 . plaintiff. Yu. these rights are mere effects of a decree of legal separation. their source being the decree itself.   it   follows that the death of one party to the action causes the death of the action itself  In terms of property rights involved in an action for legal separation abated by the death of the plaintiff. that they will not prosecute each other for adultery or concubinage or any crime arising from their separation. such rights do not come into existence o Property rights could be resolved in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by heirs of the appellant  Petition for a declaration of nullity ab initio by Eufemio is rendered moot and academic upon the death of Carmen Matubis vs Parexedes Facts:  Socorro Matubis. states that a legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse. Gravador. and Zoilo Praxedes. Castillo. J. that they are no longer entitled to support or benefits from each other. without the decree.  Socorro  learned  of  Zoilo’s  and  Asuncion’s  affair   in January 1955. defendant. marriage with Carmen Lapuz on the ground of his prior and subsisting marriage with Go Hiok  May 31. 1956 – Socorro filed a complaint for Legal Separation and change of surname against her husband  CFI: o The acts of the defendant constituted concubinage. 1955 – Asuncion gave birth to her child w/ defendant  April 24.

Madarang. (103) Art. Yu. Article 58 of the Family Code shall not apply. An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition. Araneta vs Concepcion (see digest below) Ocampo vs Florenciano Facts:  July 5. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Kawawang guy. Court procedure on legal separation Art. 1955 – Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation on the ground of adultery against his wife. No decree of legal separation shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. Ocampo discovered she had affairs w/ several other men while in the city o June 1952 – she finished studying and left Ocampo o o They lived separately since then o June 28. 60. 58. Flores. Why is his wife so malandi?) o Luis told her of his intention to file for legal separation to w/c Serafina agreed to provided she is not charged w/ adultery in a criminal case  The defendant did not answer the petition and upon investigation. 1955 – Ocampo caught his wife with Nelson Orzame (I think he caught them in the act. plus condonation or consent to the adultery and prescription  Background: o April 1938 – the spouses got married and had children who are now living with Ocampo o March 1951 – Jose discovered that Serafina was having an affair with Jose Arcalas o He sent her to Manila in June 1951to study beauty culture o Again. 59. Serafina Florenciano  CFI of Nueva Ecija dismissed it . (n) Art. J.  The complaint is indeed filed out of time  Since Socorro condoned and consented to the concubinage. that reconciliation is highly improbable. Castillo. the court did not find collusion between the parties  So.. (101a) RA 9262 Sec. Felizmenio. 19. No legal separation may be decreed unless the Court has taken steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit. A. Morales. The hearing on any application for a protection order filed by the petitioner must be conducted within the mandatory period specified in this Act. the defendant was defaulted and Luis presented his evidence (testimonies from several people) Issue: WON there was condonation or consent to the adultery and a confession of judgment Held: NO  CA  held  that  the  husband’s  right  to  legal  separation  on  account   of  the  defendant’s  adultery  w/  Jose  Arcalas  has  prescribed 280 4. Legal Separation Cases. despite such efforts. The court shall proceed on the main case and other incidents of the case as soon as possible.Digested by: De Guzman. where violence as specified in this Act is alleged. she is  now  undeserving  of  the  court’s  sympathy  The decision of the CFI is affirmed  CA affirmed the dismissal holding that there was confession of judgment. In any case. Gravador. – In cases of legal separation.

the desire for divorce and refusal to defend oneself does not also mean collusion o Luis’  failure  to  search  for  his  wife  and  take  her  home   does not constitute condonation or consent to her adulterous relationship o It was not his duty to search for her. Flores.. legal separation could not be decreed  SC: o Confession of judgment happens when defendant appears in court and confesses the right of the plaintiff to judgment or files a pleading expressly agreeing to plaintiff’s  demand o This is not what happened w/ Serafina o However. the decree may and should be granted  since  it  won’t  be  based  on  the  confession  but  on   evidence presented by petitioner o What the law prohibits is a judgment based solely on the  defendant’s  confession. Felizmenio. Gravador.Digested by: De Guzman. 1971 – Lucy Somosa-Ramos filed for legal separation on the grounds of concubinage and an attempt against her life against her husband. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Serafina reiterated her conformity to the legal separation and admitted she had an affair Orzame o CA interpreted this as a confession of judgment and under Art 101. J. as long as there is evidence of adultery aside from the statement of Serafina. the complaint was filed beyond the one year period  CA found that upon discovering defendant w/ another man. Morales. any defendant who opposes the separation will immediately confess judgment purposely to prevent it o Even if Serafina told the Fiscal that she also liked to be legally separated from Luis. indeed. Clemente Ramos in the sala of Judge Vamenta  She also sought for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the return to her of what she claimed to be her paraphernal and exclusive property w/c was then under the administration and management of Clemente 281 . adultery was really committed and just because  Serafina  admits  the  allegations  doesn’t   mean  there’s  collusion  Also. if. there would be collusion if the parties pretended there was adultery even if there wasn’t  just  so  they  could  be  legally  separated  Here. Upon questioning by the Fiscal. Castillo. this does not present an obstacle to the successful prosecution of the case o There is no collusion bet the parties  Collusion in divorce or legal separation means the agreement bet spouses for one of them to commit or to pretend to commit or to be represented in court as having committed a matrimonial offense or to suppress evidence of a valid defense to enable the other to obtain divorce  So.  SC agrees w/ this. Madarang. Salanguit. She was the one who left. ipso facto. this is what happened in this case. Luis signified his intent of filing for legal separation w/c Serafina agreed to. it was her obligation to return (bongga ni Luis!) o SC REVERSED the appealed decision and DECREED a legal separation bet the parties Lapuz vs Eufemio(see digest above) Samosa vs Vamenta This  one’s  the  same  with  the  Araneta  case Facts:  June 18. A. Yu.  If  a  confession  defeats  the   action .

Also known as relative divorce . Gravador. So. 1971 . 1971. Lucy received an order dated August 4.During the Ame regime. Yu.   hehehe…) Legal separation – that state of marriage w/c permits the separation of husband and wife from bed and board.  the  petitioner’s  motion  for  preliminary   mandatory injunction should not be ignored by the lower court especially since the husband whom she is accusing of concubinage and an attempt against her life is the person managing what she claims as her paraphernal property  However. otherwise known as a mensa et thoro. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. expressly prescribing that the marriage bonds still exists . that is why it does everything to preserve it..Introduced in the Phil by the Siete Partidas during the Spanish regime . A.Clemente opposed the hearing for the preliminary injunction based on Art 103  In a pleading on July 16.  the   spouse shall be entitled to live separately from each other and manage their respective property.An action for legal separation is purely personal o Only innocent spouses are allowed to claim legal separation (art 100) 282 .  But  since  this  is  still  part  of  the  case. it may appoint another to manage said property. the 6-month period has already elapsed. the law mandates a 6-month period before the case is heard for. Felizmenio. hopefully. in which case the administrator shall have the same rights and duties as a guardian and shall not be allowed to dispose of the income or of the capital except in accordance with the orders of the court. provisions of the Siete Partidas were repealed by the provision that instituted absolute divorce . Castillo.Distinguished from absolute divorce in that in absolute divorce the bonds of marriage are dissolved . All the more reason for the judge to act on the motion of the petitioner  Plea for certiorari of petitioner is GRANTED and the order of the judge suspending the hearing on the petition for preliminary mandatory injunction is SET ASIDE. Morales. The husband shall continue to manage the conjugal partnership property but if the court deems it proper. . the law also states: o “After  the  filing  of  the  petition  for  legal  separation. 1971  granting  Clemente’s  motion  to  suspend  the  hearing Issue: WON Art 103 of the Civil Code w/c prohibits the hearing of a petition for legal separation before the lapse of 6 months from the filing of petition would also prohibit the court from acting on a motion for preliminary mandatory injunction applied for as ancillary remedy to such suit Held: NO  The law sees marriage as an inviolable institution. Salanguit. The court is directed to proceed w/o delay the motion Requirements for Legal Separation (I  don’t  know  if  I  should  include   this. J. in separation cases. 1971.Digested by: De Guzman. Madarang.In the New Civil Code. a reconciliation bet the parties  However.” o This appears to recognize that the issue of the management of property even during the six monthperiod should be resolved o Therefore. Flores.  July 3. he alleged that hearing that motion will cause the prospect of reconciliation even dimmer  September 3. relative divorce was reestablished under the name Legal Separation o Does not admit absolute divorce quo ad vinculo matrimonii and does not even use the term o Only provides for legal separation.  I’ll  include  it  na  lang.

