Arroyo vs. Vasquez-Arroyo “The humanity of the court has been loudly and repeatedly invoked.
Humanity is the second virtue of courts, but undoubtedly the first is justice.” “The law has said that married persons shall not be legally separated upon the mere disinclination of one or both to cohabit together” “Nevertheless, the interests of both parties as well as of society at large require that the courts should move with caution in enforcing the duty to provide for the separate maintenance of the wife, for this step involves a recognition of the de facto separation of the spouses” “Upon examination of the authorities we are convinced that it is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other.” Mariano and Dolores got married but the latter (respondent) left the abode because of maltreatment. The husband, herein petitioner, is now seeking the court’s ruling for his wife to return home. Dolores countersued saying that his maltreatment compelled her to stay away and now she is even asking for alimony. Initial court ruling was in favor of wife. Hence, this appeal. Issues: (1) WON Mariano can compel his wife to go home. (2) WON wife can compel him for alimony Held: (1) No she cannot although she is advised to go home. (2) He also cannot be compelled for alimony. This decision is based on the facts that the allegation of the wife is untenable. There seems to be no proof of physical abuse and that the quarrels the wife is referring to are the normal ones between husband and wife. The court said that it must excercise necessary precaution to grant such request for alimony since it would constitute the recognition of a de-facto separation. Only in cases where cohabitation is deemed
impossible or dangerous will the court grant such request. Dispositive: Therefore, reversing the judgment appealed from, in respect both to the original complaint and the cross-bill, it is declared that Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo has absented herself from the marital home without sufficient cause; and she is admonished that it is her duty to return. The plaintiff is absolved from the crosscomplaint, without special pronouncement as to costs of either instance. So ordered. ***************************************** Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno G.R. No. L-20043 Lourdes files a complaint for support from her husband. They are now separated in fact. The lower court granted the support but then it was overturned and was allowed to cohabit again as petitioned by the husband. Wife immediately filed for reconsideration, her battered body, being her driving force for such this case. Court of appeals found the conditions a ray of hope for them to cohabit and so they were admonished to live together. Issue: WON the wife should be compelled to live with husband anew. Held: No. In this case it is undisputed that bodily injuries have been afflicted and so without promoting separations-in-facts, it seems more injustice to have them live together at this moment to avoid further injuries. Status quo is hereby granted until another solution can be presented. Husband also is declared to have provided his wife properly in terms of finance and hence no further alimony is required. **************************************** Erlinda Ilusorio vs. Erlinda Bildner “The sanction therefore is the "spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order" to enforce consortium.” Erlinda filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus for her husband Potenciano Illusorio. Both have been separated in fact since 1972. The reason for such request is
she is disqualified from running for governor of Leyte because the charter of Ormoc states that voters in Ormoc cannot vote for the governor of Leyte. 2. It seems that the reason Erlinda is pursuing custody is because their children are now un control of their business in Baguio city when their dad retired and Erlinda that it should be her. Held: Yes she is. WON voters in ormoc can run for governorship in Leyte. However her residence and registration were questioned by COMELEC and she was disqualified. prohibits registered voters of Ormoc City from voting and being voted for elective offices in the province of Leyte. Potenciano claims that he is not restraining her from seeing her anyway and that he is not sick enough to be given such medical treatment. As can be gleaned from the questioned decision. Section 89 of Republic Act 179. the residence requirement should be read as legal residence or domicile. WON Larazzabal is a resident of Ormoc or Kananga. The court cannot force the husband to live with her. she has established her residence at Ormoc City from 1975 to the present and not at Kananga. Rollo – 100710. pp. Issue of custody – it cannot be denied that Erlinda wants custody of her husband 2. such spontaneity. ****************************************** Designation of Domicile Abella vs Comelec “Her attempt to purportedly change her residence one year before the election by registering at Kananga. Conclusiveness of the lower court – Erlinda failed to prove decision in lower court was erroneous and needs a revisit 4. Emphsis supplied)” “ The question now is whether or not the prohibition against the 'city's registered voters' electing the provincial officials necessarily mean. Leyte to qualify her to ran for the position of governor of the province of Leyte clearly shows that she considers herself already a resident of Ormoc City.” “For the purpose of running for public office. a prohibition of the registered voters to be elected as provincial officials. 