You are on page 1of 491

1 1) Lara vs. Del Rosario G.R. No.

L6339, April 20, 1954 Facts: In 1950, Petronilo del Rosario, Jr. operated a taxi business under the name Waval axi!, emplo"in# three me$hani$s and %ort" & nine $hau%%eurs. 'n (eptember ), 1950, he sold his t*ent" & %ive taxi $abs to +a ,allor$a resultin# to the termination o% emplo"ment o% ,r. del Rosario-s emplo"ees. .en$e, the emplo"ees %iled a $omplaint a#ainst their %ormer emplo"er to re$over $ompensation %or overtime *or/ and mesada provided %or in 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ode o% 3ommer$e, due to the %ailure o% the de%endant to #ive them a one month noti$e. ss!es: 14 Whether or not the emplo"ees have the ri#ht to overtime pa" and mesada5 24 Whether or not 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ode o% 3ommer$e applies to the $ase at bar5 R!li"#: he a%oresaid emplo"ees have no ri#ht to $laim neither overtime pa" nor mesada sin$e the" *ere paid on $ommission basis6 hen$e, the" are not $overed b" the 7i#ht & .our +abor +a* 83ommon*ealth 0$t 9o. )))4 or 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ode o% 3ommer$e, both la*s appl"in# onl" to emplo"ees re$eivin# a %ixed salar"6 not*ithstandin# the repeal o% 0rt.102 b" 0rt.22:1 o% the ne* 3ivil 3ode e%%e$tive 0u#ust 10, 1950. 2) $a"a%a vs. $!vera G.R. No. L 63915 Facts: Petitioner, a;ada, sou#ht a *rit o% mandamus to obli#e the respondent, uvera and publi$ o%%i$ials to publish the various presidential de$rees, letters o% instru$tions, #eneral orders, pro$lamations, exe$utive orders, letters o% implementation and administrative orders in the '%%i$ial <a=ette as re>uired b" the ne* 3ivil 3ode, 0rti$le 2. .o*ever the respondents dismissed the re>uest on #rounds that the a;ada, et al. has no le#al personalit" or standin# to brin# the instant petition. 0lso, uvera, et al. $laimed that the publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette %or its

2 e%%e$tivel", is not a mandator" re>uirement %or la*s that has provided their o*n e%%e$tivit" dates. ss!e: Whether or not the various presidential de$rees, letters o% instru$tions, #eneral orders, pro$lamations, exe$utive orders, letters o% implementation and administrative orders, even i% has their o*n e%%e$tivel" dates still has to %ollo* the publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 2 o% the 3ivil 3ode provides that la*s shall ta/e e%%e$t a%ter %i%teen da"s %ollo*in# the $ompletion o% their publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette, unless it is other*ise provided ! he 3ourt has ruled that publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette is ne$essar" in those $ases *here the le#islation itsel% does not provide %or its e%%e$tivit" date?%or then the date o% publi$ation is material %or determinin# its date o% e%%e$tivit", *hi$h is the %i%teenth da" %ollo*in# its publi$ation?but not *hen the la* itsel% provides %or the date *hen it #oes into e%%e$t. 0rti$le 2 does not pre$lude the re>uirement o% publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette, even i% the la* itsel% provides %or the date o% its e%%e$tivit". he publi$ation o% all presidential issuan$es o% a publi$ nature! or o% #eneral appli$abilit"! is mandated b" la*. 'bviousl", presidential de$rees that provide %or %ines, %or%eitures or penalties %or their violation or other*ise impose a burden or. he people, su$h as tax and revenue measures, %all *ithin this $ate#or". 'ther presidential issuan$es *hi$h appl" onl" to parti$ular persons or $lass o% persons su$h as administrative and exe$utive orders need not be published on the assumption that the" have been $ir$ulari=ed to all $on$erned. Publi$ation is, there%ore, mandator". 3) &'ilippi"es "ter"atio"al $ra%i"# (orp. vs. A"#eles G.R. No. 10)461, *cto+er 21, 1996 Facts: he Petitioners, Philippines International radin# 3orp. 8PI 34, has issued an 0dministrative 'rder 9o. ('3P73 @9?0@?01,

3 *hi$h $ompels importers %rom the Republi$ o% 3hina to be a$$ompanied b" a viable and approved export pro#ram o% the Philippine produ$ts. PI 3 has barred Remin#ton and Airestone %rom importin# produ$ts %rom 3hina on the #round that the" *ere not able to $ompl" *ith the re>uirements o% the 0dministrative 'rder. Remin#ton and Airestone then $laimed that the" *eren-t a*are o% the 0dministrative 'rder be$ause there *as no publi$ation made b" PI 3. he Petitioner then said that the" don-t need to be$ause it *as an 0dministrative 'rder and not a statute. herea%ter, Remin#ton and Airestone %iled a petition %or prohibition and mandamus a#ainst the said order o% PI 3 in *hi$h the trial $ourt upheld and de$lared to be null and void %or bein# un$onstitutional. he $ourt $ontends %urther authorit" to pro$ess and approve appli$ations %or imports ('3P73 and to issue rules and re#ulations pursuant to +'I 1)) has alread" been repealed b" 7' 111 issued on Aebruar" 2:, 19@:. .en$e, the PI 3 %iled a $ertiorari see/in# the reversal o% the said de$ision. ss!e: Whether or not the 0dministrative 'rder no. ('3P73 @9? 0@?01 is valid and en%or$eable re#ardless o% not publishin# it5 R!li"#: he PI 3 has the po*er to issue 0dministrative 'rders and to en%or$e them, ho*ever the 0.' no. ('3P73 @9?0@?01, in this $ase, is invalid. he #eneral rule is %ound in the 9e* 3ivil 3ode, 0rti$le 2. In this petition, the $ase o% a;ada v uvera *as $ited, *hi$h states that all statues in$ludin# those o% lo$al appli$ation and private la*s shall be published as $ondition %or their e%%e$tivit", *hi$h shall be#in 15 da"s a%ter publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette or a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation unless a di%%erent e%%e$tivit" date is %ixed b" the le#islature. he 0' under $onsideration is one o% those issuan$es *hi$h should be published %or its e%%e$tivit" sin$e it is punitive in $hara$ter. he Aailure o% the Philippine International radin# 3orp. to publish and to %ollo* *hat *as stated in the la* *ill render there 0dministrative 'rder as invalid. 4) Natio"al ,lectri-icatio" A%.i"istratio" vs. Go"/a#a

4 G.R. No. 15)061, Dece.+er 4, 2000 Facts: 'n 9ovember 11, 2000, respondent Bi$toriano C. <on=a#a %iled his 3erti%i$ate o% 3andida$" %or membership in the Coard o% Dire$tors o% Eamboan#a del (ur II 7le$tri$ 3ooperative, In$., Distri$t II 8E0,(FR73'4. +ater that da", the s$reenin# $ommittee resolved to dis>uali%" respondent be$ause his spouse *as an in$umbent member o% the Sangguniang Bayan o% Diplahan, Eamboan#a del (ur. Cased on the 7le$tri$ 3ooperative 7le$tion 3ode 873734, promul#ated b" petitioner 9ational 7le$tri%i$ation 0dministration 89704, a $andidate *hose spouse o$$upies an ele$tive #overnment position hi#her than Caran#a" 3aptain is prohibited to run as dire$tor o% an ele$tri$ $ooperative. E0,(FR73'-s b"?la*s, ho*ever, do not provide %or su$h #round %or dis>uali%i$ation. 'n 9ovember 21, 2000, respondent %iled a Petition %or Prohibition and Dama#es. ss!e: Whether or not the 7le$tri$ 3ooperative 3ode is valid5 R!li"#: he 7le$tri$ 3ooperative 3ode is invalid be$ause there *as no proo% that it *as ever published in the '%%i$ial <a=ette or other ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation *hi$h is a mandator" re>uirement provided in the 9e* 3ivil 3ode, 0rti$le 2. 0lso, as an additional re>uirement stated in the 7xe$utive 'rder 9o. 292, other*ise /no*n as the 0dministrative 3ode o% 19@:, rein%or$ed the re>uirement o% publi$ation and outlined the pro$edure as *ell. (e$. 1. Ailin#. 814 7ver" 0#en$" shall %ile *ith the Fniversit" o% the Philippines +a* 3enter three 814 3erti%ied $opies o% ever" rule adopted b" it. Rules in %or$e on the date o% e%%e$tivit" o% this 3ode *hi$h are not %iled *ithin three 814 months %rom that date shall not therea%ter be the basis o% an" san$tion a#ainst an" part" or persons. 824 he Re$ords '%%i$er o% the a#en$", or his e>uivalent %un$tionar", shall $arr" out the re>uirements o% this se$tion under pain o% dis$iplinar" a$tion.

5 814 0 permanent re#ister o% all rules shall be /ept b" the issuin# a#en$" and shall be open to publi$ inspe$tion. (e$. ). 7%%e$tivit" & In addition to other rule?ma/in# re>uirements provided b" la* not in$onsistent *ith this Coo/, ea$h rule shall be$ome e%%e$tive %i%teen 8154 da"s %rom the date o% %ilin# as above provided unless a di%%erent date is %ixed b" la*, or spe$i%ied in this rule. (e$. 1@. When +a*s a/e 7%%e$t & +a*s shall ta/e e%%e$t a%ter Ai%teen 8154 da"s %ollo*in# the $ompletion o% their publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette or in a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation, unless it is other*ise provided. 5) 1asa vs. 2erca%o G.R. No. L 42226, 3!l4 26, 1953 Facts: .onorable .ermo#enes Re"es, Jud#e o% the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Pampan#a, allo*ed and probated the last *ill and testament o% Ines Casa, de$eased. 'n Januar" 10, 1912, the same Gud#e approved the a$$ount o% the administrator o% the estate, de$lared him the onl" heir o% the de$eased under the *ill and $losed the administration pro$eedin#s. 'n 0pril 11, 191), the herein petitioners?appellants %iled a motion in *hi$h the" pra"ed that said pro$eedin#s be reopened and alle#ed that the $ourt la$/ed Gurisdi$tion to a$t in the matter be$ause there *as a %ailure to $ompl" *ith re>uirements as to the publi$ation o% the noti$e o% hearin# pres$ribed in the %ollo*in# se$tion o% the 3ode o% 3ivil Pro$edure. 0ppellants $laim that the provisions o% se$tion H10 o% the 3ode o% 3ivil Pro$edure have not been $omplied *ith in vie* o% the %a$t that althou#h the trial Gud#e, on ,a" 29, 1911, ordered the publi$ation o% the re>uired noti$e %or Ithree *ee/s su$$essivel"I previous to the time appointed %or the hearin# on the *ill, the %irst publi$ation *as on June H, 1911, the third on June 20, 1911, and the hearin# too/ pla$e on the 2:th o% that month, onl" t*ent"?one da"s a%ter the date o% the %irst publi$ation instead o% three %ull *ee/s be%ore the da" set %or the hearin#. he appellants also $ontend that the trial $ourt erred in rulin# that the *ee/l" ne*spaper, In# Jatipunan, in *hi$h the noti$e o% hearin#

6 *as published, *as a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation in the Provin$e o% Pampan#a. ss!e: Whether or not the In# Jatipunan ne*spaper $onsidered a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation5 R!li"#: In vie* o% the %ore#oin#, it is held that the lan#ua#e used in se$tion H10 o% the 3ode o% 3ivil Pro$edure does not mean that the noti$e, re%erred to therein, should be published %or three %ull *ee/s be%ore the date set %or the hearin# on the *ill. In other *ords the %irst publi$ation o% the noti$e need not be made t*ent"? one da"s be%ore the da" appointed %or the hearin#. he re$ord sho*s that Ing Katipunan is a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation in vie* o% the %a$t that it is published %or the dissemination o% lo$al ne*s and #eneral in%ormation6 that it has a bona fide subs$ription list o% pa"in# subs$ribers6 that it is published at re#ular intervals and that the trial $ourt ordered the publi$ation to be made in Ing Katipunan pre$isel" be$ause it *as a Ine*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation in the Provin$e o% Pampan#a.I he la* does not re>uire that publi$ation o% the noti$e, re%erred to in the 3ode o% 3ivil Pro$edure, should be made in the ne*spaper *ith the lar#est numbers is ne$essar" to $onstitute a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation.

6) Associatio" o- t'e 5o!t'er" $a#alo# ,lectric (ooperatives, "c. vs. ,"er#4 Re#!lator4 (o..issio" G.R. No. 192110, 5epte.+er 1), 2012 Facts: Petitioners Catan#as I 7le$tri$ 3ooperative, In$. 8C0 7+73 I4, Kue=on I 7le$tri$ 3ooperative, In$. 8KF7E7+3' I4, Kue=on II 7le$tri$ 3ooperative, In$. 8KF7E7+3' II4 and Pampan#a Rural 7le$tri$ (ervi$e 3ooperative, In$. 8PR7(3'4 are rural ele$tri$ $ooperatives established under Presidential De$ree 8P.D.4 9o. 2H9 or the 9ational 7le$tri%i$ation 0dministration De$ree. C0 7+73 I, KF7E7+3' I and KF7E7+3' II are members o% the 0sso$iation o%

0 (outhern a#alo# 7le$tri$ 3ooperatives, In$. 80( 734. PR7(3' is a member o% the 3entral +u=on 7le$tri$ 3ooperatives 0sso$iation, In$. 83+7304. Petitioners are en#a#ed in the distribution o% ele$tri$it" Ion a non?pro%it basis %or the mutual bene%it o% its members and patrons. 'n @ De$ember 199), R.0. 9o. :@12 *as ena$ted. he la* imposed a $ap on the re$overable rate o% s"stem loss that ma" be $har#ed b" rural ele$tri$ $ooperatives to their $onsumers. 'n @ June 2001, R.0. 9o. 911H or the 7le$tri$ Po*er Industr" Re%orm 0$t o% 2001 87PIR04 *as ena$ted. (e$tion 1@ o% the 7PIR0 abolished the 7RC, and $reated the 7ner#" Re#ulator" 3ommission 87R34. he 7R3 is an independent and >uasi?Gudi$ial re#ulator" bod" mandated to Ipromote $ompetition, en$oura#e mar/et development, ensure $ustomer $hoi$e and penali=e abuse o% mar/et po*er in the restru$tured ele$tri$it" industr".I he po*ers and %un$tions o% the 7RC not in$onsistent *ith the provisions o% the 7PIR0 *ere trans%erred to the 7R3, to#ether *ith the appli$able %unds and appropriations, re$ords, e>uipment, propert" and personnel o% the 7RC. 'n 29 ,ar$h 200), the 7R3 issued an 'rder in the $onsolidated $ases resolvin# the motions %or re$onsideration %iled b" several rural ele$tri$ $ooperatives. In the said 'rder, the 7R3 explained the #eneral %rame*or/ o% the ne* PP0 $on%irmation s$heme to be adopted b" the re#ulator" bod". In the 'rder dated 22 ,ar$h 200H, the 7R3 evaluated the monthl" PP0 implementation o% C0 7+73 I $overin# the period %rom Aebruar" 199H to (eptember 200). he veri%i$ation and $on%irmation o% the PP0 implementation *as based on the monthl" implementation reports, do$uments and in%ormation submitted b" C0 7+73 I in $omplian$e *ith the 'rder dated 19 Aebruar" 199: issued b" the 7RC. he 7R3 determined that there *ere over?re$overies amountin# to Ai%t" 9ine ,illion *ent" 'ne housand 9ine .undred Aive Pesos 8P 59,021,905.004 e>uivalent to P0.0512L/Wh. ss!e: Whether or not the poli$" #uidelines issued b" the 7R3 on the treatment o% dis$ounts extended b" po*er suppliers are ine%%e$tive and invalid %or la$/ o% publi$ation, non?submission to

) the Fniversit" o% the Philippines 8F.P.4 +a* 3enter, and their retroa$tive appli$ation5 R!li"#: Petitioners assail the validit" o% the 22 ,ar$h 200H 'rder, 1H Aebruar" 200: 'rder, : De$ember 2005 'rder, and 2: ,ar$h 200H 'rder o% the 7R3 dire$tin# the re%und o% over?re$overies %or havin# been issued pursuant to ine%%e$tive and invalid poli$" #uidelines. Petitioners assert that the poli$" #uidelines on the treatment o% dis$ounts extended b" po*er suppliers are ine%%e$tive and invalid %or la$/ o% publi$ation, non?submission to the F.P. +a* 3enter, and their retroa$tive appli$ation. Publi$ation is a basi$ postulate o% pro$edural due pro$ess. he purpose o% publi$ation is to dul" in%orm the publi$ o% the $ontents o% the la*s *hi$h #overn them and re#ulate their a$tivities. 0rti$le 2 o% the 3ivil 3ode, as amended b" (e$tion 1 o% 7xe$utive 'rder 9o. 200, states that Ila*s shall ta/e e%%e$t a%ter %i%teen da"s %ollo*in# the $ompletion o% their publi$ation either in the '%%i$ial <a=ette or in a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation in the Philippines, unless it is other*ise provided.I (e$tion 1@, 3hapter 5, Coo/ I o% 7xe$utive 'rder 9o. 292 or the 0dministrative 3ode o% 19@: similarl" provides that I+a*s shall ta/e e%%e$t a%ter %i%teen 8154 da"s %ollo*in# the $ompletion o% their publi$ation in the '%%i$ial <a=ette or in a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation, unless it is other*ise provided.I .o*ever, several ex$eptions to the re>uirement o% publi$ation, %irst, an interpretative re#ulation does not re>uire publi$ation in order to be e%%e$tive. he appli$abilit" o% an interpretative re#ulation Ineeds nothin# %urther than its bare issuan$e %or it #ives no real $onse>uen$e more than *hat the la* itsel% has alread" pres$ribed.I It Iadds nothin# to the la*I and Idoes not a%%e$t the substantial ri#hts o% an" person.I (e$ond, a re#ulation that is merel" internal in nature does not re>uire publi$ation %or its e%%e$tivit". It see/s to re#ulate onl" the personnel o% the administrative a#en$" and not the #eneral publi$. hird, a letter o% instru$tion issued b" an administrative a#en$" $on$ernin# rules or #uidelines to be %ollo*ed b" subordinates in the per%orman$e o% their duties does not re>uire publi$ation in order to be e%%e$tive.

0) (o..issio"er o- "ter"al Reve"!e vs. &ri.eto6" &ropert4 Gro!p, "c. G.R. No. 162155, A!#!st 2), 2000 Facts: <ilbert Map, vi$e $hair o% respondent Primeto*n Propert" <roup, In$., applied %or the re%und or $redit o% in$ome tax respondent-s paid in 199:. he 3 0 %ound that respondent %iled its %inal adGusted return on 0pril 1), 199@. hus, its ri#ht to $laim a re%und or $redit $ommen$ed on that date. 0$$ordin# to the 3 0, the t*o?"ear pres$riptive period under (e$tion 229 o% the 9IR3 %or the %ilin# o% Gudi$ial $laims *as e>uivalent to :10 da"s. Ce$ause the "ear 2000 *as a leap "ear, respondentNs petition, *hi$h *as %iled :11 da"s a%ter respondent %iled its %inal adGusted return, *as %iled be"ond the pres$ribed period. 'n appeal, the 30 reversed and set aside the de$ision o% the 3 0. It ruled that 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode did not distin#uish bet*een a re#ular "ear and a leap "ear. 0$$ordin# to the 30, even i% the "ear 2000 *as a leap "ear, the periods $overed b" 0pril 15, 199@ to 0pril 1), 1999 and 0pril 15, 1999 to 0pril 1), 2000 should still be $ounted as 1H5 da"s ea$h or a total o% :10 da"s. 0 statute *hi$h is $lear and expli$it shall be neither interpreted nor $onstrued. ss!e: Whether or not the $ountin# o% the 2?"ear pres$riptive period %or %ilin# $laim o% re%und is #overned b" the 3ivil 3ode5 R!li"#: 3ountin# o% 2?"ear period %or %ilin# $laim %or re%und is no lon#er in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rt 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode but under (e$ 11 o% 7' 22: ? he 0dministrative 3ode o% 19@:. In the 3ivil 3ode, *hi$h provides that a "ear is e>uivalent to 1H5 da"s, and the 0dministrative 3ode o% 19@:, *hi$h states that a "ear is $omposed o% 12 $alendar months, it is the latter that must prevail bein# the more re$ent la*, %ollo*in# the le#al maxim, +ex posteriori dero#at priori. In the $ase at bar, there are 2) $alendar months in 2 "ears. Aor a Ainal 3orporate I R %iled on 0pr 1), 199@, the $ountin#