Castillo. Flores.. Adultery or concubinage of spouse o adultery – act of a wife in having sexual intercourse with any other man not her husband o concubinage – the act of a husband in maintaining a mistress in the conjugal dwelling (so. top or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered (Art 108) o It follows then that the death of one of the parties to the action causes the death of the action itself (Actio personalis moritur cum persona) Grounds for Legal Separation 1. Morales. Yu. Time element involved o no person shall be entitled to a legal separation who has not resided in the Phil for 1 year prior to the filing of the petition.   This is stupid. Felizmenio. Madarang. when people understand that they must live together. Judicial satisfaction that reconciliation is highly improbable o The court is mandated to take steps towards reconciliation of the spouses and to proceed with the case only if such is highly improbable o Supposedly. Gravador. by reconciliation. but as long as he  doesn’t  live  with  any  of  them. unless the cause for legal separation has taken place w/in the territory of the Phil o where the cause of action has taken place w/in the Phil or the parties are residents of the country. a mere inflection of physical injuries w/o intent to kill is not sufficient to constitute an attempt by the spouses against the life of the other o this is basically saying that as long as your husband doesn’t  want  to  kill  you. o Spouses can.  it’s  ok  if  the   mistress is in another house?!?!?!?!). and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  it’s  ok  if  he  beats  you  to  a  pulp. the guy could have sex w/ everybody he sees. in having sexual intercourse with another woman under scandalous circumstances (so. A. they learn to soften by mutual accommodation that yoke which they know they can not shake off and they become good husbands and good wives from the necessity of remaining husbands and wives (more  like.Digested by: De Guzman. Attempt of spouse on the life of the other o this should be taken to mean attempted or frustrated parricide o according to Senator Tolentino.  the  wife  does  not  have  ground  for   legal separation?!?!) or in cohabiting with another woman as husband and wife in any other place (so. the suit for legal separation should be filed by the innocent spouse w/in 1 year from and after the date on w/c he became cognizant of the cause and w/in 5 years from and after the date when such cause of action occurred  in the computation of the 1 year period. Saang lupalop ba ng mundo nakatira ang mga justices?) 2.  they  make  each  other’s  lives  more   miserable until one decides to commit suicide or parricide. the computation should be counted not from the time the spouse received hearsay info about the husband’s  infidelity  but  from  the  time  the   innocent spouse obtained personal knowledge of such infidelity 283 . if they do it in a secret place. Procedural Requirements 1. which I’m  sure  they  will.  it’s  not   concubinage?!?! This is so sexist!&^%###@) 2. Salanguit. J.

The exceptions include: the unity of the marriage is dissolved (divorced/in divorce case). that the Judge exceeded his power and authority in issuing a preliminary injunction gainst Diego prohibiting him from alienating any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the divorce case and that the proceedings were null and void. shall designate either of them or a third person to administer the absolute community or conjugal partnership property. Madarang. Yu. (104a) De la Vina vs Villareal Original action in the SC. Facts: She alleges that she was a resident of Iloilo and he was a resident of Oriental Negros. That rule does not oust the court from having its jurisdiction over the case. the wife seeks to dissolve the marriage and to partition the conjugal property. Castillo. J. A. (c) administration of property Art. this provision does not bar other issues from being heard:  custody of children  alimony and support pendente lite  provisions on injunction to restrain the spouse from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the legal separation proceeding Pacete vs Cariaga (see digest below) 5. CFI granted the preliminary injunction petition. the spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other. there is an agreement to separate. she prays for a divorce decree. Salanguit. in a proper action. With all these. Flores. CFI has jurisdiction. wife is battered wife and forfeiture of the wife. they acquired properties (he is the administrator. 61 (2). Morales. they lived as husband and wife and had nine children (3 are still living and of age). Felizmenio. Issues: May a married woman ever acquire a residence/domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of their marriage? May the wife obtain a preliminary injunction against the husband restraining him from alienating any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the case? Held: The rule that the husband and wife should have same residence is not an absolute rule. in the absence of a written agreement between the spouses. partition of conjugal property and alimony pendent lite (while the litigation is pending).Digested by: De Guzman. husband gave the cause for divorce or ejected the wife from the house. 61. Gravador. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. he has been committing adultery since 1913 with Ana Caloz. The court. When that relation ceases and. it is just 284 . The administrator appointed by the court shall have the same powers and duties as those of a guardian under the Rules of Court. This is a petition to declare that Judge Villareal has no jurisdiction (CFI) to try the divorce case filed by Narcisa Geopano against Diego de la Vina. o an action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before 6 months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition  cooling off period in the hope that the parties will reconcile (as if)  however. After the filing of the petition for legal separation. Effect of pendency of petition (a) Cooling off period FC 58 (b) Right of Consortium Art. Plus a preliminary injunction restraining and prohibiting him in the premises. she was the legitimate wife (marriage 1888).. he ejected her  in  their  conjugal  home  for  which  she  moved  to  her  parents’house   in Iloilo and he never supported her and her children.

Remedios Gaviola Sabalones. in the manner hereinafter provided. Four yrs later. and proper. Morales. he went back to the Philippines but not to their conjugal house. Sabalones vs CA Petition for review on decision of CA granting the preliminary injunction. CA granted the preliminary injunction.Section 5. That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded and such relief. Gravador. to the satisfaction of the judge granting it: 1.   (He’s   68   y/o   at   this   time. 3. She filed a counterclaim for legal separation and claimed that the house in Greenhills is where she and her children live and they depend for support in the building and lot rentals in Forbes Park. J. He also argued that he never returned to their house and instead. It has merely allowed her to continue administering the properties in the meantime without interference from the petitioner. In case of disagreement. respecting the subject of the action.. A. Yu. he filed an action for judicial authorization to sell a building and lot   belonging   to   their   conjugal   partnership. Issue: WON preliminary injunction is validly issued. he is not entitled for support from the properties. Madarang. or threatens. some act probably in violation of the plaintiff's rights. The wife may obtain preliminary injunction against her husband during an action for divorce. the husband's decision shall prevail. 2. When he retired in 1985. Ratio: The designation for the administration of the properties is implicitly provided to maintain the status quo. the administration of their conjugal properties for 15 yrs during his fulfilment of his duties as a diplomat. Administration of the Conjugal Partnership Property Art. in order to protect the interests of the wife. very  sick  and  living  w/o  income  and  he’ll  use  the  money  he’ll  get  for   his hospitalization and medical treatment). which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision. Facts: Samson Sabalones left his wife. Castillo. or any part thereof. Held: Petition has no merit. Salanguit. or is procuring or suffering to be done. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. 190 provides: A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established. live with Thelma Curameng and their 3 children. on is about to do. that the husband's power of administration be curtailed. That the defendant is doing. Flores. The injunction has not permanently installed the respondent wife as the administrator of the whole mass of conjugal assets. insofar as alienating or encumbering the conjugal property is concerned. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. That the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the plaintiff. Injunction GRANTED. consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of either for a limited period or perpetually. 285 . subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy. Felizmenio. which forfeited his share therefore. and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. during the pendency of the action. Ratio: Section 164 of Act No. 124.Digested by: De Guzman. RTC granted the legal separation (due to his bigamy). pending the express designation of the administrator in accordance with Article 61 of the Family Code.