1. Her attempt to purportedly change her residence one year before the election by registering at Kananga. Meanwhile. not any place where a party may have properties and may visit from time to time. spontaneous mutual affection is the sanction of the provision and not a court or legal mandate. Issues: We have several 1. the reliance on the provisions of the Family Code was proper and in consonance with human experience. (COMELEC decision. the COMELEC based its finding that the petitioner lacks the required residence on the evidence of record to the effect that despite protestations to the contrary made by the petitioner. no they cannot. According to COMELEC. Leyte to qualify her to ran for the position of governor of the province of Leyte clearly shows that she considers herself already a resident of Ormoc City.for him to be brought to court and medically examined so that petitioner can prove that respondent is of ill health and thus rightful custody should belong to her. Art XII of Constitution and Art 67-68 of FC – obliges husband and wife to cohabit. We are now confronted with several issues. In this case. being a resident of Ormoc. Leyte. Marriage is a two way process and no law can compel them. We agree with the COMELEC en banc that "the phrase 'shall not be qualified and entitled to vote in the
. In the absence of any evidence to prove otherwise. However according to the court. For second issue.” “Husband and wife as a matter of principle live together in one legal residence which is
their usual place of abode.” Adelina Larazzabal won as provincial governor of Leyte. independent of the constitutional provision. 6769. 21-23. pp. Moreover. Reason for custody – control over business as stated in the facts 3. empathy has been absent for a long time.
during the pendency of the action.. which justifies her in leaving him. Narcisa won and that is why husband dela vina filed this case for certiorari. May-Ann. So long as this harmonious relation. therefore. insofar as alienating or encumbering the conjugal property is concerned. brought by the wife against her husband. from voting for any provincial elective official. that the husband's power of administration be curtailed.. in order to protect the interests of the wife. whether one is actually dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone” Antonio and Gloria had a bad relationship. de los Santos “.” “. therefore. Villarreal “Although the law fixes the domicile of the wife as being that of her husband.
2. from the very nature of the relating between husband and wife.
Yes. the wife cannot and should not interfere with the husband in his judicious administration of the conjugal property. Husband dela vina is now questioning the jurisdiction of the auxiliary judge. continues. In an action for divorce. When Antonio dies. Issue: 1. the Court ruled that although a husband and wife are obliged to support each other.
1. May a married woman ever acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband during the existence of the marriage? 2..” Narcisa filed a preliminary injunction against her husband Diego dela Vina in regards to their home which is was evicted from and other properties which they have accumulated as husband and wife.
. she is still married to Antonio. from running for and the second. The law making the husband the sole administrator of the property of the conjugal partnership is founded upon necessity and convenience as well as upon the presumption that.In Aguas. the former will promote and not injure the interests of the latter. It should not be Antonio’s single child from subsequent marriage. Issue: WON Gloria is still entitled to the benefits of Antonio. considering that she has married a foreigner and is in abroad with ample financial support. Gloria committed adultery once and then returned home only to commit adultery and a second marriage again in the US. may the wife obtain a preliminary injunction against the husband restraining and prohibiting him from alienating or encumbering any part of the conjugal property during the pendency of the action? Held:
Yes she may. ***************************************** Joint Obligation to Support SSS vs. it is just and proper. Her motion was granted by Judge Villarreal. where the husband has given cause for divorce. and. as contemplated by law.. The reason is that wife was booted out from the house by husband and husband now has a concubine.election of the provincial governor and the members of the provincial board of the Province of Leyte' connotes two prohibitions — one. It is clear. that a married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband. Gloria claimed that she should be the beneficiary because as per Philippine laws." Dela Vina vs. in a proper action. in which the partition of the conjugal property is also prayed for. the wife seeks to dissolve the marriage and to partition the conjugal property. universal jurisprudence recognizes an exception to the rule in the case where the husband's conduct has been such as to furnish lawful ground for a divorce. But when that relation ceases and. necessarily authorities her to live elsewhere and to acquire a separate domicile.the reckoning point in determining the beneficiaries of the deceased Antonio should be the time of his death. during the existence of the marriage.