10 should start %rom 0pr 15, 199@ and end on 0pr 1), 2000. he st th pro$edure is 1 month, 0pr 15, 199@ to ,a" 1), 199@, 2) month to ,ar 15, 2000 to 0pr 1), 2000. 9ational ,ar/etin# v. e$son, 119 Phil 5@) 819H94 is no lon#er $ontrollin#. he 2?"ear period should start to run %rom %ilin# o% the %inal adGusted return. We there%ore hold that respondentNs petition 8%iled on 0pril 1), 20004 *as %iled on the last da" o% the 2) th $alendar month %rom the da" respondent %iled its %inal adGusted return. .en$e, it *as %iled *ithin the pres$ribed period )) &eople vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. L70234, 2a4 21, 1955 Facts: 'n Jul" 2:, 1951, an in%ormation *as %iled in the ,uni$ipal 3ourt o% Pasa" 3it" $har#in# Pa= ,. del Rosario *ith sli#ht ph"si$al inGuries $ommitted on ,a" 2@, 1951. he a$$used thereupon presented a motion to >uash the in%ormation on the #round that the o%%ense $har#ed had alread" pres$ribed in a$$ordan$e *ith the provisions o% 0rti$les 90 and 91 o% the Revised Penal 3ode. he muni$ipal $ourt sustained this motion and dismissed the $ase. 0#ainst the order o% dismissal appeal is made dire$tl" to this 3ourt under the provisions o% se$tion 1:, sub?para#raph H o% the Judi$iar" 0$t o% 19)@ as onl" >uestions o% la* are involved in the appeal. ss!e: Whether or not the %illin# %or a li#ht o%%ense had pres$ribed5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that in vie* o% the express provisions o% 0rti$le 11 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode, the term ImonthI used in 0rti$le 90 o% the Revised Penal 3ode should be understood to mean the 10?da" month and not the solar or $ivil month. here%ore, the o%%ense $har#ed in the in%ormation pres$ribed in H0 da"s, said period to be $ounted b" ex$ludin# ,a" 2@, the $ommission o% the o%%ense, and *e %ind that *hen the in%ormation *as %iled on Jul" 2:, 1951 the o%%ense had not "et been pres$ribed be$ause Jul" 2: is the sixtieth da" %rom ,a" 29. 9) D.2. (o"s!"8i, "c. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals

11 G.R. No. 130)03, April 20, 2001 Facts: 0t around 1:10 p.m. on 9ovember 2, 1990, Jose Jue#o, a $onstru$tion *or/er %ell 1) %loors %rom the Renaissan$e o*er, Pasi# 3it", to his death. he poli$e report %iled, b" P'1 Ro#elio Billanueva o% the 7astern Poli$e Distri$t *ho investi#ated the tra#ed", on 9ovember 25, 1990 dis$losed that the vi$tim *as $rushed to death *hen the plat%orm he *as standin# on %ell due to removal o% the pin *hi$h *as merel" inserted to the $onne$tin# points o% the $hain blo$/ and *ithout a sa%et" lo$/. .is *ido*, ,aria Jue#o *ithout /no*led#e o% the %ore#oin#, a$$omplished her appli$ation %or bene%its %rom the 733 on 9ovember 15, 1990, a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst D.,. 3onsunGi, In$. he R 3 and 30 both rendered their de$isions in %avour o% the *ido*, hen$e this appeal. ss!e: Whether or not ,aria Jue#o $an simultaneousl" re$over %rom the emplo"er the %ixed amounts set b" the Wor/men-s 3ompensation 0$t and prose$ute an ordinar" $ivil a$tion a#ainst the emplo"er %or hi#her dama#es5 R!li"#: he de%ense o% ,rs. Jue#o >uali%ies as i#noran$e o% %a$t, havin# no /no*led#e o% the ne#li#en$e on the part o% the emplo"er and the remedies available to her i% she had /no*n o% su$h ne#li#en$e6 there%ore she is not barred %rom %illin# the $ivil a$tion althou#h she had alread" re$eived bene%its %rom the (tate Insuran$e Aund. 10) &eople vs. Gasacao G.R. No. 16)445, Nove.+er 11, 2005 Facts: 0ppellant *as the 3re*in# ,ana#er o% <reat 7astern (hippin# 0#en$" In$., a li$ensed lo$al mannin# a#en$", *hile his nephe* and $o?a$$used, Jose <asa$ao, *as the President. 0s the $re*in# mana#er, appellant-s duties in$luded re$eivin# Gob appli$ations, intervie*in# the appli$ants and in%ormin# them o% the a#en$"-s re>uirement o% pa"ment o% per%orman$e or $ash bond prior to deplo"ment. 'n 0u#ust ), 2000, appellant and Jose <asa$ao *ere $har#ed *ith +ar#e ($ale Ille#al Re$ruitment

12 de%ined under (e$tion H, para#raphs 8a4, 8l4 and 8m4 o% Republi$ 0$t 8R04 9o. @0)2 or the ,i#rant Wor/ers and 'verseas Ailipinos 0$t o% 1995, and penali=ed under (e$tion : 8b4 o% the same la*, be%ore the R 3 o% Kue=on 3it". ss!e: Whether or not appellant $an be held liable %or ille#al re$ruitment even i% he *as a mere emplo"ee o% the mannin# a#en$"5 R!li"#: 3ontrar" to appellant-s $laim, he is not a mere emplo"ee o% the mannin# a#en$" but the $re*in# mana#er. 0s su$h, he re$eives Gob appli$ations, intervie*s appli$ants and in%orms them o% the a#en$"-s re>uirement o% pa"ment o% per%orman$e or $ash bond prior to the appli$ant-s deplo"ment. 0s the $re*in# mana#er, he *as at the %ore%ront o% the $ompan"-s re$ruitment a$tivities. 7ven assumin# that appellant *as a mere emplo"ee, su$h %a$t is not a shield a#ainst his $onvi$tion %or lar#e s$ale ille#al re$ruitment. We held that an emplo"ee o% a $ompan" or $orporation en#a#ed in ille#al re$ruitment ma" be held liable as prin$ipal, to#ether *ith his emplo"er, i% it is sho*n that he a$tivel" and $ons$iousl" parti$ipated in the re$ruitment pro$ess. 11) 9ao :ee vs. 54 Go"/ales G.R. No. L755960, Nove.+er 24, 19)) Facts: (" Jiat, a 3hinese national, died on Januar" 1:, 19:: in 3aloo$an 3it" *here he *as then residin#, leavin# behind real and personal properties here in the Philippines *orth P100,000.00 more or less. herea%ter, 0ida ("?<on=ales, et.al., %iled a petition %or the #rant o% letters o% administration be%ore the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al, Cran$h 11, 3aloo$an 3it". In said petition the" alle#ed amon# others that the" are the $hildren o% the de$eased *ith 0sun$ion <ille#o and the" do not re$o#ni=e (" JiatNs marria#e to Mao Jee nor the %iliation o% her $hildren to him. he petition *as opposed b" Mao Jee, (=e *ho alle#ed that she is the la*%ul *i%e o% (" Jiat *hom he married on Januar" 19, 1911 in 3hina6 the other oppositors are the le#itimate $hildren o% the de$eased *ith Mao Jee. 0%ter hearin#, the probate $ourt, ruled in %avor o% Mao Jee.

13

ss!e: Whether or not (" Jiat-s marria#e *ith Mao Jee is valid5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that to establish a valid %orei#n marria#e t*o thin#s must be proven, namel": 814 the existen$e o% the %orei#n la* as a >uestion o% %a$t6 and 824 the alle#ed %orei#n marria#e b" $onvin$in# eviden$e. he eviden$es presented, prove the fact of marriage bet*een Mao Jee and (" Jiat. .o*ever, the same do not su%%i$e to establish the validit" o% said marria#e in a$$ordan$e *ith 3hinese la* or $ustom. In the $ase at bar petitioners did not present an" $ompetent eviden$e relative to the la* and $ustom o% 3hina on marria#e. Aor %ailure to prove the %orei#n la* or $ustom, and $onse>uentl", the validit" o% the marria#e in a$$ordan$e *ith said la* or $ustom, the marria#e bet*een Mao Jee and (" Jiat $annot be re$o#ni=ed in this Gurisdi$tion. 12) La!rea"o vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 114006 Fe+r!ar4 2, 2000 Facts: In 19:@, ,enandro C. +aureano, then Dire$tor o% Ali#ht 'perations and 3hie% Pilot o% 0ir ,anila, applied %or emplo"ment *ith (in#apore 0irlines +imited. 'n (eptember 10, 19:@, a%ter the usual personal intervie*, he *as o%%ered a $ontra$t o% emplo"ment as an expatriate C?:0: $aptain %or an ori#inal period o% t*o 824 "ears $ommen$in# on Januar" 21, 19:@, and *as subse>uentl" o%%ered an extension to 5 "ears, *hi$h +aureano a$$epted. Durin# his servi$e, sometime in 19@0, he $ommitted a noise violation o%%ense at the Euri$h 0irport and *as involved in a tail s$rapin# in$ident %or *hi$h he *as reprimanded 'n (eptember 25, 19@1, he *as invited to ta/e a $ourse o% 0?100 $onversion trainin# at 0ero%orma$ion, oulouse, Aran$e at the $ompan"-s expense. .avin# su$$ess%ull" $ompleted and passed the trainin# $ourse, +aureano be$ame the $aptain o% the 0irbus 0?100 and subse>uentl" he *as appointed as $aptain o% the 0?100 %leet over (outheast 0sia. (ometime in 19@2, hit b" a re$ession, the $ompan" initiated $ost?$uttin# measures. 0mon# the 1: expatriate $aptains in the

14 0irbus %leet, onl" 12 o% them *ere retained and +aureano *as not one o% them. 0##rieved, on June 29, 19@1, he instituted a $ase %or ille#al dismissal be%ore the +abor 0rbiter. ss!e: Whether or not +aureano-s retren$hment is valid even i% his $ontra$t is *ith a spe$i%ied period5 R!li"#: he 3ourt $annot determine *hether the termination o% the +aureano is le#al under the (in#apore +a*s be$ause o% the %ailure to sho* *hi$h spe$i%i$ la*s o% (in#apore appl" to this $ase. 0lso, the Philippine 3ourts $annot ta/e Gudi$ial noti$e o% the la*s o% (in#apore, sin$e the one *ho $laims the appli$abilit" o% su$h la*s to this $ase has the burden o% proo%, havin# %ailed to do so *arrant the 3ourt to appl" the Philippine la*s. It is a settled rule that $ontra$ts have the %or$e o% la* bet*een the parties. Arom the moment the same is per%e$ted, the parties are bound not onl" to the %ul%ilment o% *hat has been expressl" stipulated but also to all $onse>uen$es *hi$h, a$$ordin# to their nature, ma" be in /eepin# *ith #ood %aith, usa#e and la*. hus, *hen +aureano a$$epted the o%%er o% emplo"ment, he *as bound b" the terms and $onditions set %orth in the $ontra$t, amon# others, the ri#ht o% mutual termination b" #ivin# three months *ritten noti$e or b" pa"ment o% three months- salar". .en$e, the termination *as valid. 13) &'ilippi"e ,;port a"% Forei#" Loa" G!ara"tee (orporatio" vs. <.& ,!se+io (o"str!ctio", "c. G.R. No. 140040, 3!l4 13, 2004 Facts= he (tate 'r#ani=ation o% Cuildin#s 8('C4, ,inistr" o% .ousin# and 3onstru$tion, Ca#hdad, Ira>, a*arded the $onstru$tion o% the Institute o% Ph"si$al herap"&,edi$al Rehabilitation 3enter, Phase II, in Ca#hdad, Ira> to 0G"al radin# and 3ontra$tin# 3ompan", a %irm dul" li$ensed *ith the Ju*ait 3hamber o% 3ommer$e. In 19@1, spouses 7duardo and Iluminada (antos, in behal% o% respondent 1?Plex International, In$., a lo$al $ontra$tor en#a#ed in $onstru$tion business, entered into a Goint venture a#reement *ith 0G"al +ater, 1?Plex, not bein# a$$redited b" or re#istered *ith the Philippine 'verseas 3onstru$tion Coard 8P'3C4, assi#ned and trans%erred all its ri#hts and interests under

15 the Goint venture a#reement to B.P 7usebio 3onstru$tion, In$. 8BP73I4, a $onstru$tion and en#ineerin# %irm dul" re#istered *ith the P'3C. he ('C re>uired the $ontra$tors to submit 814 a per%orman$e bond and 824 an advan$e pa"ment bond. o $ompl" *ith these re>uirements, 1?Plex and BP73I applied %or the issuan$e o% a #uarantee *ith Philippine 7xport and Aorei#n +oan <uarantee 3orporatio 8Phil#uarantee4, a #overnment %inan$ial institution empo*ered to issue #uarantees %or >uali%ied Ailipino $ontra$tors to se$ure the per%orman$e o% approved servi$e $ontra$ts abroad. .o*ever, on ,a" 2,19@1, 1?Plex and BP73I entered into an a#reement that the exe$ution o% the ProGe$t *ould be under their Goint mana#ement. Phil#uarantee sou#ht reimbursement %rom the respondents o% the sum o% mone" it paid to 0l 0hli Can/ o% Ju*ait pursuant to a #uarantee it issued %orm BP73I. ss!e= What la* should be applied in determinin# *hether or not $ontra$tor in Goint venture has de%aulted5 R!li"#= he la*s o% Ira> bears substantial $onne$tion to the transa$tion and sin$e one o% the parties is the Ira>i #overnment and the servi$e $ontra$t bet*een ('C and BP73I $ontains no express $hoi$e o% la*. he pla$e o% per%orman$e is also in Ira>. .en$e, the issue o% *hether BP73I de%aulted ma" be determined b" the la*s o% Ira>. .o*ever sin$e %orei#n la* *as not properl" pleaded or proved, pro$essual presumption *ill appl". 9o $on%li$ts rule on essential validit" o% $ontra$ts is expressl" provided %or in Philippine la*s. he rule %ollo*ed b" most le#al s"stems is that the intrinsi$ validit" o% a $ontra$t must be #overned b" lex $ontra$tus 8proper la* o% the $ontra$t4. his ma" be the la* voluntaril" a#reed upon b" the parties 8lex lo$i voluntatis4 or the la* intended b" them either expressl" or impli$itl" 8lex lo$i intentionis4. he la* sele$ted ma" be implied %rom %a$tors su$h as substantial $onne$tion *ith the transa$tion, or the nationalit" or domi$ile o% the parties. Philippine $ourts allo* the parties to sele$t the la* appli$able to their $ontra$t, subGe$t to the limitation that it is not a#ainst the la*, morals, publi$ poli$" o% the %orum and that the $hosen la* must bear a substantive relationship to the transa$tion.

16

14) Ar!e#o 3r. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 1))056, 3a"!ar4 ), 2013 Facts= 0ntonia 0rue#o and her sister 7vel"n %iled a petition see/in# Jose 0rue#o Jr. and his %ive minor $hildren to re$o#ni=e them as ille#itimate $hildren and $ompulsor" heirs o% Jose 0rue#o Jr. *ho *as alread" dead. he" $laim there is open and $ontinuous possession o% status o% $hildren o% Jose 0rue#o Jr. *ho had an amorous relationship *ith 0ntonia and 7vel"n-s mother +u= Aabian until the time o% his death. he 3ourt de$lared that 0ntonia 0rue#o *as the ille#itimate dau#hter o% the de$eased *ith +u= Aabian *hile 7vel"n is not. he le#itimate heirs o% 0rue#o $ontested the de$ision $itin# 0rti$le 1:2 o% the 9e* Aamil" 3ode, it is provided that an a$tion %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition o% ille#itimate %iliation, i% based on the Iopen and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% an ille#itimate $hild,I must be brou#ht durin# the li%etime o% the alle#ed parent *ithout an" ex$eption, other*ise the a$tion *ill be barred b" pres$ription. ss!e= 3an the Aamil" 3ode be applied retroa$tivel"5 R!li"#= 9o. he present la* $annot be #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t as its appli$ation *ill preGudi$e the vested ri#ht o% 0ntonia 0rue#o to have her $ase de$ided under 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode *hi$h provides: he a$tion %or the re$o#nition o% natural $hildren ma" be brou#ht onl" durin# the li%etime o% the presumed parents, ex$ept in the %ollo*in# $ases: 814 I% the %ather or mother died durin# the minorit" o% the $hild, in *hi$h $ase the latter ma" %ile the a$tion be%ore the expiration o% %our "ears %rom the attainment o% his maGorit". he ri#ht *as vested to her b" the %a$t that she %iled her a$tion under the re#ime o% the 3ivil 3ode. Pre$edin# %rom this, the $on$lusion then ou#ht to be that the a$tion *as not "et barred, not*ithstandin# the %a$t that it *as brou#ht *hen the putative %ather *as alread" de$eased, sin$e private respondent *as then still a minor *hen it *as %iled, an ex$eption to the #eneral rule provided under 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode. 15) 1er"a+e vs. Ale8o

10 G.R. No. 140500, 3a"!ar4 21, 2002 Facts= Ais$al 7rnesto Cernabe alle#edl" %athered a son *ith his se$retar", 3arolina 0leGo. he son *as born and *as named 0drian Cernabe. Ais$al died as *ell as his le#itimate *i%e, leavin# 7rnestina Cernabe the sole survivin# heir. 3arolina, in behal% o% her son, %iled a $omplaint pra"in# that 0drian be de$lared an a$/no*led#ed $hild o% the de$eased and also be #iven the share o% Cernabe-s estate. R 3 dismissed the $omplaint and that the death o% the putative %ather had barred the a$tion. 30 ruled that 0drian be allo*ed to prove that he *as the ille#itimate son o% Ais$al Cernabe. Petitioner 7rnestina averred 30-s rulin# to be o% error due to R 3-s rulin# based on 0rti$le 1:5. ss!e= Does 3arolina 0leGo has a $ause o% a$tion to %ile a $ase a#ainst 7rnestina %or re$o#nition and partition *ith a$$ountin# a%ter the putative %ather-s death in the absen$e o% an" *ritten a$/no*led#ment o% paternit" b" 7rnesto Cernabe5 R!li"#= Mes. 0rt 2@5 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that an a$tion %or the re$o#nition o% an ille#itimate $hild must be brou#ht *ithin the li%etime o% the alle#ed parent and the Aamil" 3ode ma/es no distin$tion on *hether the %ormer *as still a minor *hen the putative parent died. hus, the putative parent is #iven b" the ne* 3ode a $han$e to dispute the $laim, $onsiderin# that ille#itimate $hildren are usuall" be#otten and raised in se$re$" and *ithout the le#itimate %amil" bein# a*are o% their existen$e. he putative parent should thus be #iven the opportunit" to a%%irm or den" the $hild-s %iliation, and this, he or she $annot do i% he or she is alread" dead.! 9onetheless, the Aamil" 3ode provides the $aveat that ri#hts that have alread" vested prior to its ena$tment should not be preGudi$ed or impaired as %ollo*s: 0R . 255. his 3ode shall have retroa$tive e%%e$t inso%ar as it does not preGudi$e or impair vested or a$>uired ri#hts in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3ivil 3ode or other la*s.!

1) 16) &'ilippi"e Deposit "s!ra"ce (orporatio" 5toc>'ol%ers o- "tercit4 5avi"#s a"% Loa" 1a">, "c. G.R. No. 1)1556, Dece.+er 14, 2009 vs.

Facts= he 3entral Can/ o% the Philippines, no* Can#/o (entral n# Pilipinas 8C(P4, %iled a Petition %or 0ssistan$e in the +i>uidation o% Inter$it" (avin#s and +oan Can/, In$. 8Inter$it" Can/4 alle#in# that, inter alia, said ban/ *as alread" insolvent and its $ontinuan$e in business *ould involve probable loss to depositors, $reditors and the #eneral publi$. Aindin# the petition su%%i$ient in %orm and substan$e, the trial $ourt #ave it due $ourse. Petitioner Philippine Deposit Insuran$e 3orporation 8PDI34 *as eventuall" substituted as the therein petitioner, li>uidator o% Inter$it" Can/. hen, Republi$ 0$t 9o. 9102 8R0 91024 *as ena$ted, (e$tion 12 o% *hi$h provides that a%ter the pa"ment o% all liabilities and $laims a#ainst the $losed ban/, the 3orporation shall pa" an" surplus dividends at the le#al rate o% interest, %rom date o% ta/eover to date o% distribution, to $reditors and $laimants o% the $losed ban/ in a$$ordan$e *ith le#al priorit" be%ore distribution to the shareholders o% the $losed ban/. Pursuant to this PDI3 %iled a ,otion %or 0pproval o% the Ainal Distribution o% 0ssets and ermination o% the +i>uidation Pro$eedin#s. he trial $ourt #ranted the motion %or the approval o% the Ainal ProGe$t o% Distribution and %or authorit" %or PDI3 to hold as trustee the li>uidatin# and surplus dividends allo$ated . . . %or $reditors! o% Inter$it" Can/. ss!e= 3an (e$tion 12 o% R0 9102 applied retroa$tivel" in order to entitle Inter$it" Can/ $reditors to surplus dividends5 R!li"#= 9o. R0 9102 $annot be #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t absent a provision providin# %or it. (tatutes are prospe$tive and not retroa$tive in their operation, the" bein# the %ormulation o% rules %or the %uture, not the past. .en$e, the le#al maxim lex de %uturo, Gudex de praeterito O the la* provides %or the %uture, the Gud#e %or the past, *hi$h is arti$ulated in 0rti$le ) o% the 3ivil 3ode: +a*s shall have no retroa$tive e%%e$t, unless the $ontrar" is provided.! he reason %or the rule is the tenden$" o% retroa$tive le#islation to be unGust and oppressive on a$$ount

19 o% its liabilit" to unsettle vested ri#hts or disturb the le#al e%%e$t o% prior transa$tions.