the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties. facts presented by her does not prove cause of action Issue: Can she avail of the alimony? Held: This evidence being lacking.     William   Rohde. 49. the court may order that the guilty spouse shall give support to the innocent one.   alimony   and   attorney’s   fees. There is no law or reason which authorizes the granting of alimony to a person who claims to be a spouse in the same manner as to a person who conclusively establishes by legal proof that he or she is such spouse. 198. What he merely suggests is that the lease of the Forbes Park property could be renewed on better terms. and sues for divorce or separation.. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. (165a) The Court notes that the wife has been administering the subject properties for almost nineteen years now. In the absence of such authority or consent. specifying the terms of such order. However. argued that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. (d) Support and custody pendente lite Art. Salanguit. The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violation. the obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases. (292a) Yangco vs Rhode Original petition for a writ of mandamus. apparently without complaint on the part of the petitioner. Demurrer to petition. He has not alleged. it is evident that nothing can be taken for granted upon the point in issue. Flores. much less shown. During the proceedings for legal separation or for annulment of marriage.Digested by: De Guzman. J. the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody and support of their common children. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. Facts: Victoria Obin petitioned that she be declared the lawful wife and   she   be   granted   divorce. in case of legal separation. During the pendency of the action for legal separation. or he should at least be given his share of the rentals. and for declaration of nullity of marriage. (105a) Art. (n) Art. and the civil status of marriage being in litigation. Felizmenio. 62. the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. the spouses and their children shall be supported from the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership. However. After the final judgment granting the petition. The Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. Gravador. the provisions of Article 49 shall likewise apply to the support of the spouses and the custody and support of the common children. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. Morales. on the other hand. Madarang. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. that her administration has caused prejudice to the conjugal partnership. The injunction is necessary to protect the interests of the private respondent and her children and prevent the dissipation of the conjugal assets. Yu. Castillo. A. 286 . During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses.

. Law expressly says that this should be determined according to the circumstances. this does not override the other provisions such as those on custody and alimony and support pendente lite. The custody of the children must be given to the mother since family tradition and custom says so. the court is without jurisdiction to make any order in the matter. Madarang. Ratio: She needs to prove the relationship they had to prove that she has the right for alimony from William (present the canonical certificate). But. Court granted the custody of the children and support to the wife Husband filed an MR but was refused by the court thus this petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the respondent judge to admit evidence with regards to the custody and support Judge invoked Art. J. Yu. Morales. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. o Provision of the code is mandatory. A. Felizmenio. 108 of Civil Code saying that: “An  action   for legal separation shall in no case be tried before 6 months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.    Issue: Is the 6 month period contemplated in Art 108 of the CC bars the presentation of evidence in a case for child custody and support? Held. but he was without jurisdiction to grant alimony when the right to claim alimony had not accrued in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. If these are ignored.  That  6  month  period  was  intended  to  be  a  “cooling-off period”   to make reconciliation between spouses possible. This status not appearing by a final judgment. The court below had jurisdiction to try the divorce suit. injustice may be caused. Gravador. the parties must be required to admit evidence o Contends that: wife is not entitled to the custody of the children and support because of abandonment and adultery/infidelity and that there are no conjugal assets. the legitimate descendants and ascendants inter se to parents and certain legitimated and acknowledged natural children.Digested by: De Guzman. This Code only grants the rights to alimony to a wife.  That she is unfit to educate their children because of her emotional instability. o The court must ignore that the wife had committed adultery and restore the status quo of the family 6 months had already elapsed since the filing of the petition but court  said  let’s  still  decide  so that the scope of that article may be explained. Admitting evidence be it on the merits or incidental to the case is prohibited and would only make reconciliation of the parties difficult if not impossible. to other illegitimate children and to brothers and sisters. Salanguit. Araneta vs Concepcion and Araneta Petitioner: Husband. Therefore mandamus is the proper remedy upon the facts related. No. Castillo. Respondent: Wife Facts:  Husband filed a case for legal separation against his wife on the ground of adultery  Wife filed an omnibus petition to secure custody of their 3 minor children and support among others  Husband opposed this petition saying that in order to determine the custody and support of children. the right to support is granted to: the spouses inter se. 287 . According to article 143 of Civil Code. he motion and demurrer are overruled and the defendant is authorized to answer the complaint within twenty days from this date. Flores.

There is therefore a plausibility to the view of the lower court that an ancillary motion such as in this case not be acted on. the state does not abandon the hope that there might still be reconciliation between the spouses thus the 6-month period in Art 103 of the CC.  that’s  why  there  is  legal   separation in our laws.Digested by: De Guzman. 288 . All the more reason for the court to hear the motion because of concubinage and threat on her life.  Because of Art 103.  But there is also some sort of recognition that the question of management of their respective property need not be left unresolved during that 6month period. But also.  Plus they cited Araneta with regards to presenting evidence. custody of their children 2 and support. Morales. Gravador. J. A.  Thus this petition for certiorari. Salanguit. Respondent Diaz: Wife Facts:  19 May 1951: Lerma and Diaz were married  22 Aug 1969: Lerma filed a complaint for adultery against respondent and Teodoro Ramirez  18 Nov 1969: Respondent filed for legal separation and/or separation of properties. Issue: Does Art 103 of the Civil Code bar the hearing of a motion for preliminary injunction prior to the expiration of the 6-month period? Held: No. it  may  appoint  another  to  manage  said  property…”    Therefore the absolute limitation in Art 103 is eased. Madarang. Castillo.. the court must let the parties alone for 6 mos. Thus the evidence must be admitted for the determination of the custody of the children and  support  as  long  as  it  does  not  violate  the  “coolingoff  period” Ramos vs Vamenta Facts:  18 Jun 1971: Wife filed a case for legal separation against he husband Clemente Ramos on the grounds of concubinage and further asserting that he had attempted to kill her. There is now justification for the insistence of the wife that her motion for preliminary injunction be heard. Felizmenio. o Why ignore the claim of adultery by the wife when there is circumstancial evidence to that effect? Or assume  that  the  children’s  custody  be  given  to  the   mother and that she still lives in the conjugal house when the husband actually claims that she has abandoned them?  The rule is that all provisions of the law must be given effect or reconciled even if they seem contradictory. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  But 6 months already elapsed. Yu. Flores.  The staLte gives so much effort in keeping families in tact but there are cases where spouses are better off apart such as where there  is  adultery/concubinage  etc. This is embodied in the article  that  says:  “after  the  filing  of  petition  for  legal   separation…  The  husband shall continue to manage the conjugal partnership property but if the court deems it proper. (HAHAHAHA) Lerma vs CA Petitioner Lerma: Husband. o Writ of mandatory preliminary injunction: to return to her what she claims to be her paraphernal and exclusive property  The husband opposed saying that if the motion for preliminary injunction was heard then the prospect for reconciliation between him and his wife would become even more dim (Art 103 of CC cited in the previous case)  3 Sept 1971: an order dated 4 Aug 1971 was received by the husband granting his motion to suspend the hearing of the petition for the writ of mandatory preliminary injunction.