after annulment of the marriage (Art. She is allowed to use her name as it appears on the civil registry since this is her name all along. Sharica files this under the lower court invoking RA 9262 and respondents contend that under RA 9262. 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.Held: No. Hence. ****************************************** Enforcement of Rights of Women and Children Sharica Tan vs Perfecto Tan Sharica is married to Steven Tan. Now. Yasin files before the court to resume the use of her maiden name because a divorce decree was issued by the Shariah Court and her former husband is now getting married. 370. which may justify such change. before a person can be authorized to change his name (given him either in his birth certificate or civil registry). Civil Code) is permissive and not obligatory except in case of legal separation “ Facts: Hatima C. she is not entitled to SSS benefits for the main reason that she was the one who left his husband and also it is evident that she can support herself. 373. they are covered for under Art 3 of said special law: ''[v]iolence against women and their children'' as "any act or a series of acts committed by any person
. it would be safe to presume that she was dependent on the husband for support. applying the statutory construction maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"). First of all. parents in law are not covered. the onerous requirements of 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. Civil Code). Held: In view of the foregoing considerations. The motion was denied by the respondent court in an order dated August 10. absent any showing to the contrary. Issue: WON respondents are covered by RA 9262. In view of such circumstances. Conversely. if it is proved that the husband and wife were still living together at the time of his death. Therefore. Issue: Whether or not a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for change of name. Held: yes. 1990. unless it is shown that she is capable of providing for herself” SSS vs Favila ***************************************** Related Rights and Obligations Yasin vs Sharia Court “ A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right. it is confirmed that at the time of Antonio’s death and the contraction of second marriage by Gloria. Civil Code) and after the death of the husband (Art. he must show proper or compelling reason. We find the petition to resume the use of maiden name filed by petitioner before the respondent court a superfluity and unnecessary proceeding since the law requires her to do so as her former husband is already married to another woman after obtaining a decree of divorce from her in accordance with Muslim laws. on the ground that the petition is substantially for change of name and that compliance with the provisions of Rule 103. “The obvious conclusion then is that a wife who is already separated de facto from her husband cannot be said to be "dependent for support" upon the husband. the request should be denied” “Even under the Civil Code. the use of the husband's surname during the marriage (Art. 371. Otherwise. Sharica alleges that husband and his parents (respondents) are harassing her verbally and physically to force her to mouve out of the house. she was still a Filipino and thus was the wife of the deceased.
battery." Now. psychological harm or suffering. illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved. VALLECERA DOLINA vs GLENN D. sexual or dating relationship. which result in or is likely to result in physical. former spouse. Applying such. assault. Held: No he is not but only in as far as because filiation has not yet been proven in the lower court. which is on conspiracy. said provision can be related with Art 8 of RPC. or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate. harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.
.against a woman who is his wife. former wife. coercion. However the court cannot accept the evidences submitted by the lower court since these have not been appraised yet by the lower courta. or with whom he has a common child.
Issue: WON Glenn is liable for financial support and WON cherrly can be issued a TPO.” Facts: Cherryl files a case against Glenn suing RA 9262 and also that respondent provide financial support to the mother. sexual. Under Art 10 of RPC. or economic abuse including threats of such acts. within or without the family abode. Petition is hereby partially granted and set aside in so far as the decision on the indictment of the respondents are concerned. respondents are here tagged as conspirators. *****************************************
This case is about a mother’s claim for temporary support of an unacknowledged child. which she sought in an action for the issuance of a temporary protection order that she brought against the supposed father. “In short. Respondent contends that he is not the father of the child despite the signature on the live birth and that the main purpose for this case is not against RA 9262 but one of financial support and also that there is no need to file for a temporary protective order since respondent is not living with petitioner. CHERRYL B. RPC can be applied to special laws suppletorily. although it mentions perpetrators such as spouse.