10) 2o"ta"e/ vs. (ipria"o G.R. No. 1)10)9, *cto+er 22, 2012 Facts= +ourdes 3ipriano married (o$rates Alores in 0/lan in 19:H6 durin# the subsisten$e o% the marria#e she married a#ain (ilverio 3ipriano in +a#una in 19@1. In 2001, +ourdes %iled a Petition %or annulment o% her marria#e *ith (o$rates Alores on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he trial $ourt rendered that the marria#e o% +ourdes and (o$rates *as null and void on 2001. 'n 200), ,erlinda 3ipriano ,ontane=, (ilverio-s dau#hter %rom the %irst marria#e %iled a $omplaint %or bi#am" a#ainst +ourdes and atta$hed to the $omplaint an 0%%idavit alle#in# that +ourdes %ailed to reveal to (ilverio that she *as married to (o$rates. In 200: durin# her arrai#nment, +ourdes $laimed that she is not #uilt" *ith bi#am" sin$e her marria#e *ith (o$rates has been de$lared null and void in 2001. +ourdes also $laimed that the a$tion o% sin$e she $ontra$ted her %irst marria#e in 19:H be%ore the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode6 that the petition o% annulment *as #ranted and be$ame %inal be%ore the $riminal $omplaint o% bi#am" *as %iled6 and that 0rt. )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h provides he absolute nullit" o% a previous marria#e ma" be invo/ed %or purposes o% remarria#e on the basis solel" o% a %inal Gud#ment de$larin# su$h previous marria#e void!, $annot be #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t be$ause her ri#ht to remarr" *ithout the need %or de$laration o% a $omplete nullit" o% prior marria#e. ss!e= (hould the Aamil" 3ode not be #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t sin$e it *ill impair the ri#ht o% +ourdes to remarr"5 R!li"#= 9o. In 0tien=a v. Crillantes Jr, the 3ourt alread" made the de$laration that 0rt. )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h is a rule o% pro$edure should be applied retroa$tivel" be$ause 0rt. 25H o% the Aamil" 3ode provide that the 3ode shall have retroa$tive e%%e$t

20 inso%ar as it does not impair the vested or a$>uired ri#ht. In Cobis v. Cobis, the 3ourt pointed out the dan#er o% not en%or$in# the provisions o% 0rt. )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode, in the $ase at bar the respondent-s intent to obtain a Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% the marria#e and prevent prose$ution *ith bi#am". 'ther*ise, all adventitious bi#amist *ill disre#ard 0rt. )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode $ontra$t a subse>uent marria#e and es$ape bi#am" $har#e and $laim the presumption that the %irst marria#e is void.

1)) Dac!%ao vs. 5ecretar4 o- 3!stice G.R. No. 1))056, 3a"!ar4 ), 2013 Facts= (pouses 0u#usto and '%elia Da$udao *ere amon# the investors *hom 3elso Delos 0n#eles, Jr. and his asso$iates in the +e#a$" <roup o% 3ompanies 8+e#a$" <roup4 alle#edl" de%rauded throu#h the +e#a$"-s <roup-s bu" ba$/ a#reement! that earned them $he$/s that *ere dishonored. 0%ter *ritten demands %or return o% investments, the" initiated number o% $har#es o% esta%a a#ainst Delos 0n#eles et al. he (e$retar" o% Justi$e then issued Department o% Justi$e 8D'J4 'rder 9o. 1@2 8D' 9o. 1@24, dire$tin# all Re#ional (tate Prose$utors, and 3it" Prose$utors to %or*ard all $ases alread" %iled a#ainst Delos 0n#eles to the (e$retariat o% the D'J (pe$ial Panel in ,anila %or appropriate %un$tion. Pursuant to D' 9o. 1@2, the $omplaints o% petitioners *ere %or*arded b" the '%%i$e o% the 3it" Prose$utor o% Davao 3it" to the (e$retariat o% the (pe$ial Panel o% the D'J. 0##rieved b" su$h turn o% events, (pouses Da$udao have dire$tl" $ome to the 3ourt via petition %or $ertiorari, prohibition and mandamus, as$ribin# to respondent (e$retar" o% Justi$e #rave abuse o% dis$retion in issuin# D' 9o. 1@2. he" assert that the assailed issuan$es should $over onl" %uture $ases a#ainst Delos 0n#eles, Jr., et al., not those alread" bein# investi#ated. he" maintain that D' 9o. 1@2 *as issued in violation o% the prohibition a#ainst passin# la*s *ith retroa$tive e%%e$t. ss!e= Is D' 9o. 1@2 issued in violation o% the prohibition a#ainst passin# la*s *ith retroa$tive e%%e$t5

21

R!li"#= 9o. 0s a #eneral rule, la*s shall have no retroa$tive e%%e$t. .o*ever, ex$eptions exist, and one su$h ex$eption $on$erns a la* that is pro$edural in nature. he reason is that a remedial statute or a statute relatin# to remedies or modes o% pro$edure does not $reate ne* ri#hts or ta/e a*a" vested ri#hts but onl" operates in %urtheran$e o% the remed" or the $on%irmation o% alread" existin# ri#hts. 0 statute or rule re#ulatin# the pro$edure o% the $ourts *ill be $onstrued as appli$able to a$tions pendin# and undetermined at the time o% its passa#e. 0ll pro$edural la*s are retroa$tive in that sense and to that extent. he retroa$tive appli$ation is not violative o% an" ri#ht o% a person *ho ma" %eel adversel" a%%e$ted, %or, veril", no vested ri#ht #enerall" atta$hes to or arises %rom pro$edural la*s.

19) 2ic'ael (. G!4 vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 163000, 5epte.+er 15, 2006 Facts: 'n '$tober 29, 1992, (ima Wei a/a Ru%ino <u" (usim died intestate leavin# an estate $onsistin# o% real and personal properties *orth Php 10,000,000.00. .is /no*n heirs are his survivin# spouse, (hirle" <u", and his $hildren, 7m", Jeanne, <eor#e and ,i$hael, all surnamed <u". 'n June 21, 199:, private respondent?minors Jaren and Jamille 'anes Wei, the ille#itimate $hildren o% the de$edent and represented b" their mother Remedios 'anes, %iled a petition %or letters o% administration %or the intestate estate o% (ima Wei. 'n the other hand, petitioner and his $o?heirs pra"ed %or the dismissal o% the petition on the #rounds that private respondent-s $laim o% the de$edent-s estate had been paid, *aived, abandoned or other*ise extin#uished b" the si#nin# o% Remedios o% Release and Waiver o% 3laim. he R 3 denied the motion to dismiss o% the petitioner and ruled that the si#ned Release and Waiver o% 3laim did not establish that Remedios *as the dul" $onstituted #uardian o% her minor $hildren. hus, no renun$iation o% ri#ht had o$$urred. 0lso, the 30 denied petitioner-s motion %or re$onsideration.

22

ss!e: Whether or not, the Release and Waiver o% 3laim pre$ludes private respondent %rom $laimin# their su$$essional ri#hts5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that Remedios- Release and Waiver o% 3laim does not bar private respondents %rom $laimin# their su$$essional ri#hts. o be valid and e%%e$tive, a *aiver must be $ou$hed in $lear and une>uivo$al terms *hi$h leave no doubt as to the intention o% a part" to #ive up a ri#ht or bene%it *hi$h le#all" pertains to him. 0 *aiver ma" not be attributed to a person *hen its terms do not expli$itl" and $learl" evin$e intent to abandon a ri#ht. In this $ase, there *as no *aiver o% hereditar" ri#hts. he said *aiver does not state *ith $larit" the purpose o% its exe$ution. It merel" states that Remedios re$eived Php 100,000.00 and an edu$ational plan %or her minor dau#hters b" *a" o% %inan$ial assistan$e and in %ull settlement o% an" and all $laims o% *hatsoever nature and /ind x x x a#ainst the estate o% the late Ru%ino <u" (usim.! 3onsiderin# that the do$ument did not spe$i%i$all" mention private respondent-s hereditar" share in the estate o% (ima Wei, it $annot be $onstrued as a *aiver o% su$$essional ri#hts. 20) F.F. (r!/ ? (o., "c. vs. @R (o"str!ctio" (orp. G.R. No. 1)0521, 2arc' 14, 2012 Facts: In 200), petitioner AA33I entered into a $ontra$t *ith the Department o% Publi$ Wor/s and .i#h*a"s 8DPW.4 %or the $onstru$tion o% the ,a#sa"sa" Biadu$t. (ubse>uentl", it also entered into a (ub$ontra$t 0#reement *ith respondent .R33 and as stipulated in the said a#reement, .R33 *ould submit to AA33I a monthl" pro#ress billin# *hi$h in$ludes pro#ress a$$omplishment o% its $ompleted *or/s and *hi$h the latter *ould then pa". he" also a#reed to $ondu$t a Goint measurement o% the $ompleted *or/s o% .R33 *ith DPW. and $onsultants to arrive at $ommon >uantit". .R33 $ommen$ed the $onstru$tion and therea%ter submitted their monthl" billin#s6 ho*ever, AA33I paid onl" an approved amount based on the Goint evaluation b" AA33I and DPW. o% the

23 $ompleted *or/s o% .R33. Due to the in$onsisten$ies in pa"ment, .R33 sent a letter to AA33I demandin# the pa"ment o% the unpaid balan$e o% their monthl" pro#ress billin#s and subse>uentl" halted the $onstru$tion o% the sub$ontra$ted proGe$t. 'n ,ar$h 1:, 2005, respondent .R33 %iled a $omplaint be%ore 3onstru$tion Industr" 0rbitration 3ommission 83I034 %or the pa"ment o% unpaid obli#ation o% AA3I. In its 0ns*er, AA33I $laimed that it alread" paid the amount due based on .R33-s a$tual $ompleted *or/s and %urther maintained that .R33 %ailed to $ompl" *ith the $ondition be%ore the pa"ment o% pro#ress *hi$h *as stipulated in their (ub$ontra$t 0#reement, that is, their Goint measurement o% the $ompleted *or/s. 0%ter due pro$eedin#s, the 3I03 rendered a de$ision in %avor o% .R33 and demanded AA33I to pa" the balan$e o% unpaid billin#s and other indemnities on the #round that the latter had alread" *aived its ri#ht o% Goint >uanti%i$ation under the (ub$ontra$t 0#reement. (ubse>uentl", the 30 a%%irmed 3I03-s de$ision. ss!e: Whether or not, AA33I-s %ailure to demand Goint measurement to .R33-s $ompleted *or/s e%%e$tivel" *aived its ri#ht to do so5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that AA33I *aived its ri#ht to demand Goint measurement. 0s explained in People v. Donato, the Do$trine o% *aiver extends to ri#hts and privile#es o% an" $hara$ter, and sin$e the *ord *aiver! $overs ever" $on$eivable ri#ht. It is the #eneral rule that a person ma" *aive an" matter *hi$h a%%e$ts his propert" and an" alienable ri#ht or privile#e o% *hi$h he is the o*ner or *hi$h belon#s to him or to *hi$h he is le#all" entitled, *hether se$ured b" $onta$t . . . provided that su$h ri#hts and privile#es rest in the individual, are intended %or his sole bene%it, do not in%rin#e on the ri#hts o% others, and %urther provided the *aiver o% the ri#ht or privile#e is not %orbidden b" la*, and does not $ontravene publi$ poli$" x x x. In this $ase, it is undisputed that the Goint measurement o% .R33-s $ompleted *or/s never materiali=ed. Indeed, .R33 submitted monthl" pro#ress billin#s *hi$h AA33I did not $ontest

24 despite the la$/ o% a Goint measurement as stipulated in their (ub$ontra$t 0#reement but instead the latter pro$eeded to $ondu$t its veri%i$ation o% the a$tual $ompleted *or/s o% .R33 and paid the latter based on its o*n veri%i$ation. AA33I-s voluntar" pa"ment to .R33 indi$ates that it had e%%e$tivel" *aived its ri#ht to demand %or the Goint measurement o% the $ompleted *or/s. Its %ailure to demand a Goint measurement o% .R33-s $ompleted *or/s reasonabl" Gusti%ied the in%eren$e that it had alread" relin>uished its ri#ht to do so. 21) &eople o- t'e &'ilippi"es vs. ,%6i" 2orial G.R. No. 129295, A!#!st 15, 2001 Facts: 'n Januar" H, 199H, appellants herein robbed and /illed Paula Candibas and 0lbert Candibas in their d*ellin#. he next da", appellants 7d*in ,orial 87d*in4 and +eonardo ,orial 8+eonardo4 *ere invited in the poli$e station %or %urther investi#ation. here, the" *ere interro#ated, boxed and tortured b" the poli$emen. Due to the a$ts o% poli$emen, +eonardo admitted that 9onelito 0binon and 7d*in *ere responsible %or the death o% the vi$tims and his statements *ere redu$ed into *ritin#. .e *as brou#ht to a $ounsel and exe$uted extra?Gudi$ial $on%ession6 ho*ever, in the $ourt, +eonardo $laimed that he merel" made up all the statement in the do$ument be$ause he *as a%raid and that he *as %or$ed and intimidated to do su$h a$t. here%ore, the R 3 rendered a de$ision $onvi$tin# all the three a$$used *here their $onvi$tion rest on the extra?Gudi$ial $on%ession o% appellant +eonardo ,orial and the testimonies o% the *itnesses. ss!e: Whether or not, appellant +eonardo ,orial validl" *aived his $onstitutional ri#ht to $ounsel and ri#ht to remain silent *hen he made the extra?Gudi$ial $on%ession5 R!li"#: he 3ourt %inds +eonardo ,orial-s extra?Gudi$ial $on%ession invalid sin$e he *as e%%e$tivel" deprived o% his ri#ht to $ounsel durin# the $ustodial investi#ation. 0 person under $ustodial investi#ation is #uaranteed $ertain ri#hts, *hi$h atta$h upon $ommen$ement thereo%. hese are the ri#hts to remain

25 silent, to $ompetent and independent $ounsel, pre%erabl" o% his o*n $hoi$e, and to be in%ormed o% the t*o other ri#hts. he prose$ution must prove *ith $lear and $onvin$in# eviden$e that the a$$used *as a$$orded said ri#hts be%ore he extra?Gudi$iall" admitted his #uilt to the authorities. In $onne$tion thereo%, the 3ourt has stressed that an a$$used under $ustodial interro#ation must $ontinuousl" have $ounsel assistin# him %rom the ver" start thereo%. In this $ase, the ri#ht o% appellant to $ounsel *as $ompletel" ne#ated b" the pre$ipitate departure o% his $ounsel be%ore the termination o% the $ustodial investi#ation. 7ven #rantin# that appellant $onsented to his $ounsel-s departure durin# the investi#ation and to ans*er >uestions durin# the la*"er-s absen$e, su$h $onsent *as an invalid *aiver o% his ri#ht to $ounsel and his ri#ht to remain silent. Fnder (e$tion 12 814, 0rti$le III o% the 3onstitution, these ri#hts $annot be *aived unless the same is made in *ritin# and in the presen$e o% $ounsel. 9o su$h *ritten and $ounseled *aiver o% these ri#hts *as o%%ered in eviden$e and even thou#h the extra?Gudi$ial $on%ession *as subse>uentl" si#ned in the presen$e o% $ounsel, it is still %la*ed under the 3onstitution. 22) ( R vs. &ri.eto6" &ropert4 Gro!p, "c. <.R. 9o. 1H2155, 0u#ust 2@, 200: Facts: 'n ,ar$h 11, 1999, Bi$e 3hairman <ilbert Map o% Primeto*n Propert" <roup, In$. applied %or a tax re%und or tax $redit to the Cureau o% Internal Revenue $laimin# that it had su%%ered losses durin# 199: hen$e it *as not liable %or in$ome taxes, nevertheless, respondent paid its taxes due on that "ear. Respondent *as re>uired to submit do$uments to support its $laim *hi$h it $omplied *ith on ,a" 11, but su$h $laim *as not a$ted upon so an appeal *as %iled in the 3ourt o% ax 0ppeals on 0pril 1), 2000. he 3 0 dismissed the petition as it *as %iled be"ond the t*o & "ear pres$riptive period %or %illin# a Gudi$ial $laim %or tax re%und or $redit, $ommen$in# %rom the time o% the %illin# o% the %inal adGusted return. ss!e: Whether or not 7.'. 292 repealed 0rt. 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode5

26

@el%: he repealin# $lause o% 7.'. 292, other*ise /no*n as the 0dministrative 3ode o% 19@:, is that o% implied repeal!. Implied repeals, ho*ever, are not %avoured unless it must have been $learl" and unmista/abl" intended b" the le#islature. he test is *hether the subse>uent la* en$ompasses entirel" the subGe$t matter o% the %ormer la* and the" $annot be lo#i$all" or reasonabl" re$on$iled. Coth 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode and (e$tion 11 o% 7.'. 292 deal *ith the same subGe$t matter O the $omputation o% le#al periods. Fnder the %ormer, a "ear is e>uivalent to 1H5 da"s *hether it be a re#ular "ear or a leap "ear *hile under the latter, a "ear is $omposed o% 12 $alendar months, re#ardless o% the number o% da"s. here obviousl" exists a mani%est in$ompatibilit" in the manner o% $omputin# le#al periods under, hen$e, (e$tion 11, bein# the more re$ent la*, #overns the $omputation o% le#al periods under lex posteriori derogat priori. 23) (ari%a% 2a#>alas vs. Natio"al @o!si"# A!t'orit4 G.R. No. 13))23, 5epte.+er 10, 200) Facts: 'n ,ar$h 2H, 19:@, PD 1115 *as issued expropriatin# $ertain lots at Ca#on# Carrio, 3aloo$an 3it" *hi$h made the respondent 9ational .ousin# 0uthorit" 89.04 as 0dministrator o% the Ca#on# Carrio Fban Cliss ProGe$t. 0%ter $ondu$tin# studies in the area, the 9.0 determined that the area *here plainti%%-s stru$ture is lo$ated should be $lassi%ied as an area $enter and there%ore, she *as dire$ted to va$ate the premises and dismantle the stru$ture. Plainti%% %iled an appeal %rom the de$ision to desi#nate their area as an area $enter6 ho*ever, the 9.0 denied her appeal and in%ormed her that she *as subGe$t %or relo$ation. (he then %iled %or a 3omplaint %or Dama#es and pra"ed %or the issuan$e o% a restrainin# order and *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion a#ainst the 9.0. he 3ourt dismissed the $ivil $ase and instru$ted the parties to exhaust the administrative remedies available to the plainti%%. In ,ar$h 199), the plainti%% *as advised that her previous re>uest *as denied per resolution o% 9.0 and she *as told to remove the stru$ture *ith 10 da"s and trans%er to her desi#nated relo$ation area. he 9.0 also stressed that Judi$ial 'rder is not re>uired to remove her stru$ture in pursuant

20 to PD 1):2. 0dditionall", the plainti%% pra"s that de%endants be enGoined %rom trans%errin# plainti%% to her relo$ation area and demolishin# her house *ithout Judi$ial 'rder. herea%ter, the 3ourt issued R' a#ainst de%endants but denied the plainti%%-s pra"er %or the issuan$e o% *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion. he 30 also denied plainti%%-s appeal. ss!e: Whether or not, R0 no. :2:9 other*ise /no*n as the Frban Development 0$t o% 1992 impliedl" repeal PD 1115 and PD 1):25 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that R0 :2:9 does not ne$essaril" repeal PD 1115 and PD 1):2 as it does not $ontain an" provision *hi$h $ate#ori$all" and expressl" repeals the provisions o% PD 1115 and PD 1):2. 9either $ould there be an implied repeal %or there is no irre$on$ilable $on%li$t or repu#nan$" bet*een (e$tion 2@ o% R0 :2:9, PD 1115 and PD 1):2, rather, the" $an be read to#ether and harmoni=ed to #ive e%%e$t to their provisions. he" also stressed that (e$tion 2@ o% R0 :2:9 does not totall" and absolutel" prohibit evi$tion and demolition *ithout a Gudi$ial order as in %a$t it provides %or ex$eptions. he three 814 statutes should be $onstrued in li#ht o% the obGe$tive to be a$hieved and the evil or mis$hie% to be suppressed b" the said la*s, and the" should be #iven su$h $onstru$tion as *ill advan$e the obGe$t, suppress the mis$hie%, and se$ure the bene%its intended. he" also note that the three la*s have $ommon obGe$tive *hi$h is to address the housin# problems o% the $ountr" b" establishin# a $omprehensive urban development and housin# pro#ram %or the homeless. Aor this reason, the need to harmoni=e these la*s all the more be$omes imperative. 24) 2a8or Ge"eral (arlos Garcia vs. 5a"%i#a"+a4a" G.R. No. 165)35, 3!"e 22, 2005 Facts: 'n (eptember 2:, 200), 0tt". ,aria 'livia Roxas, <ra%t Investi#ation and Prose$ution '%%i$er o% the Aield Investi#ation '%%i$e o% the '%%i$e o% the 'mbudsman, a%ter due investi#ation, %iled a $omplaint a#ainst <ar$ia %or violation o% (e$tion @ o% R0 H:11 other*ise /no*n as the 3ode o% 3ondu$t o% 7thi$al