Because of this he was deprived of the opportunity to present the evidence supporting his claim on  the  respondent’s  adultery  in  the  case  for  support pendente lite. having due regard to the necessities of the applicant. Salanguit."  and Section 5 of Rule 61.. Madarang.  Procedural law on support pendente lite is Rule 61 Sec 5. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. A.  The probable failure of the respondent's suit for legal separation can be foreseen since she is not an innocent spouse. this Court held that adultery is a good defense.Digested by: De Guzman. Just take note that those with the same bullets follow the same train of thought ) Facts: Pacete vs Carriaga Jr. and shall render such order as equity and justice may require. 1971. Thus this petition. requires that when support pendente lite is applied for. – This the respondent did not deny. even from the conjugal partnership property. (Guys.”  Petitioner said that the lower court ignored that provision when it made the assailed decision. provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage .  Article 100 of the Civil Code provides that "the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse. GROUNDS: Concubinage and Attempt against her life. having been convicted of adultery by the Court of First Instance. with an urgent petition for support pendente lite for her and their youngest son. J. and such other circumstances as may aid in the proper elucidation of the questions  involved." The loss of the substantive right to support in such a situation is incompatible with any claim for support pendente lite. Issue: Assuming that it had not become academic. “The   court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts. 289 . (and) where both spouses are offenders.  . Yu. sentencing them to a term of imprisonment..  so If legal separation cannot be claimed by the guilty spouse in the first place. Flores.. would adultery be a good  defense  against  the  respondent’s  claim  for  support  pendente  lite? Held: Yes.  Petitioner opposed. the argument here is a bit complicated. Gregory.. 1972 the CFI of Rizal decided the adultery case of the respondent and found her and co-accused guilty of charge. and Mangoma v.  But the issue on whether the petitioner should be allowed to present  evidence  on  his  wife’s  adultery  is  already  moot.  but under Article 921 one of the causes for disinheriting a spouse is "when the spouse has given cause for legal separation. Morales. Petitioner was heard but was eventually dismissed on January 20. Castillo. that the court determine provisionally "the probable outcome of the case. This ruling was reiterated in the subsequent cases of Sanchez v. DEFENSE: adultery charge then pending. the means of the adverse party. Felizmenio. Gravador. In Quintana v. a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them .. Macadaeg. Lerma.. the fact that an action for that purpose is filed anyway should not be permitted to be used as a means to obtain support pendente lite. presupposes the existence of a justifiable cause for the spouse claiming such right to live separately. the probable outcome of the case.   Because on Sept 26.. et al.  The right to separate support or maintenance. Zulueta.  24 Dec 1969: Lower court granted respondent's application for support pendente lite  12 Mar 1970: Petitioner filed with CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction to annul the orders on the ground that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion.

Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of legal separation. The defendants were issued summons (15 Nov 79) but they filed for a motion for extension within which to file an answer which was granted. Likely unaware of the order. 3.  Clarita’s. Where both parties have given ground for legal separation. Where the action is barred by prescription. Defenses in actions for legal separation FC. Art. This marriage was bore a child named Consuelo 11 Mar 1943: He contracted another marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion. 5.  their   children’s  and  other  dummies’  names. the defendants again filed a motion for extension (18 Jan 80) to be counted from the expiration of the 30-day extension but this was denied by the court.     30 Apr 1938: Enrico Pacete married Concepcion Alanis. Gravador. Evidence was presented to the court in Feb 1980. But because this is an unusual situation. FC Art 58 and NCC Art 103 providing for the cooling off period. the case that should have been filed is an appeal from judgment by default or petition for relief from judgment.Digested by: De Guzman. the respondent had acquired vast  property  that  he  had  named  under  his. 56. Felizmenio. A. Flores. 29 Oct 1979: Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Enrico and Clarita. Morales. Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of. Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the offense or act constituting the ground for legal separation. Castillo. 2.  With this. Petitioner alleges that she only learned of the marriage in 1979 and that during their marriage. Held: First. legal separation and separation of properties. court decided to loosen up the rules. Yes  Because of the presence of FC Art 60 and NCC Art 101 calling .  6. J. provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery 290    Issue: Whether the CFI of Cotabato gravely abused its discretion in denying  the  defendants’  motion  for  extension  of  the  time  with  which   they were to file their answer and in declaring them in default. Madarang. 4. Where the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of. and Rule 18 of the ROC recognizing the significance of the provisions mentioned earlier. Lower court granted the petition of Alanis Thus this petition for certiorari for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation. The petition for legal separation shall be denied on any of the following grounds: 1.  Petitioner’s  case  is  for  legal  separation.  that  other  remedies   were sought in the same action CANNOT dispense nor excuse compliance with the statutory requirements earlier mentioned. Plaintiff filed a motion to declare the defendants in default: GRANTED. defendants again sought for a 30-day extension (18 Dec 79) but was only granted 20 days. it is clear that the State loosens its rules on special proscriptions on actions that can put the integrity of marriages in jeopardy. or 6. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Salanguit. (100a) a. Upon the expiration of the extension and with a new counsel.. Yu. Consent – FC 56(2) see above for provision CC 100 (repealed) The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse.

1944  On April 3. that they will not prosecute each other for adultery or concubinage or any crime arising from their separation. Gravador. plaintiff. CamSur  They separated on May 30. 1955 – Asuncion gave birth to her child w/ defendant  April 24. J. states that a legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse. a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them.  I’m  just  gonna  write  here my notes from ma’am’s  discussion) NOTES:  Wife lived with another man  Afterwards. Yu. or concubinage. defendant. Madarang. she is  now  undeserving  of  the  court’s  sympathy  The decision of the CFI is affirmed People vs. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. 1926 – Rodolfo Schneckenburger (accused) married Elena Ramirez Cartagena (complainant)  After 7 years of marriage. the complaint was filed April 24. 1956 It was filed out of time and for that reason the action is barred  Art 100 on the other hand. provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage  The agreement Socorro entered with Zoilo expresses her consent to the commission of concubinage Issue: WON the CFI erred in dismissing the case Held: NO  The complaint is indeed filed out of time  Since Socorro condoned and consented to the concubinage. Matubis vs Parexedes Facts:  Socorro Matubis. and that they cannot claim anything from each other starting their separation  January 1955 – Zoilo cohabited with Asuncion Rebulado  September 1. 1956 – Socorro filed a complaint for Legal Separation and change of surname against her husband  CFI: o The acts of the defendant constituted concubinage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.. A. 1948. 1943 at Iriga. Flores. Salanguit. Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition. they entered into an agreement which states that they are allowing each other to live w/ other people w/o interference from each other. Sansano (we  couldn’t  find  this  case. Morales. husband went to Hawaii for seven years  He came back and filed for adultery  Denied because his leaving afterwards and not filing a complaint then and there is implied consent People vs. that they are no longer entitled to support or benefits from each other. they agreed to separate due to incompatibility of character 291  . Schneckenburger Facts:  March 16. a ground for legal separation o But it dismissed the case since  Art 102 of the New Civil Code states than an action for legal separation cannot be filed except w/in one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and w/in five years from and after the date when the cause occurred. married on January 10. and Zoilo Praxedes. Felizmenio.  Socorro  learned  of  Zoilo’s  and  Asuncion’s  affair   in January 1955. Where both spouses are offenders.

Madarang.      NOTES:  The consent was valid to concubinage. Condonation – FC 56(1) see page 1 for provision Bugayong vs. the test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act. constitutes a valid consent to the act of concubinage Consent bars the offended party from instituting a criminal procedure in cases of adultery.. Yu. rape and act of lasciviousness Difference between pardon and consent o Pardon refers to the offense after its commission o Consent refer to the offense prior to its commission Prior consent is as effective as subsequent consent to bar the offended party from prosecuting the offense Judgment is REVERSED and accused is ACQUITTED   2. Ginez Facts:  August 27. Morales. Salanguit. abduction. a private offense.Benjamin Bugayong (plaintiff). Gravador. but not to bigamy which is a public offense b. accused interposed plea of double jeopardy and the case was dismissed  The fiscal appealed and SC held that the dismissal before trial is premature and remanded the case to lower court  Rodolfo was convicted of concubinage  Rodolfo appealed Issues: 1. a serviceman in the US Navy. Castillo. 1935 – they executed an agreement (in Spanish) which basically states that they agree to live separately and to let each other do whatever they want w/o interference from one another  June 15. although illegal. but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offense NO The agreement w/c the spouses entered into wherein they agreed to live separately and let each other do whatever they want w/o interference. WON accused is in double jeopardy 2. seduction.Digested by: De Guzman. concubinage. WON accused is guilty of concubinage Held: 1. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. A. Rodolfo was convicted and sentenced to prison  During proceedings for concubinage. Elena filed 2 complaints against Rodolfo: o Bigamy o Concubinage  In bigamy. married Leonila Ginez 292 . 1949 . 1936 – accused married Julia Medel and lived together as husband and wife  Because of the nullity of divorce decreed by the Mexico Court. Felizmenio. NO  Bigamy and concubinage are two distinct offenses o Bigamy is marrying again while the first marriage still subsists  An offense against civil status w/c may be prosecuted at the instance of the state o Concubinage is mere cohabitation by the husband w/ a woman who is not his wife An offense against chastity and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party On the matter of double jeopardy. J. 1935 – accused secured a decree divorce from Mexico  May 11.  May 25. Flores.

Manila  Before Ben left for work. Pangasinan and later moved to Dagupan to study o Ben began receiving letters from his sister-in-law. 1953 – hearing of the case where only Ben was able to testify  because  defendant’s  counsel  orally  moved  for  dismissal   of complaint because: o The cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations o The acts charged have been condoned by the husband o Complaint failed to state a cause of action sufficient for the court to render valid judgment  The court dismissed the complaint based on the issue of condonation  Ben appealed to CA o Trial court erred in prematurely dismissing the case o Erred in finding there was condonation on his part o In entertaining condonation as ground for dismissal  CA raised the case to SC bec the questions raised were questions of law Issue: WON  Ben  condoned  Leonila’s  infidelity (assuming she did commit such act) Held: YES  Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a  ground  for  legal  separation  or. Madarang. implied by the law when not express. 1952 – Ben filed a complaint for legal separation o Leonila denies all allegations in her answer  June 9. the spouses agreed that Leonila will stay w/ his sisters  July 1951 – Leonila  left  the  house  of  Ben’s sisters and lived w/ her mother in Asingan. she packed up and left w/c he took to mean she is guilty  November 18.Digested by: De Guzman. (Shackleton vs. Castillo. Salanguit. Valeria Polangco. Is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for divorce and bars the right to a divorce.. Shackleton) o Condonation. and some from anonymous writers informing  him  of  his  wife’s  infidelity o Ben also said that he received a letter from Leonila informing  him  that  a  certain  “Eliong”  kissed  her  October 1951 – he seek the advice of the Navy Chaplain if he could file for legal separation on the grounds of infidelity o Chaplain directed him to the navy legal department  August 1952 – Ben went to Asingan and looked for his wife whom  he  met  at  her  godmother’s  house  The  two  went  to  Pedro  Bugayong’s  (Ben’s  cousin)  house   where they stayed and lived for 2 nights and 1 day as husband and wife (in short. Gravador. Felizmenio. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.  as  stated  in  I  Bouvier’s  Law   Dictionary. But it is on the condition. condonation is the conditional forgiveness or remission. they had sex)  Then.  The  two  lived  together  for  a  while  w/  Ben’s  sisters  who  later   moved to Sampaloc. 585. p. Flores. that the wrongdoer shall not again commit the offense. J. Ben asked wife about her infidelity but instead of answering. by a husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed  Defendant vehemently denies all allegations  Ben was the only one who testified and was not able to produce the  letter  he  allegedly  received  informing  him  of  his  wife’s   infidelity  SC based its decision on US decisions since there is no precedent in the Phil: o Condonation is implied from sexual intercourse after knowledge of the other infidelity. Such acts necessarily implied forgiveness. and also that he shall thereafter 293 . A. Morales. they went to  Ben’s  house  and  passed  the  night  as   husband and wife (sex again)  On the 2nd day. Yu.

and w/ the knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its commission. (27 C. will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation.S. Gravador. A. and that Brown’s  action  had  prescribed since  he  learned  of  his  wife’s   infidelity in 1945 but filed a complaint in 1955 Issue: WON the Fiscal actually acted as counsel for the defendant and not of the State WON  Brown’s  action  is  barred  by  prescription WON legal separation should be decreed Held:  NO o To make sure there is no collusion between the parties whether by preconcerted commission by one of a matrimonial offense or by failure in pursuance of an 294     NOTES:  Kissing somebody does not constitute an adulterous act  Sleeping  w/  the  guilty  spouse  is  condonation  (so.J. and where the parties live in the same house. treat the other spouse with conjugal kindness. Yambao Facts:  July 14. Flores. section 6-d) Order appealed from is AFFIRMED adulterous relationship w/ Carlos Field w/ whom she has a daughter o That he only learned about this in 1945 upon his release o Afterwards. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. of any action for legal separation against the offending wife Any cohabitation with the guilty party. Felizmenio. his wife engaged in . 1955 – William Brown filed for legal separation against his wife. Castillo.  don’t  sleep   w/  her/him  and  don’t  even  stay  w/  her/him  in  the  same   house!!!!!)  Voluntary sexual intercourse is equal to forgiveness c. but this presumption may be rebutted by evidence (60 L.Digested by: De Guzman. 73) Single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation. Salanguit. Prob. A breach of the condition will revive the original offense as a ground for divorce..J. Juanita Yambao o Alleged that while he was interned by the Japanese invaders from 1942-1945 at UST. Recrimination – FC 56(4) see page 1 for provision Brown vs. Yu. it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation. after the commission of the offense.  (Tiffany’s  Domestic  and  Family  Relations. deprives him. that there had been consent and connivance.. Morales. they lived separately and executed a document liquidating their conjugal partnership and assigning certain properties to Juanita as her share o Prayed for:  the confirmation of the liquidation agreement  Custody of their children  Defendant declared disqualified to succeed him  For other just and equitable remedy  CFI declared wife in default for failing to answer the complaint in time despite being served summons and declared the City Fiscal to investigate and make sure that no collusion exists between the parties and to report his investigation after 15 days and to intervene in the case in behalf of the State  During  Fiscal’s  investigation. J. Madarang.  he  found  out  that  Ben  cohabited   w/ another woman and had children w/ her  CFI denied petition for legal separation because Brown is also guilty  of  the  misconduct  similar  in  nature  to  that  of  his  wife’s   adultery. as alleged the offended spouse. Condonation may be expressed or implied.   section 107) The conduct of the husband despite his belief that his wife was unfaithful.