2) (tandards %or Publi$ '%%i$ials and 7mplo"ees, 0rti$le 1@1 o% the Revised Penal 3ode, (e$tion 52 8a4 814, 814 P 8204 o% the 3ivil (ervi$e +a*. .is *i%e and three sons *ere impleaded %or violation o% R0 11:9 inso%ar as the" a$ted as $onspirators, $onduits, dummies and %ronts o% petitioner in re$eivin#, a$$umulatin#, usin# and disposin# o% ill?#otten *ealth. 0 petition *ith veri%ied ur#ent ex parte appli$ation %or the issuan$e o% a *rit o% preliminar" atta$hment *as %iled b" 'mbudsman be%ore the (andi#anba"an a#ainst <ar$ia, his *i%e and three sons see/in# the %or%eiture o% unla*%ull" a$>uired properties under (e$. 2 o% R.0. 9o. 11:9, as amended. 'mbudsman, a%ter $ondu$tin# in>uir" has determined a prima %a$ie $ase exists a#ainst <ar$ia sin$e durin# his in$umben$" as a soldier and publi$ o%%i$er he a$>uired hu#e amounts o% mone" and properties mani%estl" out o% proportion to his salar" as su$h publi$ o%%i$er and his other la*%ul in$ome & (andi#anba"an #ranted the petition and issued a *rit o% preliminar" atta$hment. <ar$ia %iled a ,otion to Dismiss then a petition that the (andi#anba"an la$/ proper Gurisdi$tion over %or%eiture pro$eedin#s under R0 11:9 and should be in the Gurisdi$tion o% the R 3 as provided b" la*. Petitioner also $ontends that the (andi#anba"an-s Gurisdi$tion in 3ivil 0$tions pertains onl" to separate a$tions %or re$over" o% unla*%ull" a$>uired propert" a#ainst President ,ar$os, his %amil", and $ronies. 0nd that (andi#anba"an prin$ipall" intended as a $riminal $ourt and that the (andi#anba"an has no Gurisdi$tion over an" separate $ivil a$tion a#ainst him, even i% su$h separate $ivil a$tion is %or re$over" o% unla*%ull" a$>uired propert" under R.0. 9o. 11:9. ss!es: a. Whether or not, the (andi#anba"an has Gurisdi$tion over petitions %or %or%eiture under R.0. 9o. 11:95 b. Whether or not the '%%i$e o% the 'mbudsman has the authorit" to investi#ate, initiate and prose$ute su$h petitions %or %or%eiture5 R!li"#: Fnder R0 @2)9, the (andi#anba"an is vested *ith ex$lusive ori#inal Gurisdi$tion in all $ases involvin# violations o% R0 1019, R0 11:9 and 3hapter II, (e$. 2, itle BII, Coo/ II o% the

29 Revised Penal 3ode, *here one or more o% the a$$used are o%%i$ials o$$up"in# positions *hether in a permanent, a$tin# or interim $apa$it", at the time o% the $ommission o% the o%%ense and the petitioner-s position *hi$h is in$luded in the Philippine arm" and air %or$e $olonels, naval $aptains, and all o%%i$ers o% hi#her ran/, belon#s to the o$$up"in# positions mentioned b" R0 9o. @2)9, there%ore the (andi#anba"an has $ompetent Gurisdi$tion over the petitioner. he 'mbudsman a$ted *ithin its authorit". he authorit" o% the 'mbudsman to investi#ate, initiate and prose$ute petitions %or %or%eiture is #ranted *ith the ena$tment o% R0 H::0, (e$tion 15 par. 11 *hi$h authori=es the ombudsman to initiate the proper a$tion %or the re$over" o% ill?#otten andLor unexplained *ealth amassed and the prose$ution o% the parties involved therein.! here%ore, it is the 'mbudsman *ho should %ile the petition %or %or%eiture under R0 11:9 but is restri$ted onl" to $ases %or the re$over" o% ill?#otten andLor unexplained *ealth amassed a%ter Aebruar" 25, 19@H. he po*ers o% the ombudsman in$ludes the po*er to investi#ate and prose$ute on its o*n or on $omplaint b" an" person, an" a$t or omission o% an" publi$ o%%i$er or emplo"ee, o%%i$e or a#en$", *hen su$h a$t or omission appears to be ille#al, unGust, improper or ine%%i$ient. It has primar" Gurisdi$tion over $ases $o#ni=able b" the (andi#anba"an and, in the exer$ise o% this primar" Gurisdi$tion, ma" ta/e over, at an" sta#e, %rom an" investi#ator" a#en$" o% <overnment, the investi#ation o% su$h $ases. 25) 1e"8a.i" $i"# vs. (ar.e" <ele/7$i"# G.R. No. 166562, 2arc' 31, 2009 Facts: 'n Jul" 2H, 19:5, petitioner CenGamin in# and respondent 3armen Bele=? in# #ot married in 3ebu 3it". he" be#ot six 8H4 $hildren. .o*ever, a%ter bein# married %or more than 1@ "ears, 3armen %iled a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e based on 0rti$le 1H o% the 3ivil 3ode. (he $laimed that CenGamin-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" mani%ested throu#h his al$oholism, violent nature, $ompulsive #amblin# habit and %or his bein# immature and irresponsible as the %ather o% their %amil". 'n Januar" 9, 199@, the R 3 rendered a de$ision and de$lared their marria#e null and void. 0##rieved, CenGamin

30 appealed to the 30 *hi$h reversed R 3-s de$ision on the #round that the lo*er $ourt-s de$ision is $ontrar" to the #uidelines set %orth in (antos v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals and in Republi$ o% the Philippines v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals and ,olina. Ce$ause o% this, 3armen %iled %or a motion %or re$onsideration holdin# that the ,olina #uidelines should not be applied in the $ase sin$e it *as promul#ated more than %ive "ears a%ter she had %iled her petition *ith the R 3 and there%ore, $annot be applied retroa$tivel" that *ould run $ounter to the prin$iple o% stare decisis. he 30 denied the said motion. herea%ter, she %iled a petition %or $ertiorari *here the (upreme 3ourt #ranted the petition and dire$ted to the 30 to resolve 3armen-s motion %or re$onsideration. here%ore, 30 reversed its previous rulin# and sustained R 3-s de$ision. ss!e: Whether or not, the 30 violated the rule on stare decisis *hen it re%use to %ollo* #uidelines set %orth under (antos and ,olina $ase5 R!li"#: he prin$iple o% stare decisis enGoins adheren$e b" lo*er $ourts to do$trinal rules established b" this 3ourt in its %inal de$isions. It is based on the prin$iple that on$e a >uestion o% la* has been examined and de$ided, it should be deemed settled and $losed to %urther ar#ument. Casi$all", it is a bar to an" attempt to reliti#ate the same issues, ne$essar" %or t*o simple reasons: e$onom" and stabilit". In our Gurisdi$tion, the prin$iple is entren$hed in 0rti$le @ o% the 3ivil 3ode. In this $ase, respondent-s ar#ument that the do$trinal #uidelines pres$ribed in Santos and Molina should not be applied retroa$tivel" %or bein# $ontrar" to the prin$iple o% stare decisis is no lon#er ne*. he same ar#ument *as also raised but *as stru$/ do*n in Pesca v. Pesca, and a#ain in Antonio v. eyes. In these $ases, *e explained that the interpretation or $onstru$tion o% a la* b" $ourts $onstitutes a part o% the la* as o% the date the statute is ena$ted. It is onl" *hen a prior rulin# o% this 3ourt is overruled, and a di%%erent vie* is adopted, that the ne* do$trine ma" have to be applied prospe$tivel" in %avor o% parties *ho have relied on the old do$trine and have a$ted in #ood %aith, in a$$ordan$e there*ith under the %amiliar rule o% lex prospicit, non respicit.!

31 26) Ne#ros Navi#atio" (o., "c. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 11039), Nove.+er 0, 1990 Facts: In 0pril o% 19@0, private respondent Ramon ,iranda pur$hased %rom the 9e#ros 9avi#ation 3o., In$. %our spe$ial $abin ti$/ets 8Q:))11, :))12, :))11 and :))1)4 %or his *i%e, dau#hter, son and nie$e *ho *ere #oin# to Ca$olod 3it" to attend a %amil" reunion. he ti$/ets *ere %or Bo"a#e 9o. )5:?0 o% the ,LB Don Juan, leavin# ,anila at 1:00 p.m. on 0pril 22, 19@0. he ship sailed %rom the port o% ,anila on s$hedule. 0t about 10:10 in the evenin# o% 0pril 22, 19@0, the Don Juan $ollided o%% the ablas (trait in ,indoro, *ith the ,L a$loban 3it", an oil tan/er o*ned b" the Philippine 9ational 'il 3ompan" 8P9'34 and the P9'3 (hippin# and ransport 3orporation 8P9'3L( 34. 0s a result, the ,LB Don Juan san/. (everal o% her passen#ers perished in the sea tra#ed". he bodies o% some o% the vi$tims *ere %ound and brou#ht to shore, but the %our members o% private respondents%amilies *ere never %ound. Private respondents %iled a $omplaint on Jul" 1H, 19@0 in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila, Cran$h 1), a#ainst the 9e#ros 9avi#ation, the Philippine 9ational 'il 3ompan" 8P9'34, and the P9'3 (hippin# and ransport 3orporation 8P9'3L( 34, see/in# dama#es %or the death o% 0rdita de la Bi$toria ,iranda, )@, Rosario B. ,iranda, 19, Ramon B. ,iranda, Jr., 1H, and 7l%reda de la Bi$toria, 2H. In its ans*er, petitioner admitted that private respondents pur$hased ti$/et numbers :))11, :))12, :))11 and :))1)6 that the ti$/et numbers *ere listed in the passen#er mani%est6 and that the Don Juan le%t Pier 2, 9orth .arbor, ,anila on 0pril 22, 19@0 and san/ that ni#ht a%ter bein# rammed b" the oil tan/er ,L a$loban 3it", and that, as a result o% the $ollision, some o% the passen#ers o% the ,LB Don Juan died. Petitioner, ho*ever, denied that the %our relatives o% private respondents a$tuall" boarded the vessel as sho*n b" the %a$t that their bodies *ere never re$overed. Petitioner %urther averred that the Don Juan *as sea*orth" and manned b" a %ull and $ompetent $re*, and that the $ollision *as entirel" due to the %ault o% the $re* o% the ,L a$loban 3it". 'n Januar" 20, 19@H, the P9'3 and petitioner 9e#ros 9avi#ation 3o., In$. entered into a $ompromise a#reement *hereb" petitioner assumed %ull responsibilit" %or the pa"ment and satis%a$tion o% all

32 $laims arisin# out o% or in $onne$tion *ith the $ollision and releasin# the P9'3 and the P9'3L( 3 %rom an" liabilit" to it. he a#reement *as subse>uentl" held b" the trial $ourt to be bindin# upon petitioner, P9'3 and P9'3L( 3. Private respondents did not Goin in the a#reement. 0%ter trial, the $ourt rendered Gud#ment in %avor o% the plainti%%s, orderin# all the de%endants to pa" Gointl" and severall" to the plainti%%-s dama#es. 'n appeal, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed the de$ision o% the Re#ional rial 3ourt *ith modi%i$ation. .en$e this petition. ss!e: Wether or not the rulin# in ,e$enas v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals %indin# the $re* members o% petitioner to be #rossl" ne#li#ent in the per%orman$e o% their duties, is bindin# in this $ase 8stare de$isis45 @el%: 0dheren$e to the ,e$enas $ase is di$tated b" this 3ourt-s poli$" o% maintainin# stabilit" in Gurispruden$e in a$$ordan$e *ith the le#al maxim stare de$isis et non >uieta movere! 8Aollo* past pre$edents and do not disturb *hat has been settled.4 Where, as in this $ase, the same >uestions relatin# to the same event have been put %or*ard b" parties similarl" situated as in a previous $ase liti#ated and de$ided b" a $ompetent $ourt, the rule o% stare de$isis is a bar to an" attempt to reliti#ate the same issue. In Woul%e v. 0sso$iated Realties 3orporation, the (upreme 3ourt o% 9e* Jerse" held that *here substantiall" similar $ases to the pendin# $ase *ere presented and appli$able prin$iples de$lared in prior de$isions, the $ourt *as bound b" the prin$iple o% stare de$isis. (imilarl", in (tate ex rel. ollin#er v. <ill, it *as held that under the do$trine o% stare de$isis a rulin# is %inal even as to parties *ho are stran#ers to the ori#inal pro$eedin# and not bound b" the Gud#ment under the res Gudi$ata do$trine. he Philadelphia $ourt expressed itsel% in this *ise: (tare de$isis simpl" de$lares that, %or the sa/e o% $ertaint", a $on$lusion rea$hed in one $ase should be applied to those *hi$h %ollo*, i% the %a$ts are substantiall" the same, even thou#h the parties ma" be di%%erent.! hus, in J. ,. uason v. ,ariano, supra, this 3ourt relied on its rulin#s in other $ases involvin# di%%erent parties in sustainin# the validit" o% a land title on the prin$iple o% stare

33 de$isis et non >uieta movere.! Indeed, the eviden$e presented in this $ase *as the same as those presented in the ,e$enas $ase

20) F!l#e"cio vs. Natio"al La+or Relatio"s (o..issio" G.R. No. 141600, 5epte.+er 12, 2003 Facts: Private respondent Ra"$or 0ir$ontrol ("stems, In$. *as en#a#ed in the installation o% air $onditionin# s"stems in the buildin#s o% its $lients. Petitioners Aul#en$io and others *ere amon# those hired b" the private respondent to *or/ in various $apa$ities, su$h as tinsmith, leadsman, air$on me$hani$, installer, *elder and painter. 'n di%%erent dates in 1992, the private respondent served the petitioners noti$es o% termination o% emplo"ment. 0s a result, the petitioners Goined other emplo"ees in %ilin# $ases o% ille#al dismissal a#ainst the private respondent. he +abor 0rbiter then dismissed the $omplaints %or la$/ o% merit . 'n appeal, the 9ational +abor Relations 3ommission 89+R34 reversed the labor arbiter-s %indin#s and ruled that $omplainants should be reinstated *ithout loss o% seniorit" ri#hts and privile#es, and the" should have %ull ba$/*a#es %rom the time o% dismissal to their reinstatement. Private respondent-s motion %or re$onsideration *as denied b" the 9+R3, the %ormer %iled a petition %or $ertiorari assailin# the de$ision *ith the (upreme 3ourt *hi$h set aside the 9+R3-s de$ision. Private respondent subse>uentl" %iled a motion %or $lari%i$ation $laimin# that it had o%%ered reinstatement to the petitioners but that the latter spurned its o%%er. he 3ourt denied the said motion. he $ase *as remanded to the 9+R3 %or implementation. In due $ourse, the Resear$h and In%ormation Fnit o% the 9+R3 $omputed the bene%its due the petitioners and submitted an updated $omputation *hi$h *as later approved b" the +abor 0rbiter. 'n motion o% the petitioners, the +abor 0rbiter issued a *rit o% exe$ution sheri%% o% the 9+R3 to a$$ompan" $omplainants, reinstatin# them to their %ormer position and $olle$t %rom said respondent the amount $orrespondin# to

34 $omplainants- ba$/*a#es and attorne"-s lien.Pursuant to the *rit, the sheri%% #arnished the %unds o% the private respondent *hi$h *as in the possession o% Intel e$hnolo#" Philippines, In$ *hi$h *as subse>uentl" remitted b" Intel to the 3ashier o% the 9+R3 he private respondent appealed the 'rder o% the +abor 0rbiter to the 9+R3 *hi$h #ranted the appeal but the petition %or preliminar" inGun$tion is denied. he petitioners %iled a motion %or the re$onsideration $ontendin# that b" $omputin# the ba$/*a#es o% the petitioners up to the said date onl", the 9+R3 modi%ied the alread" %inal and exe$utor" de$ision o% the (upreme 3ourt. (ubse>uentl" the 9+R3 denied the said motion and the petitioners %iled a petition %or $ertiorari *ith a pra"er %or the issuan$e o% a *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion *ith the 30 *hi$h eventuall" dismissed the petition on the #round that it has no statement o% material dates violatin# the (e$. 1, Rule )H. Petitioners also %ailed to in$lude in their petition the re>uired explanation under (e$tion 11, Rule 11 o% the same Rules as to *h" personal servi$e upon the respondents *as not resorted to. .en$e the petitioners instituted the present re$ourse. ss!e: Whether or not the 30 erred in stri$tl" adherin# to te$hni$alities, rather than in substantial $omplian$e, in the appli$ation o% the provisions o% the rules o% $ourt5 R!li"#: he 3ourt resolves to #ive due $ourse to the petition to avert a mis$arria#e o% Gusti$e. Aor Gudi$ial $ases do not $ome and #o throu#h the portals o% a $ourt o% la* b" the mere mandate o% te$hni$alities. Where a ri#id appli$ation o% the rules *ill result in a mani%est %ailure or mis$arria#e o% Gusti$e, te$hni$alities should be disre#arded in order to resolve the $ase. It is $r"stal?$lear that the manner o% the $omputation o% the petitioners- ba$/*a#es is an issue *hi$h *as alread" resolved b" this 3ourt in its de$ision in <.R. 9o. 11)290 *hi$h had lon# a$>uired %inalit". .en$e, the 3ourt-s de$ision in the said $ase, *hi$h dire$ted the pa"ment o% the petitioners- ba$/*a#es %rom the time the" *ere dismissed up to the time the" are a$tuall" reinstated, has be$ome the la* o% the $ase! *hi$h no* binds the 9+R3 and the private respondent. he la* o% the $ase! do$trine has been de%ined as a term

35 applied to an established rule that *hen an appellate $ourt passes on a >uestion and remands the $ase to the lo*er $ourt %or %urther pro$eedin#s, the >uestion there settled be$omes the la* o% the $ase upon subse>uent appeal.! he private respondent, there%ore, on appeal to the 9+R3 in the $ourse o% the exe$ution pro$eedin#s in the $ase, is barred %rom $hallen#in# ane* the issue o% the manner in *hi$h the petitioners- ba$/*a#es should be $omputed. he 9+R3 $an no lon#er modi%" the rulin# o% the 3ourt on the matter. Jud#ment o% $ourts should attain %inalit" at some point in time, as in this $ase, other*ise, there *ould be no end to liti#ation. In the $ase o% .u%ana v. <enato, it *as *ell established that *hen a ri#ht or %a$t has been Gudi$iall" tried and determined b" a $ourt o% $ompetent Gurisdi$tion, so lon# as it remains unreversed, it should be $on$lusive upon the parties and those in privit" *ith them. he di$tum therein laid do*n be$ame the la* o% the $ase and *hat *as on$e irrevo$abl" established as the $ontrollin# le#al rule or de$ision, $ontinues to be bindin# bet*een the same parties as lon# as the %a$ts on *hi$h the de$ision *as predi$ated, $ontinue to be the %a$ts o% the $ase be%ore the $ourt. .en$e, the bindin# e%%e$t and en%or$eabilit" o% that di$tum $an no lon#er be liti#ated ane* sin$e said issue had alread" been resolved and %inall" laid to rest in that a%orementioned $ase, i% not b" the prin$iple o% res Gudi$ata, but at least b" $on$lusiveness o% Gud#ment. 2)) <illa"!eva vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No 142940, 2arc' 19, 2002 Facts: Petitioner Aran$is$o Billanueva, Jr. %iled a $omplaint %or ille#al dismissal a#ainst several parties, amon# them is IC3 11. When the labor arbiter ruled in %avor o% petitioner Billanueva, Jr., IC3 11 appealed to the 9ational +abor Relations 3ommission 89+R34. 0s an appeal bond, IC3 11 %iled (uret" Cond 9o. < 81H4 0011H issued b" CA <eneral Insuran$e 3ompan", In$. 8CA4 *ith the 3on%irmation +etter supposedl" issued b" CA-s Bi$e?President. .o*ever, both do$uments *ere subse>uentl" %ound to be %alsi%ied. hus, the 2 $omplaints %or %alsi%i$ation o% publi$ do$ument *ere %iled be%ore the ,anila 3it" Prose$utor-s '%%i$e.