Neri confessed to having an affair w/ Arroyo Arroyo filed an MR Neri also filed an MR or a new trial contending that her husband has pardoned her and that he has contracted marriage w/ another woman w/ whom he is presently cohabiting Petitioners filed for several petitions (review. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Castillo. A. 1991 – Dr. it is legitimate for the Fiscal to bring to light any circumstances that could give rise to the inference that the  wife’s  default  was  calculated  or  agreed  upon  to   enable husband to obtain legal separation o One  such  circumstance  is  the  fact  of  Brown’s   cohabitation w/ another woman o The policy of calling for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation is to emphasize that marriage is not a mere contract o The inquiry by the Fiscal should be allowed to focus upon any relevant matter that may indicate whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are fully justified or not  YES o He filed for legal separation 10 years after he learned of the adultery o The law states that an action for legal separation can not be filed except w/in one year from and after the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and w/in 5 years from and after the date when such cause occurred  NO o Both parties are guilty  Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED Arroyo vs. Felizmenio.  Arroyo  went  to  the  master’s  bedroom   where Neri and Sare where o Sare left Neri and Arroyo in the room o After 45 mins. Ruby Vera Neri (petitioner) and Eduardo Arroyo (petitioner also) committed on November 2. Linda Sare and witness Jabuan went to Baguio o They  went  to  the  Neri  spouses’  condo  where  Arroyo   went to thereafter o Upon  arriving. Gravador. Arroyo came out of the room and told Sare she could go back inside o In his testimony. Jorge Neri filed a criminal complaint for adultery against his wife.Digested by: De Guzman. 1982  Defendants pleaded not guilty  RTC convicted Neri and Arroyo of adultery  Backstory of adultery: o November 2. he looked around their room and found in the dressing rooms a Kodak envelope w/ film negatives w/c turned out to be pictures of his wife and Arroyo in intimate bedroom poses (3 of w/c showed them half naked) o That upon confrontation. Neri also said that he caught Neri looking at photos and she seemed guilty after being caught o Because of her unusual behavior. agreement to defend divorce proceedings. Dr.  Neri’s  affidavit  of  desistance  is  sufficient  to  cast reasonable doubts on his credibility 295 . Flores.. Salanguit. Yu. 1982 – Neri w/ Mrs. Madarang. WON  Dr. Neri filed a manifestation praying that the case be  dismissed  as  he  had  “tacitly  consented”  to  his   wife’s  infidelity Petitioners then filed their respective motions for dismissal or for  a  new  trial  using  as  basis  Dr. Morales. CA Facts:  Dr. MR) August 26.  Neri’s  manifestation      Issues: 1. J.

 Neri’s  alleged  extra-marital affair precludes him from filing criminal complaint on the ground of pari delicto 4. the spouses did not enter into an agreement that they are allowing each other to marry or cohabit w/ other persons  Dr. Morales. Yu. A.  Neri’s  testimony  is  incredible  is  unavailing   at this stage  Plus. Madarang.  Neri’s  manifestation is sufficient for granting new trial Held: 1. WON  Dr. it must be given prior to the filing of a criminal complaint  While the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted w/o the offended  spouse’s  complaint. Salanguit. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. a matter of vindication of the private honor of the offended spouse 296 . NO  Dr.  Neri’s  manifestation  wherein  he  stated  that  he  tacitly   consented  to  his  wife’s  infidelity  is  an  attempted  recantation  of   his testimony however. this case does not refer to pari delicto but to consent as a bar to the institution of the criminal proceedings. Neri promptly filed his complaint after discovering the illicit affair  Concept of pari delicto applies to contracts w/ illegal consideration  Dr.  once  the  complaint  has  been   filed. Neri could have made the claims contained in his manifestation: o In the compromise agreement o His affidavit  These 2 docs merely stated that he pardoned petitioners and that the complaint was filed out of pure misunderstanding but did not hint that he already knew of the adulterous relationship beforehand 4. Neri is not an investigating officer  His  testimony  about  Neri’s  confession  is  admissible  to  court 3. nor even principally. 2.. the Court does not believe that such an admission by an unfaithful wife was inherently improbable or impossible 2. J. the control of the case passes to the public prosecutor  Enforcement of law on adultery is not exclusively. not all recantations should result in granting a new trial  The Court doubts the truthfulness and reliability of the belated recantation since there were 2 previous occasions where Dr. Felizmenio. Gravador. Flores.Digested by: De Guzman. Castillo. petitioner relies on the Guinucud case  However. NO  For this contention. the husband entered into an agreement w/ the wife that they are going to live separately and marry other persons  In the present case. WON  Neri’s  constitutional  rights  against  self-incrimination has been violated 3.  Neri’s  affidavit  of  desistance  did  not  operate  as  a  pardon   thereby meriting a new trial  For either consent or pardon to benefit the accused. WON  Dr. NO  This  would  have  been  committed  if  Neri’s  confession  was   gotten through investigation by an investigating officer w/o her counsel being present  Dr. NO  Trial  court’s  conclusions  on  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses  are   generally not disturbed since the questions before the Court is limited to questions of law  The conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given considerable weight  The  claim  that  Dr.

the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not a collusion between the parties exists. Yambao (see above digest) Ocampo vs. Madarang. Morales. (5) see page 1 for provision CC 101 No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or by confession of judgment. 1955 – Jose de Ocampo filed for legal separation on the ground of adultery against his wife. (101a) FC 56(3). Flores. J. Serafina Florenciano  CFI of Nueva Ecija dismissed it  CA affirmed the dismissal holding that there was confession of judgment. Yu. Brown vs. Why is his wife so malandi?) o Luis told her of his intention to file for legal separation to w/c Serafina agreed to provided she is not charged w/ adultery in a criminal case 297 . A.. Florenciano Facts:  July 5. Kawawang guy. the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. the public policy here involved is of the most fundamental kind  MR is DENIED and denial is FINAL  Petition for REVIEW is also DENIED  DOJ is directed to inquire into the possible liability of Dr. the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated. Castillo.Digested by: De Guzman. 1955 – Ocampo caught his wife with Nelson Orzame (I think he caught them in the act. If there is no collusion. (n) CC 221 (3) The following shall be void and of no effect: (3) Every collusion to obtain a decree of legal separation. In any case. No decree of legal separation shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment. Collusion/Mutual Consent FC 60. Felizmenio. Gravador. more importantly to the protection of the basic social institutions of marriage and the family in the preservation of w/c the State has the strongest interest. Neri for perjury NOTES:  Husband filed adultery against wife as soon as he discovered it  He started living w/ another woman and desisted from the case  Wife was still convicted o Husband did not give consent to the adultery o In fact. plus condonation or consent to the adultery and prescription  Background: o April 1938 – the spouses got married and had children who are now living with Ocampo o March 1951 – Jose discovered that Serafina was having an affair with Jose Arcalas o He sent her to Manila in June 1951to study beauty culture o Again. In case of non-appearance of the defendant. Ocampo discovered she had affairs w/ several other men while in the city o June 1952 – she finished studying and left Ocampo o o They lived separately since then o June 28.  Such enforcement relates. or of annulment of marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. he filed a case right after discovery o Court did not believe his recantation d. Salanguit.

ipso facto. the decree may and should be granted  since  it  won’t  be  based  on  the  confession  but  on   evidence presented by petitioner o What the law prohibits is a judgment based solely on the  defendant’s  confession. She was the one who left. Morales. Upon questioning by the Fiscal. Gravador. Effects of decree of legal separation a.  If  a  confession defeats the action . as long as there is evidence of adultery aside from the statement of Serafina. the complaint was filed beyond the one year period  CA found that upon discovering defendant w/ another man. Yu. Castillo.  The defendant did not answer the petition and upon investigation. Flores. Serafina reiterated her conformity to the legal separation and admitted she had an affair Orzame o CA interpreted this as a confession of judgment and under Art 101.. Luis signified his intent of filing for legal separation w/c Serafina agreed to. the court did not find collusion between the parties  So. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. On personal relations FC 63. it was her obligation to return (bongga ni Luis!) SC REVERSED the appealed decision and DECREED a legal separation bet the parties o o o o o 7. the defendant was defaulted and Luis presented his evidence (testimonies from several people) Issue: WON there was condonation or consent to the adultery and a confession of judgment Held: NO  CA  held  that  the  husband’s  right  to  legal  separation  on  account   of  the  defendant’s  adultery  w/  Jose  Arcalas  has prescribed  SC agrees w/ this. any defendant who opposes the separation will immediately confess judgment purposely to prevent it Even if Serafina told the Fiscal that she also liked to be legally separated from Luis. Salanguit. adultery was really committed and just because  Serafina  admits  the  allegations  doesn’t   mean  there’s  collusion  Also. Madarang. A. there would be collusion if the parties pretended there was adultery even if there wasn’t  just  so  they  could  be  legally  separated  Here. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects: 298 . this does not present an obstacle to the successful prosecution of the case There is no collusion bet the parties  Collusion in divorce or legal separation means the agreement bet spouses for one of them to commit or to pretend to commit or to be represented in court as having committed a matrimonial offense or to suppress evidence of a valid defense to enable the other to obtain divorce  So.Digested by: De Guzman. J. the desire for divorce and refusal to defend oneself does not also mean collusion Luis’  failure  to  search  for  his  wife  and  take  her  home   does not constitute condonation or consent to her adulterous relationship It was not his duty to search for her. if. legal separation could not be decreed  SC: o Confession of judgment happens when defendant appears in court and confesses the right of the plaintiff to judgment or files a pleading expressly agreeing to plaintiff’s  demand o This is not what happened w/ Serafina o However. Felizmenio. indeed. this is what happened in this case.

subject to the provisions of Article 213 of this Code.  Rosario  lived  in  Pilar’s  house  to  be  w/  her   children  1954 – Armando returned to the Phil  March 1955 – after school ended. Macadaeg Facts:  1952 . On the custody of children FC 63(3) see above FC 213. Felizmenio. Gravador. no child under five years of age shall be separated from his mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to do so. (2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Castillo. Rosario Matute (petitioner) on the ground that she committed adultery w/ his brother Ernesto Medel  CFI found Rosario guilty and awarded to Armando custody of their 4 minor children  Armando went to US and left the children w/ his sister Pilar Medel  Subsequently. provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law. parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. (n) CC 106(3) The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects: (3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse. Moreover. Madarang. (3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse. the present or surviving parent shall continue to exercise parental authority over such children. appoints another person as guardian. for justifiable reasons. Rosario did not return the children and instead filed a  case  praying  for  the  children’s  custody  contending  that  the   children expressed their desire to stay w/ her and for support for the children 299 .The father and mother shall exercise jointly just and reasonable parental authority and responsibility over their legitimate or adopted children.Digested by: De Guzman. the court. and (4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. A. Flores. for whom said court may appoint a guardian. unless in case of the surviving parent's remarriage. . J.  took  the   children  to  Manila  to  attend  her  father’s  funeral  Armando alleged that he consented on the condition that the children will be returned after 2 weeks  However. the father's decision shall prevail unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. Salanguit. filed for legal separation against his wife. (106a) b. which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2). but the marriage bonds shall not be severed. Morales. In case of separation of his parents. unless otherwise directed by the court in the interest of said minors. In case of the absence or death of either parent. Matute vs. (1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other.. Joint Parental Authority. In case of disagreement. children went to their father in Cebu  April 1955 – Rosario. unless the parent chosen is unfit. Yu. especially the choice of the child over seven years of age.  w/  Armando’s  permission.Armando Medel (private respondent). The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations. In case of separation of the parents. PD 603(The Child and Youth Welfare Code) Art 17 par 3 Article 17.

. renders Rosario unfit to take charge of her children o Rosario has no job and is living in the charity of her brothers  Petition is DENIED and case is DISMISSED NOTE:  Generally. among other causes.Digested by: De Guzman. After the finality of the decree of legal separation. (107a) FC 102 (4). which shall be divided equally between husband and wife. The revocation of or change in the designation of the insurance beneficiary shall take effect upon written notification thereof to the insured. as well as the designation of the latter as beneficiary in any insurance policy. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. habitual drunkenness. choose the parent they wish to live with  However. Alienations. liens and encumbrances registered in good faith before the recording of the complaint for revocation in the registries of property shall be respected. Salanguit. the innocent spouse may revoke the donations made by him or by her in favor of the offending spouse. Yu. Castillo. unless a different proportion or division was agreed upon in the marriage 300 .  Armando opposed the motion and countered w/ a petition to declare and punish Rosario in contempt for refusing to restore the custody of the children to him  CFI absolved Rosario on the charge of content since she has Armando’s  permission  to  bring  the  children  to  Manila  but   denied her motion for custody and ordered her to deliver the children to Armando  Thus. they were errors in the exercise of jurisdiction and these errors do not affect the legality or validity of the order  Rosario obtained and has the physical possession of the children  only  through  Armando’s  consent  Armando has the right to demand their return whenever he wants and Rosario has no right to question this authority  The children can. Upon dissolution of the absolute community regime. custody of children is granted to the innocent spouse c. poverty. On property relations FC 63 (2) see preceding pages FC 64. Felizmenio. even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. Morales. A. Flores. Madarang. J. The action to revoke the donation under this Article must be brought within five years from the time the decree of legal separation become final. incapacity or poverty o The act of infidelity she was guilty of is a thing of the past and does not involve moral depravity o Armando is unfit to have the custody since he is now living w/ another woman and is guilty of bigamy  Judge (respondent) did not act w/o or in excess of jurisdiction o If there were errors made. the following procedure shall apply: (4) The net remainder of the properties of the absolute community shall constitute its net assets. this appeal for certiorari and prohibition w/ preliminary injunction contending that the CFI order had been issued w/ grave abuse of discretion Issue: WON Rosario should have been awarded custody of the children Held: NO  Rosario contends the children should be under her custody because: o She is their mother and they wish to be w/ her o 2 of the 3 children are of the age wherein they can choose the parent they want to live w/ unless that parent is unfit to take charge by reason of moral depravity. indeed. Gravador. The revocation of the donations shall be recorded in the registries of property in the places where the properties are located.