36 he $har#es a#ainst respondent Billadores and 0tt". 7ulalio Dia= III *ere dismissed b" the 3it" Prose$utor-s '%%i$e *hi$h, ho*ever, %ound probable $ause a#ainst the other respondents. 9onetheless, on a petition %or revie* be%ore the Department o% Justi$e 8D'J4, the latter a%%irmed the dismissal a#ainst Dia= but ordered the in$lusion o% respondent Billadores as an a$$used in the 2 $riminal $ases. 0$$ordin#l", the ori#inal in%ormations *ere amended to in$lude respondent Billadores amon# those $har#ed. Aollo*in# the arrai#nment o% respondent Billadores, the private prose$utor, Ri$o and 0sso$iates, %iled ane* a ,otion to 0dmit 0mended In%ormations alle#in# dama#es sustained Billanueva, Jr., as a result o% the $rimes $ommitted b" the a$$used. he in$ident *as re%erred to the 3it" Prose$utor-s '%%i$e b" the trial $ourt. In $omplian$e, the %is$al-s o%%i$e submitted a ,otion to 0dmit 0mended In%ormations *ith the %ollo*in# amendment: to the preGudi$e o% Aran$is$o 9. Billanueva, Jr., and o% publi$ interest and in violation o% publi$ %aith and destru$tion o% truth as therein pro$laimed.! he ,otion *as #ranted b" the trial $ourt and the amended in%ormations *ere admitted in an 'rder. Respondent Billadores subse>uentl" %iled a ,ani%estation and or ,otion %or Re$onsideration but the same *as denied. hus, respondent Billadores interposed a petition %or $ertiorari *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. (aid petition, sou#ht to annul the 'rders o% the trial $ourt dated *hi$h admitted the se$ond amended in%ormations, as *ell as den"in# his motion %or re$onsideration thereo%. he appellate $ourt, %ound that the trial $ourt $ommitted no #rave abuse o% dis$retion in admittin# the amended in%ormations and dismissed the petition o% respondent Billadores. (ubse>uentl", be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila, respondent Billadores moved %or the dis>uali%i$ation o% Ri$o and 0sso$iates as private prose$utor %or petitioner Billanueva, Jr., in line *ith the pronoun$ement o% the appellate $ourt. Ri$o and 0sso$iates opposed said motion on the #round that the above? >uoted pronoun$ement o% the appellate $ourt is a mere obiter di$tum. he trial $ourt denied the motion %or dis>uali%i$ation and the motion %or re$onsideration. Respondent Billadores %iled a petition %or $ertiorari *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, see/in# the annulment o% the trial $ourt-s 'rder o% den"in# the ,otion %or

30 Dis>uali%i$ation and den"in# re$onsideration. he 30 reversed and set aside the 2 'rders o% the trial $ourt. .en$e, this petition. ss!e: Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals erred in %ailin# to $onsider its pronoun$ement that Petioner is not an o%%ended part" is as a mere obiter di$tum5 R!li"#: 0n obiter di$tum has been de%ined as an opinion expressed b" a $ourt upon some >uestion o% la* *hi$h is not ne$essar" to the de$ision o% the $ase be%ore it. It is a remar/ made, or opinion expressed, b" a Gud#e, in his de$ision upon a $ause, b" the *a",! that is, in$identall" or $ollaterall", and not dire$tl" upon the >uestion be%ore him, or upon a point not ne$essaril" involved in the determination o% the $ause, or introdu$ed b" *a" o% illustration, or analo#" or ar#ument. (u$h are not bindin# as pre$edent. he 3ourt held that an adGudi$ation on an" point *ithin the issues presented b" the $ase $annot be $onsidered as obiter di$tum, and this rule applies to all pertinent >uestions, althou#h onl" in$identall" involved, *hi$h are presented and de$ided in the re#ular $ourse o% the $onsideration o% the $ase, and led up to the %inal $on$lusion, and to an" statement as to matter on *hi$h the de$ision is predi$ated. 0$$ordin#l", a point expressl" de$ided does not lose its value as a pre$edent be$ause the disposition o% the $ase is, or mi#ht have been, made on some other #round, or even thou#h, b" reason o% other points in the $ase, the result rea$hed mi#ht have been the same i% the $ourt had held, on the parti$ular point, other*ise than it did. 0 de$ision *hi$h the $ase $ould have turned on is not re#arded as obiter di$tum merel" be$ause, o*in# to the disposal o% the $ontention, it *as ne$essar" to $onsider another >uestion, nor $an an additional reason in a de$ision, brou#ht %or*ard a%ter the $ase has been disposed o% on one #round, be re#arded as di$ta. (o, also, *here a $ase presents 2 or more points, an" one o% *hi$h is su%%i$ient to determine the ultimate issue, but the $ourt a$tuall" de$ides all su$h points, the $ase as an authoritative pre$edent as to ever" point de$ided, and none o% su$h points $an be re#arded as havin# the status o% a di$tum, and one point should not be denied authorit" merel"

3) be$ause another point *as more d*elt on and more %ull" ar#ued and $onsidered, nor does a de$ision on one proposition ma/e statements o% the $ourt re#ardin# other propositions di$ta. here%ore the De$ision o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals is a%%irmed. 29) *--ice o- t'e *.+!%s.a"% vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 1464)6, 2arc' 4, 2005 Facts: *ent"?t*o o%%i$ials and emplo"ees o% the '%%i$e o% the Deput" 'mbudsman 8',C4 %or the Bisa"as, led b" its t*o dire$tors, %iled a %ormal $omplaint *ith the '%%i$e o% the 'mbudsman re>uestin# an investi#ation that then Deput" 'mbudsman %or the Bisa"as, herein private respondent 0rturo ,oGi$a, $ommitted sexual harassment a#ainst Ra"vi Padua Barona, mul$tin# mone" %rom $on%idential emplo"ees James 0lueta and 7den Jiam$o and oppression a#ainst all emplo"ees in not releasin# the P:,200.00 bene%its o% ',C?Bisa"as emplo"ees on the date the said amount *as due %or release. he $omplainants %urther re>uested that an o%%i$er?in?$har#e %rom the ',C?,anila be appointed to mana#e their o%%i$e to prevent the Deput" 'mbudsman %rom harassin# *itnesses and *ieldin# his in%luen$e over them. o unders$ore the seriousness o% their intentions, the" threatened to #o on a mass leave o% absen$e, and in %a$t too/ their $ause to the media. he 'mbudsman immediatel" pro$eeded to the ',C? Bisa"as o%%i$e in 3ebu 3it" to personall" deal *ith the o%%i$e rebellion. Rea$hin# 3ebu, the 'mbudsman *as in%ormed that Petitioner *anted to pro$eed to ,anila, apparentl" be$ause o% his alienation and the %ear %or reprisal %rom his alle#ed lad" vi$timshusbands. Petitioner in %a$t alread" had a ti$/et %or the plane leavin# t*o hours later that da". he 'mbudsman assented to the >ui$/ movement to ,anila %or Petitioner-s sa%et" and the interest o% the '%%i$e-s operations. (ubse>uentl", the 'mbudsman installed 0ssistant 'mbudsman 9i$anor J. 3ru= as the '%%i$er?in?3har#e o% ',C?Bisa"as. 0$tin# on the %ormal $omplaint a#ainst petitioner, the 'mbudsman dire$ted his Aa$t? Aindin# and Intelli#en$e Cureau 8AAIC4 to $ondu$t investi#ation on the matter. he AAIC, later in its Report, %ound the eviden$e a#ainst Petitioner stron# on the $har#es o% a$ts o% extortion,

39 sexual harassment and oppression. he AAIC report *as re%erred b" the 'mbudsman to a $onstituted 3ommittee o% Peers $omposed o% the Deput" 'mbudsman %or +u=on, he (pe$ial Prose$utor and the Deput" 'mbudsman %or the ,ilitar". he 3ommittee o% Peers re$ommended that the investi#ation be $onverted into one solel" %or purposes o% impea$hment. .o*ever, in a memorandum, this re$ommendation *as denied b" the 'mbudsman a%ter $are%ul stud", and %ollo*in# the established stand o% the '%%i$e o% the 'mbudsman that the Deput" 'mbudsmen and he (pe$ial Prose$utor are not removable throu#h impea$hment. In the same ,emorandum, the 'mbudsman dire$ted the 3ommittee o% Peers 83'P4 to evaluate the merits o% the $ase and i% *arranted b" eviden$e, to $ondu$t administrative and $riminal investi#ations immediatel" therea%ter. he 3ommittee re$ommended the do$/etin# o% the $omplaint as $riminal and administrative $ases. 0$$ordin#l", the 3'P dire$ted ,oGi$a in Padua?Barona v. ,oGi$a, %or violation o% Republi$ 0$t 9o. :@:: 80nti?(exual .arassment 0$t o% 19954 and (e$. 1, par. 8b4 and 8$4 o% Rep. 0$t 9o. 1019 80nti?<ra%t and 3orrupt Pra$ti$es 0$t4 to submit his $ontrovertin# eviden$e. With re#ards to $omplainants motion, the 'mbudsman issued a ,emorandum to the 3'P, dire$tin# them to $ondu$t administrative pro$eedin#s in Bisa"as 7mplo"ees v. ,oGi$a 8%or dishonest", #rave mis$ondu$t, oppression, $ondu$t #rossl" preGudi$ial to the best interest o% the servi$e, and dire$tl" or indire$tl" havin# %inan$ial and material interest in an" transa$tion re>uirin# the approval o% his o%%i$e4, and submit a re$ommendation on the propriet" o% puttin# ,oGi$a under preventive suspension. (ubse>uentl", the 3'P issued an 'rder %indin# prima %a$ie eviden$e a#ainst ,oGi$a and re>uirin# him to submit an ans*er to the o%%enses *ithin ten da"s, as *ell as his $ounter?a%%idavit and supportin# eviden$e. he private respondent %iled a petition be%ore the 3ourt o% 0ppeals pra"in# that a resolution be issued. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals resolved to #rant the pra"er %or emporar" Restrainin# 'rder and re>uired the 'mbudsman to $omment and sho* $ause *h" no *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion should be issued. In essen$e, the appellate $ourt held that althou#h the

40 19@: 3onstitution indi$ate that a Deput" 'mbudsman is not an impea$hable o%%i$ial, it *as nevertheless $onstrained to hold other*ise on the basis o% this 3ourt-s past rulin#s. hus, the $ase a#ainst ,oGi$a is set aside and de$lared null and void. hus, this petition ss!e: Whether or not the prin$iple o% stare de$isis et non >uieta movere ma" not be invo/ed to perpetuate an erroneous obiter di$tum5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that in 30-s $ross?re%eren$in# (e$. 2, *hi$h is an enumeration o% impea$hable o%%i$ers, *ith (e$. @, *hi$h lists the >uali%i$ations o% the 'mbudsman and his deputies, the intention *as to indi$ate, b" *a" o% obiter di$tum, that as *ith members o% this 3ourt, the o%%i$ers so enumerated *ere also $onstitutionall" re>uired to be members o% the bar. 0 di$tum is an opinion that does not embod" the resolution or determination o% the $ourt, and made *ithout ar#ument, or %ull $onsideration o% the point. ,ere di$ta are not bindin# under the do$trine o% stare de$isis. he le#al maxim Istare de$isis et non >uieta movereI 8%ollo* past pre$edents and do not disturb *hat has been settled4 states that *here the same >uestions relatin# to the same event have been put %or*ard b" parties similarl" situated as in a previous $ase liti#ated and de$ided b" a $ompetent $ourt, the rule o% stare de$isis is a bar to an" attempt to reliti#ate the same issue. hus, *here the issue involved *as not raised nor presented to the $ourt and not passed upon b" the $ourt in the previous $ase, the de$ision in the previous $ase is not stare de$isis o% the >uestion presented. 0s to *hether or not the private respondent, then Deput" 'mbudsman %or the Bisa"as, ma" be held $riminall" and or administrativel" liable, *e li/e*ise resolve the issue in %avor o% the petitioner. 30) A4ala (orp. vs. Rosa7Dia"a Realt4 a"% Develop.e"t (orp. G.R. No 1342)4, Dece.+er 1, 2000

41 Facts: Petitioner 0"ala 3orporation *as the re#istered o*ner o% a par$el o% land lo$ated in 0l%aro (treet, (al$edo Billa#e, ,a/ati 3it" *ith an area o% @)0 s>uare meters, more or less and $overed b" rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 8 3 4 9o. 211)15 o% the Re#ister o% Deeds o% Ri=al. 0"ala sold the lot to ,anuel (" married to Bilma Po and (" Ja Jien# married to Rosa 3han. he Deed o% (ale exe$uted bet*een 0"ala and the bu"ers $ontained (pe$ial 3onditions o% (ale and Deed Restri$tions. he Deed Restri$tions $ontained the stipulation that the #ross %loor area o% the buildin# to be $onstru$ted shall not be more than %ive 854 times the lot area and the total hei#ht shall not ex$eed %ort" t*o 8)24 meters. he restri$tions *ere to expire in the "ear 2025. he bu"ers ,anuel (" and (" Ja Jien#, %ailed to $onstru$t the buildin# in violation o% the (pe$ial 3onditions o% (ale. 9ot*ithstandin# the violation, the bu"ers *ere able to sell the lot to respondent Rosa?Diana Realt" and Development 3orporation *ith 0"ala-s approval. 0s a $onsideration %or 0"ala to release the 3erti%i$ate o% itle o% the subGe$t propert", Rosa?Diana, on exe$uted an Fnderta/in# promisin# to abide b" said spe$ial $onditions o% sale exe$uted bet*een 0"ala and the ori#inal vendees. Fpon the submission o% the Fnderta/in#, to#ether *ith the buildin# plans %or a $ondominium proGe$t, /no*n as he Pea/!, 0"ala released title to the lot, thereb" enablin# Rosa?Diana to re#ister the deed o% sale in its %avor and obtain 3erti%i$ate o% itle 9o. 1H5:20 in its name. he title $arried as en$umbran$es the spe$ial $onditions o% sale and the deed restri$tions. Rosa? Diana-s buildin# plans as approved b" 0"ala *ere subGe$t to stri$t $omplian$e o% $autionar" noti$es appearin# on the buildin# plans and to the restri$tions en$umberin# the +ot re#ardin# the use and o$$upan$" o% the same.! herea%ter, Rosa?Diana submitted to the buildin# o%%i$ial o% ,a/ati another set o% buildin# plans %or he Pea/! *hi$h *ere di%%erent %rom those that presented to 0"ala %or approval. While the buildin# plans *hi$h Rosa?Diana submitted to 0"ala %or approval envisioned a 2)?meter hi#h, : store" $ondominium *ith a #ross %loor area o% 1,9H@.5H s>uare meters, the buildin# plans *hi$h Rosa?Diana submitted to the buildin# o%%i$ial o% ,a/ati *ere mu$h di%%erent as it $ontemplated a 91.H5 meter hi#h, 1@ store" $ondominium buildin# *ith a #ross %loor area o% 21,105.09 s>uare

42 meters. Durin# the $onstru$tion o% the $ondominium proGe$t, 0"ala %iled an a$tion *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34 o% ,a/ati, Cran$h 119 %or spe$i%i$ per%orman$e, *ith appli$ation %or a *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion or temporar" restrainin# order a#ainst Rosa?Diana Realt" see/in# to $ompel the latter to $ompl" *ith their $ontra$tual obli#ations. In the alternative, 0"ala pra"ed %or res$ission o% the sale o% the subGe$t lot to Rosa? Diana Realt". he lo*er $ourt denied 0"ala-s pra"er %or inGun$tive relie%, thus enablin# Rosa?Diana to $omplete the $onstru$tion o% the buildin#. 0"ala then tried to $ause the annotation o% a noti$e o% lis pendens on Rosa?Diana-s title. he Re#ister o% Deeds o% ,a/ati, ho*ever, re%used re#istration o% the noti$e o% lis pendens on the #round that the $ase pendin# be%ore the trial $ourt, bein# an a$tion %or spe$i%i$ per%orman$e and or res$ission, is an a$tion in personam, *hi$h does not involve the title, use or possession o% the propert". he +and Re#istration 0uthorit" 8+R04 reversed the rulin# o% the Re#ister o% Deeds sa"in# that an a$tion %or spe$i%i$ per%orman$e or re$ession ma" be $lassi%ied as a pro$eedin# o% an" /ind in $ourt dire$tl" a%%e$tin# title to the land or the use or o$$upation thereo% %or *hi$h a noti$e o% lis pendens ma" be held proper. he de$ision o% the +R0, nevertheless, *as overturned b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $itin# its de$ision under the do$trine o% stare de$isis in 0"ala 3orporation vs. Ra" Curton Development 3orporation, a $ase similar to the present $ase. 0"ala ho*ever $ontended that the pronoun$ement b" the 30 in its $ase *ith Ra" Curton Development 3orporation is merel" an obiter di$tum in as mu$h as the onl" issue raised in the present $ase *as the propriet" o% the lis pendens annotation on the 3erti%i$ate o% itle o% the subGe$t lot. ss!e: Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals erred in dismissin# 0"ala-s appeal based on its de$ision on 0"ala vs. Ra" Curton Development 3orporation under the do$trine o% stare de$isis5 R!li"#: he 3ourt sees no reason ho* the la* o% the $ase or stare de$isis $an be held to be appli$able in the $ase at ben$h. I% at all, the pronoun$ement made b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals that

43 petitioner 0"ala is barred %rom en%or$in# the deed o% restri$tions $an onl" be $onsidered as obiter di$ta. 0s earlier mentioned, the onl" issue be%ore the 3ourt o% 0ppeals at the time *as the propriet" o% the annotation o% the lis pendens. he additional pronoun$ement o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals that 0"ala is estopped %rom en%or$in# the deed o% restri$tions even as it re$o#ni=ed that this said issue is bein# tried be%ore the trial $ourt *as not ne$essar" to dispose o% the issue as to the propriet" o% the annotation o% the lis pendens. 0 di$tum is an opinion o% a Gud#e *hi$h does not embod" the resolution or determination o% the $ourt, and made *ithout ar#ument, or %ull $onsideration o% the point, not the pro%%ered deliberate opinion o% the Gud#e himsel%. It is not ne$essaril" limited to issues essential to the de$ision but ma" also in$lude expressions o% opinion *hi$h are not ne$essar" to support the de$ision rea$hed b" the $ourt. ,ere di$ta are not bindin# under the do$trine o% stare de$isis. It *as also held that the $ase o% 0"ala 3orporation vs. Ra" Curton Development In$. $annot be $ited as pre$edential under the do$trine o% stare de$isis. It must be pointed out that at the time the assailed de$ision *as rendered b" the 30 the said $ase *as on appeal *ith this 3ourt. hus, the assailed De$ision and Resolution o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *as reversed and set aside. 31) &eople vs. <e"eracio" 249 5(RA 251 Facts: 'n 0u#ust 2, 199), the $adaver o% a "oun# #irl, later identi%ied as 0n#el 0l>ui=a *rapped in a sa$/ and "ello* table $loth tied *ith a n"lon $ord *ith both %eet and le%t hand protrudin# %rom it *as seen %loatin# alon# Del Pan (t. near the $orner o% +avesares (t., Cinondo, ,anila. When untied and removed %rom its $over, the li%eless bod" o% the vi$tim *as seen $lad onl" in a li#ht $olored duster *ithout her panties, *ith #apin# *ounds on the le%t side o% the %a$e, the le%t $hin, le%t ear, la$erations on her #enitalia, and *ith her head bashed in. 'n the basis o% s*orn statements o% *itnesses, boo/in# sheets, arrest reports and the vi$tim-s ne$rops" report, 0bundio +a#unda", a./.a. Jr. Jeo%re" and .enr" +a#arto " Petilla, *ere later $har#ed

44 *ith the $rime o% Rape *ith .omi$ide in an In%ormation %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila, 9ational 3apital Judi$ial Re#ion. hat on or about 0u#ust 2, 199) the said a$$used, $onspired and $on%ederated *ith one alias +ando! and other persons *ith trea$her", ta/in# advanta#e o% their superior stren#th and no$turnit", and i#nomin", and *ith the use o% %or$e and violen$e, too/ 0n#el 0l>ui=a " +a#man into a *arehouse, $overin# her mouth, slashin# her va#ina, hittin# her head *ith a thi$/ pie$e o% *ood and stabbin# her ne$/ did then and there *il%ull", unla*%ull" and %eloniousl" have $arnal /no*led#e o% the said vi$tim, a minor, seven 8:4 "ears o% a#e, a#ainst the latter-s *ill and $onsent and on said o$$asion the said 0bundio +a#unda", a./.a. +ando! and others, $aused her %atal inGuries *hi$h *ere the dire$t $ause o% her death immediatel" therea%ter. (ubse>uentl" therea%ter, 7rnesto 3ordero " ,aristela, a./.a. Cooster,! Rolando ,anlan#it " ,amerta, a./.a. +ando,! Ri$hard Calta=ar " 0lino, a./.a. 3urimao,! and 3atalino Maon " 0berin, a./.a. Joel,! *ere a$$used o% the same $rime. he t*o $riminal $ases *ere $onsolidated to Cran$h ): o% the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila, presided over b" respondent Jud#e +oren=o Benera$ion. Dul" arrai#ned, all the a$$used, ex$ept 0bundio +a#unda" *ho *as alread" dead be$ause alle#edl" shot b" poli$e es$orts a%ter attemptin# to %ire a #un he *as able to #rab %rom (P'1 D. Bidad, pleaded 9ot <uilt".! he trial $ourt rendered a de$ision %indin# the de%endants .enr" +a#arto " Petilla and 7rnesto 3ordero " ,aristela #uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt o% the $rime o% Rape *ith .omi$ide and senten$ed both a$$used *ith the penalt" o% re$lusion perpetua *ith all the a$$essories provided %or b" la*. Disa#reein# *ith the senten$e imposed, the 3it" Prose$utor o% ,anila on %iled a ,otion %or Re$onsideration, pra"in# that the De$ision be modi%ied in that the penalt" o% death be imposed a#ainst +a#arto and 3ordero, in pla$e o% the ori#inal penalt". Re%usin# to a$t on the merits o% the said ,otion %or Re$onsideration, respondent Jud#e issued an 'rder den"in# the same %or la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion. .en$e, this petition.

45 ss!e: Whether or not the respondent?Gud#e a$ted *ith #rave abuse o% dis$retion amountin# to la$/ or ex$ess o% Gurisdi$tion *hen he %ailed to atta$h the $orrespondin# penalt" o% the $rime o% Rape *ith .omi$ide5 R!li"#: he 3ourt is a*are o% the trial Gud#e-s mis#ivin#s in imposin# the death senten$e be$ause o% his reli#ious $onvi$tions. he 3ourt s"mpathi=es *ith his predi$ament, it is its bounden dut" to emphasi=e that a $ourt o% la* is no pla$e %or a protra$ted debate on the moralit" or propriet" o% the senten$e, *here the la* itsel% provides %or the senten$e o% death as a penalt" in spe$i%i$ and *ell?de%ined instan$es. he dis$om%ort %a$ed b" those %or$ed b" la* to impose the death penalt" is an an$ient one, but it is a matter upon *hi$h Gud#es have no $hoi$e. 3ourts are not $on$erned *ith the *isdom, e%%i$a$" or moralit" o% la*s. Aurthermore he Rules o% 3ourt mandates that a%ter an adGudi$ation o% #uilt, the Gud#e should impose the proper penalt" and $ivil liabilit" provided %or b" the la* on the a$$used.! his is not a $ase o% a ma#istrate i#norant o% the la*. his is a $ase in *hi$h a Gud#e, %ull" a*are o% the appropriate provisions o% the la*, re%uses to impose a penalt" to *hi$h he disa#rees. In so doin#, respondent Gud#e a$ted *ithout or in ex$ess o% his Gurisdi$tion or *ith #rave abuse o% dis$retion amountin# to a la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion in imposin# the penalt" o% Re$lusion Perpetua *here the la* $learl" imposes the penalt" o% Death. 32) 9ao :ee vs. 54 Go"/ales G.R. No. L759960, Nove.+er 24, 19)) Facts: (" Jiat, a 3hinese national died on Januar" 1:, 19:: in 3aloo$an 3it" *here he *as then residin#, leavin# behind real and personal properties here in the Philippines *orth P100,000 more or less. herea%ter, 0ida ("?<on=ales, ,anuel (", eresita ("?Cernabe and Rodol%o (" %iled a petition %or the #rant o% letters o% administration do$/eted as (pe$ial Pro$eedin#s 3ase at the then 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al, 3aloo$an 3it". In said petition the" alle#ed amon# others that 8a4 the" are the $hildren o% the de$eased *ith 0sun$ion <ille#o6 8b4 to their /no*led#e (" ,at died intestate6 8$4 the" do not re$o#ni=e (" JiatNs marria#e to Mao

46 Jee nor the %iliation o% her $hildren to him6 and, 8d4 the" nominate 0ida ("?<on=ales %or appointment as administratrix o% the intestate estate o% the de$eased. he petition *as opposed b" Mao Jee, (=e (oo/ Wah, (=e +ai 3ho and (" Mun 3hen *ho alle#ed that: 8a4 Mao Jee is the la*%ul *i%e o% (" Jiat *hom he married on Januar" 19, 1911 in 3hina6 8b4 the other oppositors are the le#itimate $hildren o% the de$eased *ith Mao Jee6 and, 8$4 (=e (oo/ Wah is the eldest amon# them and is $ompetent, *illin# and desirous to be$ome the administratrix o% the estate o% (" Jiat. Mao Jee also testi%ied that she *as married to (" Jiat on Januar" 19, 1911 in Aoo/ien, 3hina6 that she does not have a marria#e $erti%i$ate be$ause the pra$ti$e durin# that time *as %or elders to a#ree upon the bethrotal o% their $hildren, and in her $ase, her elder brother *as the one *ho $ontra$ted or entered into an a#reement *ith the parents o% her husband6 that she and her husband have been livin# in Aoo/ien, 3hina be%ore he *ent to the Philippines6 that in 3hina, the $ustom is that there is a #o? bet*een, a sort o% marria#e bro/er *ho is /no*n to both parties *ho *ould tal/ to the parents o% the bride?to?be a#ree to have the #room?to?be their son?in?la*, then the" a#ree on a date as an en#a#ement da"6 that on the *eddin# da", the do$ument *ould be si#ned b" the parents o% both parties but there is no solemni=in# o%%i$er as is /no*n in the Philippines6 that the parties do not si#n the do$ument themselves6 and that she and (" Jiat *ere married %or )H "ears alread" and that the do$ument *as le%t in 3hina and she doubt i% that do$ument $an be %ound. he testimon" o% <an 3hin#, the "oun#er brother o% Mao Jee, that he attended the marria#e o% his sister *ith (" Jiat and that no marria#e $erti%i$ate is issued b" the 3hinese #overnment, a do$ument si#ned b" the parents and elders o% the parties bein# su%%i$ient. (tatements *ere made b" 0sun$ion <ille#o *hen she testi%ied that (" Jiat *as married to Mao Jee a$$ordin# to a 3hinese $ustom. 0%ter hearin#, the probate $ourt, %indin# amon# others that: 814 (" Jiat *as le#all" married to Mao Jee, 824 (=e (oo/ Wah, (=e +ai 3ho and (=e 3hun Men are the le#itimate $hildren o% Mao Jee *ith (" and, 814 0ida ("?<on=ales, ,anuel (", eresita ("?

40 Cernabe and Rodol%o (" are the a$/no*led#ed ille#itimate o%% sprin#s o% (" Jiat *ith 0sun$ion <ille#o. he 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e held in %avor o% the oppositors 8petitioners herein4 and appointed (=e (oo/ Wah as the administratrix o% the intestate estate o% the de$eased. 'n appeal the 3ourt o% 0ppeals rendered a de$ision modi%"in# that o% the probate $ourt. Coth parties then moved %or partial re$onsideration, *hi$h *as denied b" respondent $ourt. he" thus interposed their respe$tive appeals to this 3ourt. Private respondents %iled a petition *ith the (upreme 3ourt >uestionin# para#raphs parts o% the dispositive portion o% the 3ourt o% 0ppealsN de$ision. he (upreme 3ourt ho*ever resolved to den" the petition and the motion %or re$onsideration. he instant petition, on the other hand, >uestions the de$ision o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals that the marria#e i% (" Jiat to Mao Jee has not been proven valid in a$$ordan$e *ith the la*s o% 3hina and that the 30 erred in de$larin# respondents as natural $hildren o% (" Jiat. his petition *as initiall" denied b" the (upreme 3ourt but upon petitioner-s motion o% the 3ourt re$onsidered and de$ided to #ive due $ourse to this petition. ss!e: Whether or not the marria#e o% Mao Jee and (" Jiat is valid in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3hinese la*s or $ustoms5 R!li"#: 3ustom is de%ined as Ia rule o% $ondu$t %ormed b" repetition o% a$ts, uni%orml" observed 8pra$ti$ed4 as a so$ial rule, le#all" bindin# and obli#ator"I he la* re>uires that Ia $ustom must be proved as a %a$t, a$$ordin# to the rules o% eviden$eI R0rti$le 12, 3ivil 3ode.S 'n this s$ore the 3ourt had o$$asion to state that Ia lo$al $ustom as a sour$e o% ri#ht $annot be $onsidered b" a $ourt o% Gusti$e unless su$h $ustom is properl" established b" $ompetent eviden$e li/e an" other %a$tI. he same eviden$e, i% not one o% a hi#her de#ree, should be re>uired o% a %orei#n $ustom. In the $ase at bar petitioners did not present an" $ompetent eviden$e relative to the la* and $ustom o% 3hina on marria#e. he testimonies o% Mao and <an 3hin# $annot be $onsidered as proo% o% 3hinaNs la* or $ustom on marria#e not onl" be$ause the" are sel%?servin# eviden$e, but more importantl", there is no

4) sho*in# that the" are $ompetent to testi%" on the subGe$t matter. Aor %ailure to prove the %orei#n la* or $ustom, and $onse>uentl", the validit" o% the marria#e in a$$ordan$e *ith said la* or $ustom, the marria#e bet*een Mao Jee and (" Jiat $annot be re$o#ni=ed in this Gurisdi$tion. 0$$ordin#l", in the absen$e o% proo% o% the 3hinese la* on marria#e, it should be presumed that it is the same as ours. (in$e Mao Jee admitted in her testimon" that there *as no solemni=in# o%%i$er as is /no*n here in the Philippines *hen her alle#ed marria#e to (" ,at *as $elebrated, it there%ore %ollo*s that her marria#e to (" Jiat, even i% true, $annot be re$o#ni=ed in this Gurisdi$tion. hus, the marria#e is invalid. 33) Floresca vs. &'ile; 2i"i"# (orp. G.R. No. L730642, April 30, 19)5 Facts= Alores$a et al are the heirs o% the de$eased emplo"ees o% Philex ,inin# 3orporation 8hereina%ter re%erred to as Philex4, *ho, *hile *or/in# at its $opper mines under#round operations at uba, Cen#uet on June 2@, 19H:, died as a result o% the $ave?in that buried them in the tunnels o% the mine. (pe$i%i$all", the $omplaint alle#es that Philex, in violation o% #overnment rules and re#ulations, ne#li#entl" and deliberatel" %ailed to ta/e the re>uired pre$autions %or the prote$tion o% the lives o% its men *or/in# under#round. Alores$a et al moved to $laim their bene%its pursuant to the Wor/men-s 3ompensation 0$t be%ore the Wor/men-s 3ompensation 3ommission. he" also petitioned be%ore the re#ular $ourts and sue Philex %or additional dama#es. Philex invo/ed that the" $an no lon#er be sued be$ause the petitioners have alread" $laimed bene%its under the W30. ss!e= Whether or not Alores$a et al $an $laim bene%its and at the same time sue5 R!li"#= Fnder the la*, Alores$a et al $ould onl" do either one. I% the" %iled %or bene%its under the W30 then the" *ill be estopped %rom pro$eedin# *ith a $ivil $ase be%ore the re#ular $ourts. 3onversel", i% the" sued be%ore the $ivil $ourts then the" *ould also be estopped %rom $laimin# bene%its under the W30. he (3

49 ho*ever ruled that Alores$a et al are ex$used %rom this de%i$ien$" due to i#noran$e o% the %a$t. .ad the" been a*are o% su$h then the" ma" have not availed o% su$h a remed". .o*ever, i% in $ase the"-ll *in in the lo*er $ourt *hatever a*ard ma" be #ranted, the amount #iven to them under the W30 should be dedu$ted. he (3 emphasi=ed that i% the" *ould #o stri$tl" b" the boo/ in this $ase then the purpose o% the la* ma" be de%eated. Idolatrous reveren$e %or the letter o% the la* sa$ri%i$es the human bein#. he spirit o% the la* insures man-s survival and ennobles him. 0s (ha/espeare said, the letter o% the la* /illeth but its spirit #iveth li%e. 34) Ars!a vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 112100, April 10, 1996 Facts= Petitioner 3esario Frsua *as $onvi$ted %or violation o% (e$. 1 o% 30 9o. 1)2, as amended b" R0 H0@5 other*ise /no*n as 0n 0$t to Re#ulate the Fse o% 0liases! b" the R 3 o% Davao 3it" *hi$h *as a%%irmed b" the 30. 0lle#edl" petitioner *hen as/ed b" his $ounsel to ta/e his letter o% re>uest to the '%%i$e o% the 'mbudsman be$ause his la* %irm-s messen#er 's$ar Pere= had personal matters to attend to, instead o% *ritin# his name *rote the name 's$ar Pere=! *hen he *as re>uested to si#n. .o*ever, +oida Jahulu#an *ho #ave him the $op" o% $omplaint *as able to /no* throu#h Jose%a 0mparo that petitioner is not 's$ar Pere=. +oida reported the matter to the Deput" 'mbudsman *ho re$ommended that petitioner be a$$ordin#l" $har#ed. Petitioner $omes %or revie* o% his $onvi$tion to the (3 as he reasserts his inno$en$e. ss!e= Whether or not petitioner 3esario Frsua should be a$>uitted on the #round that he *as $har#ed under the *ron# la*5 R!li"#= he (upreme 3ourt held that petitioner be a$>uitted o% the $rime $har#ed. ime and a#ain the (upreme 3ourt has de$reed that the statutes are to be $onstrued in the li#ht o% the purposes to be a$hieved and the evil sou#ht to be remedied. hus

50 in $onstruin# a statute the reason %or its ena$tment should be /ept in mind and the statute should be $onstrued *ith re%eren$e to the intended s$ope and purpose. he $ourt ma" $onsider the spirit and reason o% the statute, *here a literal meanin# *ould lead to absurdit", $ontradi$tion, inGusti$e, or *ould de%eat the $lear purpose o% the la* ma/ers. 35) Asaali vs. (o..issio"er o- (!sto.s G.R. No. L724100, Dece.+er 16, 196) Facts= 0t noontime o% (eptember 10, 1950, %ive sailin# vessels, %rom Corneo to*ard the ports o% a*i?ta*i and (ulu, *ere spotted and inter$epted in hi#h seas b" the 3ustom Patrol eam. he said patrol team aboard Coat ( ?21 %ound out that the %ive vessels $ontained 1@1 $ases o% .erald! $i#arettes, 9 $ases o% 3amel! $i#arettes, and some rattan $hairs. he sailin# vessels *ere all Philippine re#istered, o*ned and manned b" Ailipino residents %rom (ulu. Petitioners, ho*ever, possessed no permit %rom the 3ommissioner o% 3ustoms so that the" $an en#a#e in the importation o% the #oods the" $arr" 8as re>uired b" (e$tion 11H1 RaS o% the Revised 0dministrative 3ode4. 0lso, the #oods the petitioners $arr" *ere not $overed b" R0 )2H or the Import 3ontrol +a*. he 3ustom Patrol eam then sei=ed the #oods even i% the" *ere in the hi#h seas. Petitioners $laim that the inter$eption and sei=ure o% the items *ere ille#al be$ause the" *ere inter$epted outside the territor" o% the Philippines. 0lso, the petitioners $ontend that the" $ould not have been en#a#ed to the importation o% the above?mentioned items to in$ur the %or%eiture under (e$tion 11H1 o% the Revised 0dministrative 3ode. he 3ourt o% ax 0ppeals held that (e$tion 11H1 should be applied be$ause all the vessels *ere all headed to a*i?ta*i. 9o import li$ense and permit *ere $arried violatin# R0 )2H. heir $ourse, that isO the" are about to enter the Philippine territor", announ$ed loudl" that the" *ere about to import these items in the Philippines. ss!e= Whether or not the inter$eption and sei=ure b" $ustoms o%%i$ials o% the vessels valid in the $ontention that importation had not "et be#un and that the sei=ure *as e%%e$ted outside our territorial *aters5

51

R!li"#= he 3ourt a%%irmed the de$ision o% the 3ourt o% ax 0ppeals statin# that it is >uiteirrational %or Ailipino sailors Tto snea/ out o% the PhilippinesTand $ome a lon# *a" ba$/ laden *ith hi#hl" taxable #oods onl" to turn about upon rea$hin# the brin/ o% our territorial *aters and head %or another $ountr"!. Aurther, the 3ourt said that the $ontention, re#ardin# the apprehension and sei=ure o% the items, o% the petitioner?appellant is *ithout merit. he vessels are all Philippine re#istered and are there%ore under the Gurisdi$tion o% the Philippines as expressed in the Revised Penal 3ode. he petitioners also violated (e$tion 11H18a4. here%ore, the a$tion ta/en then b" the 3ommissioner o% 3ustoms *as in a$$ordan$e to the la*. 36) LLore"te vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 124301, Nove.+er 23, 2000 Facts= Petitioner Paula +lorente *as married to a F( 9av" enlisted servi$eman +oren=o +lorente, in 9abua, 3amarines (ur, on Aebruar" 22, 191:. Ce%ore the outbrea/ o% *ar, +oren=o departed %or the F( and Paula sta"ed in the $onGu#al home in 9abua. +oren=o be$ame an 0meri$an $iti=en on 9ovember 10, 19)1. Fpon the liberation o% the Philippines 819)54, +oren=o *as #ranted b" the F( 9av" to visit his *i%e in the Philippines and %ound out that Paula *as livin# in *ith +oren=o-s brother 3e%erino. In De$ember 19)5, Paula #ave birth to 3risolo#o *ith the birth $erti%i$ate sa"in# that the $hild *as ille#itimate, and the %ather-s name *as le%t blan/. 'n Aebruar" 2, 19)H, Paula and +oren=o had a *ritten a#reement, dissolvin# their marital union, suspendin# his support upon her, and *aivin# his authorit" to %ile a $ase o% adulter" a#ainst her. +oren=o returned to the F( and %iled %or a divor$e in 1951 *hi$h *as #ranted in 1952. 'n Januar" 1H, 195@, +oren=o married 0li$ia Aortuno, in the Philippines6 a%ter*hi$h, the" bore three $hildren: Raul, +u=, and Ceverl". In 19@1, +oren=o exe$uted a *ill, be>ueathin# all his propert" to 0li$ia and three $hildren. Ce%ore the pro$eedin# $ould be terminated, +oren=o died in 19@5.

52 'n (ept. ), 19@5, Paula %iled *ith the R 3 o% Iri#a a petition %or letters o% administration over +oren=o-s estate, $ontendin# that she *as +oren=o-s survivin# spouse. In 19@:, the R 3 #ranted her petition, statin# that +oren=o-s divor$e de$ree *as void and inappli$able in the Philippines and there%ore his marria#e to 0li$ia *as void. he R 3 entitled Paula to one?hal% o% their $onGu#al properties, and one?third o% the estate & the t*o?thirds *ould be divided e>uall" amon# the ille#itimate $hildren. Paula *as appointed as le#al administratix o% the estate. ss!e= Whether or not Paula +lorente is entitled to inherit %rom the estate o% +oren=o +lorente5 R!li"#= (in$e +oren=o *as an 0meri$an $iti=en, issues arisin# %rom the $ase are #overned b" %orei#n la*. he 30 and R 3 $alled to the %ore ther en voi do$trine, *here the $ase *as re%erred ba$/ to the la* o% the de$edent-s domi$ile, in this $ase, the Philippine la*. ,ost F( la*s %ollo* the domi$iliar" theor". hus, the Philippine la* applies *hen determin#in# the validit" o% +oren=o-s *ill. he $ase *as remanded to the R 3 %or the rulin# on the intrinsi$ validit" o% the *ill o% the de$eased. 30) 2icia"o vs. 1ri.o G.R. No. L722595, Nove.+er 1, 1920 Facts= Joseph <. Crimo, a $iti=en o% ur/e", died and le%t a partition o% the estate. Juan ,i$iano, the Gudi$ial administrator o% the estate le%t %iled a s$heme o% partition. .o*ever, 0ndre Crimo, one o% the brothers o% the de$eased, opposed it. Crimo-s opposition is based on the %a$t that the partition in >uestion puts into e%%e$t the provisions o% Joseph Crimo-s *ill *hi$h are not in a$$ordan$e *ith the la*s o% his ur/ish nationalit", %or *hi$h reason the" are void as bein# in violation o% 0rti$le 10 o% the 3ivil 3ode. ss!e= Whether or not the national la* o% the testator is the one to #overn his testamentar" disposition5

53

R!li"#= Joseph Crimo, a ur/ish $iti=en , thou#h he de$lared in his *ill that Philippine la*s must #overn the disposition o% his estate6 ho*ever, it must not preGudi$e the heir or le#atee o% the testator. here%ore, the testator-s national la* must #overn in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 10 o% the 3ivil 3ode. 3)) A/"ar vs. Garcia G.R. No. L716049, 3a"!ar4 31, 1963 Facts: 7d*ard 3hristensen *as born in 9e* Mor/ but he mi#rated to 3ali%ornia *here he resided %or a period o% 9 "ears. In 1911, he $ame to the Philippines *here he be$ame a domi$iliar" until his death. In his *ill, he instituted an a$/no*led#ed natural dau#hter, ,aria +u$" 3hristensen 8le#itimate4, as his onl" heir, but le%t a le#a$" sum o% mone" in %avor o% .elen 3hristensen <ar$ia 8ille#itimate4. 3ounsel %or .elen $laims that under 0rti$le 1H, para#raph 2 o% the 3ivil 3ode, 3ali%ornia la* should be applied6 that under 3ali%ornia la*, the matter is re%erred ba$/ to the la* o% the domi$ile. 'n the other hand, $ounsel %or ,aria, averred that the national la* o% the de$eased must appl", ille#itimate $hildren not bein# entitled to an"thin# under 3ali%ornia la*. ss!e= Whether or not the national la* o% the de$eased should be applied in determinin# the su$$essional ri#hts o% his heirs5 R!li"#= Renvoi means a re%errin# ba$/. he 3ourt held that i% a 3ali%ornia $iti=en dies domi$iled in the Philippines, our $ourts are under 0rt. 1H, par 2 o% the 3ivil 3ode, $ompelled to appl" the national la* o% the de$eased 83ali%ornia +a*6 but sin$e 3ali%ornia +a* itsel% re%ers ba$/ the matter to the Philippines, the 3ourts shall a$$ept the re%errin# ba$/. his means that, the share o% .elen must be in$reased in vie* o% the su$$essional ri#hts o% ille#itimate $hildren under Philippine +a*. 39) 1ellis vs. 1ellis G.R. No. L72360), 3!"e 6, 1960

54 Facts: 0mos Cellis *as a $iti=en o% the (tate o% exas, and o% the Fnited (tates. C" his %irst *i%e *hom he divor$ed he had %ive le#itimate $hildren, b" his se$ond *i%e, *ho survived him, he had three le#itimate $hildren, and three ille#itimate $hildren. Ce%ore he died, he made t*o *ills, one disposin# o% his exas properties and the other disposin# his Philippine properties. In both *ills, his ille#itimate $hildren *ere not #iven an"thin#. he ille#itimate $hildren opposed the *ill on the #round that the" have been deprived o% their le#itimes to *hi$h the" should be entitled, i% Philippine la* *ere to be applied. ss!e= Whether or not the do$trine o% renvoi *ill appl"5 R!li"#: he do$trine o% renvoi $annot be applied in this $ase. he said do$trine is usuall" pertinent *here the de$edent is a national o% one $ountr" and a domi$iliar" o% exas at the time o% his death. (o that even assumin# that exas has a $on%li$t o% la* rule providin# that the la* o% the domi$ile should #overn, the same *ould not result in a re%eren$e ba$/ to Philippine la*, but *ould still re%er to exas la* be$ause the de$eased *as both a $iti=en and a domi$iliar" o% exas. (aid $hildren are not entitled to their le#itimes %or under exas +a* *hi$h *e must appl", there are no le#itimes. 40) &( 1 vs. @o". <e"icio ,scoli" G.R. No. L720)60, 2arc' 29, 1904 Facts: +innie Jane .od#es, a married *oman and a $iti=en o% exas, F(0, *as a domi$iliar" o% the Philippines at the moment o% her death. With respe$t to the validit" o% $ertain testamentar" provisions she had made in %avor o% her husband, a >uestion arose as to *hat exa$tl" *ere the la*s o% exas on the matter at the pre$ise moment o% her death. 'ne #roup $ontended that the exan la* should result to renvoi, the other #roup $ontended that no renvoi *as possible. ss!e: Whether or not the la*s o% exas on the matter should be as$ertained5