When legal separation has been granted. Republic Facts:  May 10. No. However. and that they have ceased to live together for a long time  Petition was opposed by the City Atty of Baguio on the ground that it violates Art 370 (should be 372) of the CC and that it is not sanctioned by the ROC  Oct 31. (2).  or 3. Enrique Santamaria. the court may order that the guilty spouse shall give support to the innocent one.  she  may  choose  to  continue  employing  her  former  husband’s   surname. Morales. the said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution. or 2. Her  maiden  first  name  and  her  husband’s  surname. the spouses and their children shall be supported from the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership.  court  granted  the  petition on the ground that to allow petitioner to continue using her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets  The State appealed Issue: WON petitioner who is legally separated from her husband can resume the use of her maiden name Held: NO  Art 372: o When legal separation has been granted. 372. support ceases but guilty spouse will continue support of the innocent spouse e. but prefixing a word indicating that she  is  his  wife. Gravador. For purpose of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture in accordance with Articles 43. J. A. Her  maiden  first  name  and  surname  and  add  her  husband’s   surname. even after she is decreed legally separated from her husband. She or the former husband is married again to another person. The court decrees otherwise. However. If she is the innocent spouse. On the use of surname NCC 370-372 Art. 371. to continue using the name and surname she employed before legal separation  Upon  petitioner’s  motion.  such  as  “Mrs. Felizmenio. 1960 – court denied the petition for Art 372 of CC requires the wife. Salanguit. the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation 301 . In case of annulment of marriage. the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. (292a) NOTE:  After legal separation. (n) d. Flores. in case of legal separation. Her  husband’s  full name. 1960 – Elisea Laperal filed in the CFI of Baguio a petition to allow her to revert to her maiden name since she is now legally separated from her husband. she shall resume her maiden name and surname. and for declaration of nullity of marriage.” Art. After the final judgment granting the petition. or 2. the obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases. (2) and 63. A married woman may use: 1. she may resume her maiden name and surname. During the proceedings for legal separation or for annulment of marriage. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu.Digested by: De Guzman. No. 370. Art. or unless there has been a voluntary waiver of such share provided in this Code. Madarang. specifying the terms of such order. Castillo. settlements. and the wife is the guilty party.. Laperal vs. Yu. unless: 1. On support FC 198.

Gravador. it shall develop a comprehensive program of services for solo parents and their children to be carried out by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Declaration of Policy.This Act shall be known as the "Solo Parents' Welfare Act of 2000." Section 2. APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines Congress assembled: Section 1. the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and other related government and nongovernment agencies. the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). the Department of Health (DOH). the National Housing Authority (NHA). Section 3. Madarang. . 302 . and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu. Flores. 8972 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES TO SOLO PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN. A.  The language of the statute is mandatory that the wife. Title.It is the policy of the State to promote the family as the foundation of the nation. the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).any individual who falls under any of the following categories: (1) A woman who gives birth as a result of rape and other crimes against chastity even without a final conviction of the offender: Provided.Whenever used in this Act. the following terms shall mean as follows: (a) "Solo parent" . Morales. . Yu. even after the legal separation has been decreed. Solo Parents Act – RA 8972 REPUBLIC ACT NO. strengthen its solidarity and ensure its total development. shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation  Because her married status is unaffected by the separation  Wife should continue the use of the name indicative of her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned  Fact of legal separation alone is not a sufficient ground for a change of name even under Rule 103 of ROC  The issuance of the decree of legal separation automatically dissolved and liquidated conjugal partnership between petitioner and her husband  So. Salanguit. the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). as long as he/she is entrusted with the custody of the children. the Department of Education. .. (4) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to physical and/or mental incapacity of spouse as certified by a public medical practitioner. Castillo. (6) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage as decreed by a court or by a church as long as he/she is entrusted with the custody of the children. (5) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to legal separation or de facto separation from spouse for at least one (1) year.Digested by: De Guzman. Towards this end. That the mother keeps and raises the child. Culture and Sports (DECS). J. On hereditary rights FC 63 (4) see preceding pages g. (2) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to death of spouse. (3) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood while the spouse is detained or is serving sentence for a criminal conviction for at least one (1) year. Definition of Terms. Felizmenio. there could be no more occasion for eventual liquidation of conjugal assets f.

(7) Parent left solo or alone with the responsibility of parenthood due to abandonment of spouse for at least one (1) year. This will focus on the resolution of personal relationship and role conflicts. Madarang. Salanguit.refer to those living with and dependent upon the solo parent for support who are unmarried. basic business management. . as amended. NHA and DILG. however. Comprehensive Package of Social Development and Welfare Services.shall mean leave benefits granted to a solo parent to enable him/her to perform parental duties and responsibilities where physical presence is required. unemployed and not more than eighteen (18) years of age. A. and Hernandez in cooperation with Yu." (d) "Parental leave" . (8) Unmarried mother/father who has preferred to keep and rear her/his child/children instead of having others care for them or give them up to a welfare institution. DECS. (9) Any other person who solely provides parental care and support to a child or children. counseling. disappearance or prolonged absence of the parents or solo parent.. (d) Critical incidence stress debriefing which includes preventive stress management strategy designed to assist solo parents in coping with crisis situations and cases of abuse. CHED. Section 4. (e) "Flexible work schedule" . self-concept or ego-building.Any solo parent whose income in the place of domicile falls below the poverty threshold as set by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and subject to the assessment of the DSWD worker in the area shall be eligible for assistance: Provided. (b) Counseling services which include individual. The DSWD shall coordinate with concerned agencies the implementation of the comprehensive package of social development and welfare services for solo parents and their families. peer group or family counseling.is the right granted to a solo parent employee to vary his/her arrival and departure time without affecting the core work hours as defined by the employer. 7 and 8 of this Act.Digested by: De Guzman. otherwise known as the "Family Code of the Philippines. crisis management and spiritual enrichment. Felizmenio.with respect to their minor children shall refer to the rights and duties of the parents as defined in Article 220 of Executive Order No. Gravador. in coordination with local government units and a nongovernmental organization with proven track record in providing services for solo parents. A change in the status or circumstance of the parent claiming benefits under this Act. behavior management. abandonment. (10) Any family member who assumes the responsibility of head of family as a result of the death. . TESDA.A comprehensive package of social development and welfare services for solo parents and their families will be developed by the DSWD. DOLE. (e) Special projects for individuals in need of protection which include temporary shelter. legal assistance. That any solo parent whose income is above the poverty threshold shall enjoy the benefits mentioned in Sections 6. (c) Parent effectiveness services which include the provision and expansion of knowledge and skills of the solo parent on early childhood development. such that he/she is no longer left alone with the responsibility of parenthood. (b) "Children" . Castillo. or even over eighteen (18) years but are incapable of self-support because of mental and/or physical defect/disability. Yu. J. medical care. DOH. rights and duties of parents and children. The package will initially include: (a) Livelihood development services which include trainings on livelihood skills. health care. value orientation and the provision of seed capital or job placement. (c) "Parental responsibility" . Flores. Morales. Criteria for Support. Section 5. 303 . 209. shall terminate his/her eligibility for these benefits.

. . administrative orders or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed. . Gravador. Yu. Felizmenio. Section 8. nongovernment organizations and people's organizations. Additional Powers and Functions of the DSWD. other provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.All laws. amended or modified accordingly. and (3) assess the effectiveness of programs designed for disadvantaged solo parents and their children. further. (b) Coordinate the activities of various governmental and nongovernmental organizations engaged in promoting and protecting the interests of solo parents and their children. NHA. Medical Assistance. the implementing rules and regulations in consultation with the local government units.No employer shall discriminate against any solo parent employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account of his/her status. .net Section 15. CHED and TESDA shall promulgate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of this program. DOLE. The DECS. Work Discrimination.The DECS. within ninety (90) days upon the effectivity of this Act. Section 6. in coordination with the DOH. Appropriations. Flores. .. . J. Implementing Rules and Regulations.Digested by: De Guzman. A.1awphil.In addition to leave privileges under existing laws. The program shall be implemented by the DOH through their retained hosp