55 R!li"#: What the exas la* is on the matter, is a >uestion o% %a$t to be resolved b" the eviden$e that *ould be presented in the Probate 3ourt. exas la* at the time o% her death 8and not said la* at an" other time4 must be proved. It is need%ul to prove in the instant $ase *hat that la* pre$isel" *as? at the moment o% +innie Jane .od#es- death. 0%ter all, the la* ma" have been di%%erent. 41) <a" Dor" vs. Ro.illo 3r. G.R. No. L 6)400, *cto+er ), 19)5 Facts: 0li$e Re"es, a Ailipina, married Ri$hard Fpton, an 0meri$an, in .on#/on# in 19:2. he" established residen$e in the Philippines and had t*o $hildren. In 19@2, the *i%e sued %or divor$e in 9evada, F.(.0., on the #round o% in$ompatibilit". (he later married heodore Ban Dorn in 9evada in 19@1. Fpton sued her be%ore R 3, Cran$h +UB in Pasa" 3it" as/in# that she be ordered to render an a$$ountin# o% her business, *hi$h Fpton alle#ed to be $onGu#al propert". .e also pra"ed that he be de$lared *ith a ri#ht to mana#e the $onGu#al propert". he de%endant *i%e moved to dismiss the $omplaint on the #round that the $ause o% a$tion *as barred b" a previous Gud#ment in the divor$e pro$eedin#s *herein he had a$/no*led#ed that the $ouple had no $ommunit" propert"!. ss!e: Whether or not absolute divor$e de$ree #ranted b" F.(. $ourt, bet*een Ailipina *i%e and 0meri$an husband held bindin# upon the latter5 R!li"#: he pivotal %a$t in this $ase is the 9evada Divor$e o% the parties. here $an be no >uestion as to the validit" o% that 9evada divor$e in an" states o% the F.(. he de$ree is bindin# on Fpton as an 0meri$an $iti=en. .en$e, he $annot sue petitioner, as her husband, in an" state o% the Fnited (tates. It is true that o*in# to the nationalit" prin$iple under arti$le 15 o% the $ivil $ode, onl" Philippine nationals are $overed b" the poli$" a#ainst absolute divor$e abroad, *hi$h ma" be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, provided the" are valid a$$ordin# to their national la*. In this $ase, the divor$e in 9evada released Fpton %rom the marria#e

56 %rom the standards o% 0meri$an la*. hus, pursuant to his national la*, he is no lon#er the husband o% the petitioner. .e *ould have no standin# to sue in the $ase as petitioner husband entitled to exer$ise $ontrol over $onGu#al assets. .e is also estopped b" his o*n representation be%ore the 9evada $ourt %rom assertin# his ri#ht over the alle#ed $onGu#al propert". .e should not $ontinue to be one o% her heirs *ith possible ri#hts to $onGu#al propert". 42) 1a"> o- A.erica, N$ a"% 5A vs. A.erica" Realt4 (orp. a"% (A G.R. No. 133)06, Dece.+er 19, 1999 Facts: Can/ o% 0meri$a, 9 and (0 8C09 (04 is an international ban/in# and %inan$in# institution dul" li$ensed to do business in the Philippines, or#ani=ed and existin# under 3ali%ornia +a*s, Can/ o% 0meri$a International +imited 8C0I+4 on the other hand exist under 7n#land +a*s, *hile 0meri$an realt" $orporation 80R34 is a domesti$ $orporation. C09 (0 and C0I+ #ranted loans to three $orporate borro*ers a%%iliated to 0R3. Due to de%ault pa"ment o% loan amorti=ation, C09 (0 and the $orporate borro*ers entered into restru$turin# a#reement and 0R3 exe$uted t*o real estate mort#a#es as additional se$urit" %or the restru$tured loans. De%ault pa"ment to the latter prompted C09 (0 to %ile $ivil a$tion in %orei#n $ourts %or $olle$tion o% prin$ipal loans. 7xtraGudi$ial %ore$losure o% real estate mort#a#e %iled b" the latter *as approved and the properties *ere sold at publi$ au$tion, trial $ourt #ranted the motion o% suspension %iled b" 0R3 on the #round that there is a $ivil a$tion pendin# be%ore %orei#n $ourts. he Private respondent $ontends that *hatever de$ision o% the %orei#n $ourts *ill not be en%or$eable in the $ountr". he trial $ourt rendered de$ision statin# that %ilin# to %orei#n $ourts %or $olle$tion suits a#ainst debtors *ill operate as *aiver o% the se$urit" to the mort#a#e. In$identall", C09 (0 alle#ed that 7n#lish la* #overns the prin$ipal a#reements. ss!e: Whether or 9ot %orei#n la* *ill #overn the a#reement5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt reiterated that there is no Gudi$ial noti$e o% the %orei#n la* thereb" it must be properl" pleaded and

50 proved as %a$t, other*ise, the do$trine o% pro$essual presumption *ill be applied. 0ssumin# that the Aorei#n +a* *as properl" pleaded and proved, in a$$ordan$e *ith se$tion 2), rule 112 o% the rules o% $ourt, %orei#n la*, $ontra$t and Gud#ment *ould still not %ind its appli$abilit" i% in $ontrar" to a sound and established publi$ poli$". he publi$ poli$" prote$ted in the $ase is the splittin# up o% a sin#le $ivil a$tion. (e$tion ), rule 2 o% the 199: rules o% $ivil pro$edure is pertinent that i% t*o or more suits are instituted on the same $ause o% a$tion, the %ilin# o% one or a Gud#ment upon the merits on an" one is available as #round %or the dismissal o% the others. ,oreover, %orei#n la* should not be applied i% it *or/s as undeniable inGusti$e to $iti=ens. 43) A"iversit4 o- t'e ,ast vs. Ro.eo A. 3a%er G.R. No. 132344, Fe+r!ar4 10, 2000 Facts: Romeo 0. Jader, *as enrolled in the 3olle#e o% +a* o% Fniversit" o% the 7ast %rom 19@)?19@@, he %ailed to ta/e the re#ular %inal examination in pra$ti$e $ourt 1 *hi$h rendered him an in$omplete #rade. 0%ter enrollin# as ) th "ear student %or the se$ond semester o% 19@@, he %iled %or appli$ation %or the removal o% the in$omplete #rade #iven b" his pro%essor *hi$h *as later approved b" the dean. Jader then too/ the examination and his pro%essor submitted his #rade o% %ive. When %a$ult" members deliberate on *ho amon# the senior student *ill >uali%" to #raduate, his name appeared on the tentative list and *as able to Goin the 15 th $ommen$ement $eremonies. herea%ter, he prepared %or the bar examination onl" to /no* that he is not >uali%ied due to his %ailin# #rade. .e then sued the Fniversit" %or dama#es on the #round o% its ne#li#en$e, the latter then $ounter$laim that ne#li#en$e is on the part o% Jader in not veri%"in# the result o% his exam. ss!e: Whether or not the Fniversit" o% the 7ast *ill be held liable %or dama#es that resulted %rom the ne#li#en$e o% the pro%essor5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that *hen a student enrolled in an" edu$ational or learnin# institution, a $ontra$t o% edu$ation is

5) entered into bet*een the institution and the student. Pro%essors, tea$hers and instru$tors are $onsidered as a#ents o% the administration tas/ed to per%orm the s$hool-s $ommitment under the $ontra$t. It is then the $ontra$tual obli#ation o% the s$hool to timel" in%orm and %urnish su%%i$ient noti$e and in%ormation to ever" student as to *hether or not he $omplied *ith all the re>uirements %or the $on%erment o% a de#ree. ,oreover, the institution should have observed the prin$iple o% #ood dealin#s enshrined in arti$les 19 and 20 o% the $ivil $ode. In the %ore#oin#, the institution *as held liable, but Jader $annot be a*arded in lieu o% moral dama#es but onl" o% exemplar" dama#e sin$e as a senior student he *ould have been responsible in as$ertainin# that his a$ademi$ a$hievement are in order.

44) GF ,B!it4 "c. vs. Art!ro <ale"/o"a G.R. No. 156)41, 3!"e 30, 2005 Facts: <A 7>uit" represented b" its $hie% %inan$ial o%%i$er (teven F"ten#su hired Balen=ona as head $oa$h o% 0las/a Ca/etball team In the Philippine Cas/etball 0sso$iation under a $ontra$t o% emplo"ment. Fnder para#raph 1 o% the $ontra$t spe$i%ied that Vi% an"time durin# the $ontra$t, in the sole opinion o% the $orporation, %ails to exhibit s/ill or $ompetitive abilit" to $oa$h the team, the $orporation ma" terminate his $ontra$t-, Balen=ona $onsulted his la*"er about the one?sidedness o% the statement but later a%%ixed his si#nature due to trust and $on%iden$e. In his stint as 0las/a-s head $oa$h, the team pla$ed third in both open and 0ll?Ailipino PC0 $on%eren$es in 19@@. In (eptember o% that "ear he *as in%ormed that his $ontra$t o% emplo"ment on the basis o% para#raph 1 *as bein# invo/ed. .e demanded $ompensation arisin# %rom arbitrar" and unilateral termination o% his emplo"ment but <A 7>uit" re%used the $laim. 'n (eptember 2H, 199) Balen=ona %iled a 3omplaint a#ainst <A 7>uit" %or brea$h o% $ontra$t and pra"ed %or a*ard %or a$tual dama#es, <A 7>uit" $ounter$laimed that it *as merel" exer$isin# its ri#ht, the

59 trial $ourt upheld the ri#ht in the $ontra$t but on appeal, the de$ision *as reversed. ss!e: Whether or 9ot <A 7>uit" abused its ri#ht based on the one?sided 3ontra$t5 R!li"#: <A 7>uit" %ailed to observe the prin$iple o% abuse o% ri#hts enshrined in arti$le 19 o% the $ivil $ode *hi$h states that, ever" person must, in the exer$ise o% ri#hts and in per%orman$e o% duties, a$t *ith Gusti$e, #ive ever"one his due and observe honest" and #ood %aith. hus it $annot be said that a person exer$ised his ri#hts *hen it preGudi$es another or o%%ends moral or #ood $ustoms. 0lso the mutualit" prin$iple is used to nulli%" a $ontra$t $ontainin# a $ondition *hi$h ma/es its %ul%illment or pre? termination dependent ex$lusivel" upon the un$ontrolled *ill o% one part". 45) Alla" (. Go vs. 2orti.er (or%ero G.R. No. 164003, 2a4 4, 2010 Facts: (ometime in 199H, ,ortimer 3ordero, Bi$e?president o% Pamana ,ar/etin# 3orporation, ventured into business o% mar/etin# inter?island passen#er vessel. 3ordero $ame to /no* on" Robinson, an 0ustralian based national *ho is the mana#in# dire$tor o% 0luminium Aast Aerries 0ustralia 80AA04, the latter then appoint 3ordero as ex$lusive dire$tor o% %erries in the Philippines. 0%ter ne#otiations *ith the la*"ers o% 0llan 3. <o, o*ner o% 03< +iner, he $ame to $lose a deal %or the pur$hase o% t*o %erries. Per a#reement bet*een Robinson and 3ordero, the latter shall re$eive $ommission o% 22.)1W o% the pur$hase pri$e %rom the sale o% ea$h vessel. (ubse>uentl", 3ordero dis$overed that <o is dealin# dire$tl" *ith Robinson %or the pur$hase o% another vessel. 3ordero in%ormed <o that the a$t o% dealin# dire$tl" *ith Robinson violated his ex$lusive distributorship. 0s an ex$lusive distributor, 3ordero also sent a demand letter to Robinson %or his $ommission %rom the sale o% se$ond vessel to <o, Robinson later assert that 3ordero-s bein# an ex$lusive distributor is %or a sin#le transa$tion onl". 3ordero then instituted a $ivil $ase a#ainst <o,

60 his la*"ers and Robinson %or $onnivin# and $onspirin# to#ether in violatin# his ex$lusive distributorship in bad %aith and *anton disre#ard o% his ri#hts. ss!e: Whether or not there is abuse o% ri#ht5 R!li"#: he ri#ht to per%orm an ex$lusive distributorship a#reement and to reap pro%its resultin# therein is propriet" ri#hts that ma" be prote$ted. It *ill not be diminished nor rendered illusor" b" the expedient a$t o% utili=in# or interposin# a person or %irm. In the $ase 3ordero-s ri#hts under ex$lusive distributorship *as invaded *hen petitioners a$ted in bad %aith in se$urin# better terms %or the pur$hase o% another vessel. 0s expounded b" the (upreme 3ourt in another $ase, a ri#ht *hi$h is exer$ised in a manner that it does not $on%orm to the norms enshrined in 0rti$le 19 o% the $ivil $ode and results in dama#e to another, the *ron#doer must be held responsible. 46) $it!s 1. <illa"!eva vs. ,..a 2. RosB!eta G.R. No. 1)0064, 3a"!ar4 19, 2010 Facts: 7mma ,. Ros>ueta, %ormerl" Deput" 3ommissioner o% Cureau o% 3ustoms tendered his resi#nation on Januar" 21, 2001, %ive months later she *ithdre* her resi#nation on reason that she enGo"ed her tenure and she *as %or$ed to resi#n on the orders o% her superior. President <loria ,a$apa#al 0rro"o then appointed <il Balera to the position o% Ros>ueta. he latter then %iled %or prohibition and inGun$tion a#ainst petitioner Billanueva, the R 3 then #ranted a R' that prevents the implementation o% Balera-s appointment. herea%ter Billanueva issued 3ustoms ,emorandum 'rder authori=in# Balera to %un$tion as Deput" 3ommissioner. Ros>ueta then %iled a $omplaint %or dama#es $laimin# that Billanueva prevented her %rom per%ormin# her duties, *ithheld her salaries and re%use to a$t on her leave appli$ation. he trial $ourt dismissed $omplaint statin# that Billanueva a$ted le#all" sin$e Ros>ueta *as repla$ed b" Balera. Fpon appeal it *as reversed on the #round that Billanueva did not $ompl" *ith the issued inGun$tion and $ited the abuse o% ri#ht prin$iple.

61 ss!e: Whether or 9ot there is abuse o% ri#hts on the part o% the petitioner5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 19 enshrined that ever" person must, in the exer$ise o% his ri#hts and per%orman$e o% duties, a$t *ith Gusti$e, #ive ever"one his due and observe honest" and #ood %aith. When a person a$ted in bad %aith, he *ill indemni%" the o%%ended part" %rom inGur" resultin# %rom abuse o% ri#ht or dut". While Billanueva $laims that he merel" a$ted on the advi$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral, he $annot see/ shelter on that #iven advi$e on the basis that a #overnment o%%i$ial must /no* that a preliminar" inGun$tion issued b" the $ourt o% la* must be obe"ed and that the >uestion involves dispute on repla$ement o% Ros>ueta is not "et properl" resolved. hus, Billanueva a$ted in bad %aith and intent to spite Ros>ueta *hen he i#nored the inGun$tion. .e *as then liable %or dama#es. 40) 9!c'e"#co vs. $'e 2a"ila &!+lis'i"# (orporatio", et.al. G.R. No. 1)4315, Nove.+er 2), 2011 Facts: In the last >uarter o% 199), $hroni$le Publishin# 3orporation published in manila $hroni$le a series o% de%amator" arti$les a#ainst Mu$hen#$o, he *as imputed to be a ,ar$os $ron", a term used to des$ribe an individual *ho *as a re$ipient o% spe$ial and undeservin# %avors %rom %ormer President Aerdinand ,ar$os. Aurthermore, a published arti$le branded him as a dumm" %or the ,ar$os, and other series o% de%amator" arti$les a$$usin# him in venturin# into ille#al and immoral business a$tivities. Mu$hen#$o then %iled a $omplaint %or dama#es, respondents den" liabilit" and ex$laimed that the arti$les are not de%amator" sin$e the" *ere published in #ood %aith, $ontents *ere as$ertained and the" a$ted *ithin bound o% $onstitutionall" #uaranteed %reedom o% spee$h and press. he trial $ourt rendered de$ision in %avor o% Mu$hen#$o, the 3ourt o% appeals a%%irmed the de$ision but later reversed its de$ision upon motion. ss!e: Whether or 9ot respondent violated the prin$iple o% abuse o% ri#hts resultin# to dama#es5

62

R!li"#: 0 ri#ht, thou#h b" itsel% le#al be$ause re$o#ni=ed or #ranted b" la*, it ma" be$ome a sour$e o% ille#alit" *hen ri#ht is exer$ised in a manner *hi$h does not $on%orm to the norms enshrined in 0rti$le 19 o% the 3ivil 3ode. When the a$t resulted to dama#e o% another, the *ron#doer *ill be held responsible. In the $ase, 3o"uito Jr. as 3hairman o% ,anila 3hroni$le indeed abuse its ri#hts *hen it led to the publi$ation o% libelous arti$les in the ne*paper. 0s to a*ard %rom dama#es, the a*ard %rom moral dama#e is proper i% the trans#ression is the $ause o% petitioners an#uish and it *as based on the violation o% 0rti$le 19 and 20. Mu$hen#$o *as a*aded as su$h. 4)) (!sto%io vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 116100, Fe+r!ar4 9, 1996 Facts: Perusin# the re$ord, the R 3 o% Pasi# %inds that the ori#inal plainti%% Pa$i%i$o ,abasa died durin# the penden$" o% this $ase and *as substituted b" '%elia ,abasa, his survivin# spouse 8and $hildren4. he plainti%% o*ns a par$el o% land *ith a t*o door apartment ere$ted thereon situated at Interior P. Cur#os, Palin#on, ipas, a#ui#, ,,. (aid properties ma" be des$ribed to be surrounded b" other immovables pertainin# to de%endant herein. a/in# P. Cur#os as a point o% re%eren$e, or the le%t side #oin# to the plainti%%-s propert", the ro* o% houses *ill be as %ollo*s: that o% de%endants 3ristino and Cri#ido 3ustodio and that o% +ito and ,aria 3ristina (antos and then that o% '%elia ,abasa. here are t*o possible passa#e*a"s. When said propert" *as pur$hased b" ,abasa, there *ere tenants o$$up"in# the premises and *ho *ere a$/no*led#ed b" plainti%% ,abasa as tenants. .o*ever, sometime in Aebruar" 19@2, one o% the said tenants va$ated the apartment and *hen plainti%% ,abasa *ent to see the premises, he sa* that there had been built an adobe %en$e in the 1st passa#e*a" *as ma/in# it narro*er in *idth. (aid adobe %en$e *s 1st $onstru$ted b" de%endant (antoses alon# their propert" *hi$h is alon# the 1st passa#e*a". De%endant ,. (antos testi%ied that she $onstru$ted said %en$e be$ause there *as an in$ident *hen her dau#hter *as dra##ed b" a bi$"$le predated b" a son o% one o% the tenants. (he also mentioned some other

63 in$onvenien$es o% havin# at the %ront o% her house a path*a" su$h as *hen some o% the tenants *ere drun/ and *ould ban# their doors and *indo*s. (ome o% their %oot*ear *ere even lost. 0$$ordin#l", the Gud#ment #iven did not satis%" the plainti%%, herein private respondents *ent to the 30. ss!e= Whether or not the lo*er $ourt erred in not a*ardin# dama#es in their %avor5 R!li"#= With respe$t to the 1st issue, herein petitioners are alread" barred %rom raisin# the same. Petitioners did not appeal %rom adGudi$ation therein. With the %inalit" o% the Gud#ment o% the trial $ourt as to petitioners, the issue o% propriet" o% the #rant o% ri#ht o% *a" has alread" been laid to rest. .o*ever, *ith respe$t to the se$ond issue, the a*ard o% dama#es has no substantial le#al basis. 0 readin# o% the de$ision o% the 30 *ill sho* that the a*ard o% dama#es *as based solel" on the %a$t that the ori#inal plainti%% Pa$i%i$o ,abasa, in$urred losses in the %orm o% unreali=ed rentals *hen the tenants va$ated the leased premises b" reason o% the $losure o% the passa#e*a". .o*ever, the mere %a$t that plainti%% su%%ered losses does not #ive rise to a ri#ht to re$over dama#es. o *arrant re$over" o% dama#es, there must be both a ri#ht o% a$tion %or a le#al *ron# in%li$ted b" the de%endant and dama#e resultin# to the plainti%% there%rom. Wron# *ithout dama#e, or dama#e *ithout *ron# does not $onstitute a $ause o% a$tion, sin$e dama#es are merel" part o% the remed" allo*ed %or the inGur" $aused b" a brea$h o% *ron#. In the $ase at bar, althou#h there *as dama#e, there *as no le#al inGur". 3ontrar" to the $laim o% private respondents, petitioners $ould not be said to have violated the prin$iple o% abuse o% ri#ht. 49) ,B!ita+le 1a">i"# (orp. vs. (al%ero" G.R. No. 15616), Dece.+er 14, 2004 Facts: (ometime in (eptember 19@), 3alderon applied and *as issued an 7>uitable International Bisa $ard. he said Bisa $ard $an be used %or both peso and dollar transa$tions *ithin and outside the Philippines. he $redit limit %or the peso transa$tion is W79 M .'F(09D 8P20,000.004 P7('(6 *hile in the dollar transa$tions, 3alderon is re>uired to maintain a dollar a$$ount

64 *ith a minimum deposit o% X1,000.00, the balan$e o% dollar a$$ount shall serve as the $redit limit. In 0pril 19@H, 3alderon to#ether *ith some reputable business %riends and asso$iates *ent to .on#/on# %or business and pleasure trips. (pe$i%i$all" on 10 0pril 19@H, 3alderon a$$ompanied b" his %riend, 7d De +eon *ent to <u$$i Department (tore lo$ated at the basement o% the Peninsula .otel 8.on#/on#4. here and then, 3alderon pur$hased several <u$$i items 8t?shirts, Ga$/ets, a pair o% shoes, et$.4. he $ost o% his total pur$hase amounted to .JX),010.00 or e>uivalent to F(X521.00. Instead o% pa"in# the said items in $ash, he used his Bisa $ard 89o. )921 H)00 0001 91:14 to e%%e$t pa"ment thereo% on $redit. .e then presented and #ave his $redit $ard to the saleslad" *ho promptl" re%erred it to the store $ashier %or veri%i$ation. (hortl" therea%ter, the saleslad", in the presen$e o% his %riend, 7d De +eon and other shoppers o% di%%erent nationalities, in%ormed him that his Bisa $ard *as bla$/listed. 3alderon sou#ht the re$on%irmation o% the status o% his Bisa $ard %rom the saleslad", but the latter simpl" did not honor it and even threatened to $ut it into pie$es *ith the use o% a pair o% s$issors. Deepl" embarrassed and humiliated, and in order to avoid %urther indi#nities, 3alderon paid $ash %or the <u$$i #oods and items that he bou#ht. Fpon his return to the Philippines, and $laimin# that he su%%ered mu$h torment and embarrassment on a$$ount o% 7C3-s *ron#%ul a$t o% bla$/listin# or suspendin# his BI(0 $redit $ard *hile at the <u$$i store in .on#/on#, 3alderon %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt at ,a/ati 3it" a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst 7C3. ss!e: Whether or not 7C3 is liable %or the loss in$urred b" 3alderon5 R!li"#: InGur" is the ille#al invasion o% a le#al ri#ht6 dama#e is the loss, hurt or harm *hi$h results %rom the inGur"6 and dama#es are the re$ompense or $ompensation a*arded %or the dama#e su%%ered. hus, there $an be dama#e *ithout inGur" in those instan$es in *hi$h the loss or harm *as not the result o% a violation o% a le#al dut". In su$h $ases the $onse>uen$es must be borne b" the inGured person alone, the la* a%%ords no remed" %or

65 dama#es resultin# %rom an a$t *hi$h does not amount to a le#al inGur" or *ron#. hese situations are o%ten $alled damnum abs>ue inGuria. In other *ords, in order that a plainti%% ma" maintain an a$tion %or the inGuries o% *hi$h he $omplains, he must establish that su$h inGuries resulted %rom a brea$h o% dut" *hi$h the de%endant o*ed to the plainti%%? a $on$urren$e o% inGur" to the plainti%% and le#al responsibilit" b" the person $ausin# it. he underl"in# basis %or the a*ard o% tort dama#es is the premise that an individual *as inGured in $ontemplation o% la*. hus, there must %irst be a brea$h o% some dut" and the imposition o% liabilit" %or that brea$h be%ore dama#es ma" be a*arded6 and the brea$h o% su$h dut" should be the proximate $ause o% the inGur". We do not ta/e issue *ith the appellate $ourt in its observation that the 3redit 3ard 0#reement herein involved is a $ontra$t o% adhesion, *ith the stipulations therein $ontained unilaterall" prepared and imposed b" the petitioner to prospe$tive $redit $ard holders on a ta/e?it?or?leave?it basis. 'n the same breath, ho*ever, *e have e>uall" ruled that su$h a $ontra$t is as bindin# as ordinar" $ontra$ts, the reason bein# that the part" *ho adheres to the $ontra$t is %ree to reGe$t it entirel".! 50) @otel Ni>>o vs. Re4es G.R. No. 154259, Fe+r!ar4 2), 2005 Facts= In the evenin# o% '$tober 11, 199), *hile drin/in# $o%%ee at the lobb" o% .otel 9i//o, respondent *as invited b" a %riend, Dr. Ailart to Goin her in a part" in $elebration o% the birthda" o% the hotel-s mana#er. Durin# the part" and *hen respondent *as lined?up at the bu%%et table, he *as stopped b" Rub" +im, the 7xe$utive (e$retar" o% the hotel, and as/ed to leave the part". (ho$/ed and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he *as invited b" Dr. Ailart, *ho *as hersel% a #uest. 9ot lon# a%ter, a ,a/ati poli$eman approa$hed him and es$orted him out o% her part". ,s. +im admitted havin# as/ed respondent to leave the part" but not under the i#nominious $ir$umstan$es painted b" ,r. Re"es, that she did the a$t politel" and dis$reetl". ,ind%ul o% the *ish o% the $elebrant to /eep the part" intimate and ex$lusive,

66 she spo/e to the respondent hersel% *hen she sa* him b" the bu%%et table *ith no other #uests in the immediate vi$init". (he as/ed him to leave the part" a%ter he %inished eatin#. 0%ter she had turned to leave, the latter s$reamed and made a bi# s$ene. Dr. Ailart testi%ied that she did not *ant the $elebrant to thin/ that she invited ,r. Re"es to the part". Respondent %iled an a$tion %or a$tual, moral andLor exemplar" dama#es and attorne"-s %ees. he lo*er $ourt dismissed the $omplaint. 'n appeal, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals reversed the rulin# o% the trial $ourt, $onse>uentl" imposin# upon .otel 9i//o moral and exemplar" dama#es and attorne"-s %ees. 'n motion %or re$onsideration, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed its de$ision. hus, this instant petition %or revie*. ss!es= Whether or not ,s. Rub" +im is liable under 0rti$les 19 and 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode in as/in# ,r. Re"es to leave the part" as he *as not invited b" the $elebrant thereo% and *hether or not .otel 9i//o, as the emplo"er o% ,s. +im, be solidaril" liable *ith her5 R!li"#= he 3ourt %ound more $redible the lo*er $ourt-s %indin#s o% %a$ts. here *as no proo% o% motive on the part o% ,s. +im to humiliate ,r. Re"es and to expose him to ridi$ule and shame. ,r. Re"es- version o% the stor" *as unsupported, %ailin# to present an" *itness to ba$/ his stor". ,s. +im, not havin# abused her ri#ht to as/ ,r. Re"es to leave the part" to *hi$h he *as not invited, $annot be made liable %or dama#es under 0rti$les 19 and 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode. 9e$essaril", neither $an her emplo"er, .otel 9i//o, be held liable as its liabilit" sprin#s %rom that o% its emplo"ees. When a ri#ht is exer$ised in a manner *hi$h does not $on%orm *ith the norms enshrined in 0rti$le 19 and results in dama#e to another, a le#al *ron# is thereb" $ommitted %or *hi$h the *ron#doer must be responsible. 0rti$le 21 states that an" person *ho *ill%ull" $auses loss or inGur" to another in a manner that is $ontrar" to morals, #ood $ustoms or publi$ poli$" shall $ompensate the latter %or the dama#e. Without proo% o% an" ill?motive on her part, ,s. +im-s a$t $annot amount to abusive $ondu$t.

60 he maxim Bolenti 9on Ait InGuria! 8sel%?in%li$ted inGur"4 *as upheld b" the 3ourt, that is, to *hi$h a person assents is not esteemed in la* as inGur", that $onsent to inGur" pre$ludes the re$over" o% dama#es b" one *ho has /no*in#l" and voluntaril" exposed himsel% to dan#er. 51) 2a"!el vs. &eople o- t'e &'ilippi"es G.R. No. 165)42, Nove.+er 29, 2005 Facts= his $ase is a petition %or revie* on $ertiorari o% the de$ision o% 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmin# the de$ision o% the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Ca#uio 3it", $onvi$tin# the petitioner %or the $rime o% bi#am". 7duardo P. ,anuel, herein petitioner, *as %irst married to Rub"lus <a;a on Jul" 1@, 19:5, *ho, a$$ordin# to the %ormer, *as $har#ed *ith esta%a in 19:5 and therea%ter imprisoned and *as never seen a#ain b" him a%ter his last visit. ,anuel met ina C. <andalera in Januar" 199H *hen the latter *as onl" 21 "ears old. hree months a%ter their meetin#, the t*o #ot married throu#h a $ivil *eddin# in Ca#uio 3it" *ithout <andalera-s /no*led#e o% ,anuel-s %irst marria#e. In the $ourse o% their marria#e, thin#s #ot ro$/" and <andalera learned that 7duardo *as in %a$t alread" married *hen he married him. (he then %iled a $riminal $ase o% bi#am" a#ainst 7duardo ,anuel. he latter-s de%ense bein# that his de$laration o% sin#le! in his marria#e $ontra$t *ith <andalera *as done be$ause he believed in #ood %aith that his %irst marria#e *as invalid and that he did not /no* that he had to #o to $ourt to see/ %or the nulli%i$ation o% his %irst marria#e be%ore marr"in# ina. he Re#ional rial 3ourt ruled a#ainst him senten$in# him o% imprisonment o% %rom H "ears and 10 months to ten "ears, and an amount 0% P200,000.00 %or moral dama#es. 7duardo appealed the de$ision to the 30 *here he alle#ed that he *as not $riminall" liable %or bi#am" be$ause *hen he married the private $omplainant, he did so in #ood %aith and *ithout an" mali$ious intent. he 30 ruled a#ainst the petitioner but *ith modi%i$ation on the R 3-s de$ision. Imprisonment *as %rom 2 "ears, months and 1 da" to ten "ears. Pe$uniar" re*ard %or moral dama#es *as a%%irmed. ss!es:

6) a4 Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted reversible error o% la* *hen it ruled that petitioner-s *i%e $annot be le#all" presumed dead under 0rti$le 190 o% the 3ivil 3ode as there *as no Gudi$ial de$laration o% presumptive death as provided %or under 0rti$le )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode5 b4 Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted a reversible error o% la* *hen it a%%irmed the a*ard o% Php. 200,000 as moral dama#es as it has no basis in %a$t and in la*5 R!li"#= he petition is denied %or la$/ o% merit. he petitioner is presumed to have a$ted *ith mali$e or evil intent *hen he married the private $omplainant. 0s a #eneral rule, mista/e o% %a$t or #ood %aith o% the a$$used is a valid de%ense in a prose$ution %or a %elon" b" dolo6 su$h de%ense ne#ates mali$e or $riminal intent. .o*ever, i#noran$e o% the la* is not an ex$use be$ause ever"one is presumed to /no* the la*. I#norantia le#is neminem ex$usat. Where a spouse is absent %or the re>uisite period, the present spouse ma" $ontra$t a subse>uent marria#e onl" a%ter se$urin# a Gud#ment de$larin# the presumptive death o% the absent spouse to avoid bein# $har#ed and $onvi$ted o% bi#am"6 the present spouse *ill have to addu$e eviden$e that he had a *ell?%ounded belie% that the absent spouse *as alread" dead. (u$h Gud#ment is proo% o% the #ood %aith o% the present spouse *ho $ontra$ted a subse>uent marria#e6 thus, even i% the present spouse is later $har#ed *ith bi#am" i% the absentee spouse reappears, he $annot be $onvi$ted o% the $rime. he $ourt rules a#ainst the petitioner. he 3ourt rules that the petitioner-s $olle$tive a$ts o% %raud and de$eit be%ore, durin# and a%ter his marria#e *ith the private $omplainant *ere *ill%ul, deliberate and *ith mali$e and $aused inGur" to the latter. he 3ourt thus de$lares that the petitioner-s a$ts are a#ainst publi$ poli$" as the" undermine and subvert the %amil" as a so$ial institution, #ood morals and the interest and #eneral *el%are o% so$iet". Ce$ause the private $omplainant *as an inno$ent vi$tim o% the petitioner-s per%id", she is not barred %rom $laimin# moral dama#es. 3onsiderin# the attendant $ir$umstan$es o% the $ase, the 3ourt %inds the a*ard o% P200,000.00 %or moral dama#es to be Gust and reasonable.

69 52) Ro.ero vs. &eople o- t'e &'ilippi"es G.R. No. 160546, 3!l4 10, 2009 Facts: In the a%ternoon o% '$tober ), 199@, petitioner 0rturo Romera, Ro" ,an#a"a?a", and %ive other men *ere all headed to pla" volle"ball. 3au#ht in the rain, the" all *hile a*a" time at the house o% 3iria$a 3apil, then one o% their $ompanions, Aran/lin <enerol, pulled a pran/ on Cebin# Eulueta to *hi$h all o% them lau#hed ex$ept Ro" ,an#a"a?a", the vi$tim. Eulueta #ot mad at <enerol and said a remar/ to *hi$h Romero replied that the" all should *at$h out in Cala#uan. Romero and <enerol then le%t. here are t*o sides o% the stor" in this $ase. 0$$ordin# to the vi$tim, herein petitioner, *ith a bolo in his hand, *as alread" *aitin# %or him and his $ompanions *hen the" arrived at the house o% 0ntonio ,an#a"a?a". Romero stabbed Ro" ,an#a"a?a" in the stoma$h, %ell un$ons$ious, under*ent sur#er" and *as $on%ined %or more than three *ee/s. Petitioner-s side o% the stor" is that, a drun/en Ro" *as the a##ressor *ho *ent to their house $arr"in# a bolo *ho later on ha$/ed their *alls and Romero, althou#h unsu$$ess%ull". .is stabbin# o% Ro" usin# the latter-s bolo *as an a$t o% sel%?de%ense. he trial $ourt %ound herein petitioner #uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt o% %rustrated homi$ide. Romero appealed the $ase the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *hi$h a%%irmed the trial $ourt-s Gud#ment. hus, this revie* %or $ertiorari. ss!e= Whether or not the miti#atin# $ir$umstan$es provo$ation and passion or ob%us$ation present in this $ase5 o%

R!li"#= hrustin# his bolo at petitioner, threatenin# to /ill him, and ha$/in# the bamboo *alls o% his house are, in our vie*, su%%i$ient provo$ation to enra#e an" man, or stir his ra#e and ob%us$ate his thin/in#, more so *hen the lives o% his *i%e and $hildren are in dan#er. Petitioner stabbed the vi$tim as a result o% those provo$ations, and *hile petitioner *as still in a %it o% ra#e. In our vie*, there *as su%%i$ient provo$ation and the $ir$umstan$e o% passion or ob%us$ation attended the $ommission o% the o%%ense. Cut, *e must stress that provo$ation and passion or ob%us$ation are not t*o separate miti#atin# $ir$umstan$es. Well?settled is the rule that i% these t*o $ir$umstan$es are based

00 on the same %a$ts, the" should be treated to#ether as one miti#atin# $ir$umstan$e. Arom the %a$ts established in this $ase, it is $lear that both $ir$umstan$es arose %rom the same set o% %a$ts a%orementioned. .en$e, the" should not be treated as t*o separate miti#atin# $ir$umstan$es. 53) &e vs. &e G.R. No. L710396 2a4 30, 1962 Facts= 0l%onso Pe, the de%endant, *as a married man, a#ent o% +a Perla 3i#ar and 3i#arette Aa$tor" in <asan ,arindu>ue *ho *as treated li/e a son b" 3e$ilio Pe, one o% the petitioners. 3e$ilio introdu$ed 0l%onso to his $hildren and *as #iven a$$ess to visit their house. 0l%onso #ot %ond o% +olita, 2) "ear old sin#le, dau#hter o% 3e$ilio. he de%endant %re>uented the house o% +olita sometime in 1952 on the pretext that he *anted her to tea$h him ho* to pra" the rosar". 7ventuall" the" %ell in love *ith ea$h other. Plainti%% brou#ht a$tion be%ore lo*er $ourt o% ,anila and %ailed to prove 0l%onso deliberatel" and in bad %aith tried to *in +olita-s a%%e$tion. he $ase on moral dama#es *as dismissed. ss!e= Whether or not de%endant is liable to +olita-s %amil" on the #round o% moral, #ood $ustom and publi$ poli$" due to their illi$it a%%air5 R!li"#= 0l%onso $ommitted an inGur" to +olita-s %amil" in a manner $ontrar" to morals, #ood $ustoms and publi$ poli$" $ontemplated in 0rti$le 20 o% the $ivil $ode. he de%endant too/ advanta#e o% the trust o% 3e$ilio and even used the pra"in# o% rosar" as a reason to #et $lose *ith +olita. he *ron# $aused b" 0l%onso is immeasurable $onsiderin# the %a$t that he is a married man. W.7R7A'R7, the de$ision appealed %rom is reversed. De%endant is hereb" senten$ed to pa" the plainti%%s the sum o% P5,000 as dama#es and P2,000.00 as attorne"Ns %ees and expenses o% liti#ations. 3osts a#ainst appellee.

01

54) @er.osisi.a vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. L71462), 5epte.+er 30, 1960 Aa$ts: (oledad 3a#i#as a tea$her in the (ibon#a Provin$ial .i#h ($hool in 3ebu, and petitioner, *ho *as almost ten 8104 "ears "oun#er than she, used to #o around to#ether and *ere re#arded as en#a#ed, althou#h he had made no promise o% marria#e prior thereto. In 1951, she #ave up tea$hin# and be$ame a li%e insuran$e under*riter in the 3it" o% 3ebu, *here intima$" developed amon# her and the petitioner, sin$e one evenin# in 1951, *hen a%ter $omin# %rom the movies, the" had sexual inter$ourse in his $abin on board ,LB I7s$a;o,I to *hi$h he *as then atta$hed as apprenti$e pilot. In Aebruar" 195), (oledad advised petitioner that she *as in the %amil" *a", *hereupon he promised to marr" her. heir $hild, 3hris .ermosisima, *as born on June 1:, 195), in a private maternit" and $lini$. .o*ever, subse>uentl", or on Jul" 2), 195), de%endant married one Romanita Pere=. .en$e, the present a$tion, *hi$h *as $ommen$ed on or about '$tober ), 195). 0n appeal b" $ertiorari, on '$tober ), 195), (oledad 3a#i#as, hereina%ter re%erred to as $omplainant, %iled *ith the said 3AI a $omplaint %or the a$/no*led#ment o% her $hild, 3hris .ermosisima, as a natural $hild o% said petitioner, as *ell as %or support o% said $hild and moral dama#es %or alle#ed brea$h o% promise to marr". ss!e= Whether or not moral dama#es are re$overable under our la*s %or brea$h o% promise to marr"5 R!li"#= It appearin# that be$ause o% the de%endant?appellant-s sedu$tive pro*ess, plainti%%?appellee over*helmed b" her love %or him "ielded to his sexual desires in spite o% her a#e and sel%? $ontrol. In the present $ase, the $ourt is unable to sa" that petitioner is morall" #uilt" o% sedu$tion, not onl" be$ause he is approximatel" ten "ears "oun#er but also be$ause the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e %ound that $omplainant surrendered hersel% to the petitioner be$ause over*helmed b" her love %or him she *anted

02 to bind him b" havin# a %ruit o% their en#a#ement even be%ore the" had the bene%it o% $ler#". 55) Gala"# vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. L71024), 3a"!ar4 29, 1962 Facts= Plainti%% Ceatri= <alan# and Rodri#o Kuinit *ere en#a#ed, but Rodri#o-s parents *ere stron#l" opposed to their marria#e. he" lived as husband and *i%e in the house o% one 0dol%o Da#a*an until Rodri#o le%t and never returned. he eviden$e on other pertinent %a$ts is ho*ever $on%li$tin#. Plainti%% tried to prove that she and Rodri#o *ere en#a#ed despite the opposition o% the latter-s mother and that the %ather o% Rodri#o a#reed to #ive do*r" and de%ra" the expenses o% the marria#e. he %ather even too/ them to the house o% Da#a*an %or them to sta" as husband and *i%e. .o*ever *hen Rodri#o *as not able to se$ure a marria#e li$ense %or la$/ o% a residen$e $erti%i$ate, he *ent ba$/ to his hometo*n to #et su$h $erti%i$ate but never returned. 'n the other hand, the de%endants sou#h to establish that he and plainti%% *ere en#a#ed but his parents *ere opposed to the marria#e. Rodri#o *as a#reeable to marr" the plainti%% a%ter his #raduation but the latter *as impatient and *anted the marria#e to ta/e pla$e sooner. Ce$ause o% $ontinued relationships *ith the plainti%%, Rodri#o-s parents told him to leave the parental home. .e later told this to plainti%%. he plainti%% $onvin$ed him to #o to Da#a*an-s house *here she %ollo*ed and sta"ed therea%ter. Ce$ause o% his $ontinued re%usal to marr" the plainti%%, the latter-s relatives, a$$ompanied b" poli$emen and $onstabular" soldiers intimidated him. .e *as allo*ed to #o home and *as then pla$ed under the $ustod" o% a to*n ma"or b" his parents. .e re%used to a$/no*led#e the marria#e appli$ation, *hi$h *as provided b" Da#a*an %or him to si#n, *hen he did not appear be%ore a notar" publi$. Plainti%% %iled an a$tion a#ainst Rodri#o and his %ather ,aximo Kuinit to re$over dama#es %or brea$h o% promise on the part o% Rodri#o to marr" her. he trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment in %avor o% plainti%%, *hi$h on appeal, *as reversed b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals.

03 ss!e= Whether or not plainti%% ma" re$over dama#es %or brea$h o% promise to marr"5 R!li"#= It is ur#ed b" the plainti%% that said 3ourt had erred in not a*ardin# moral dama#es to her. (he insists that moral dama#es %or brea$h o% promise to marr" are $olle$tible under our la*s, but this >uestion has alread" been settled adversel" to plainti%%-s pretense in .emosisima vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals. ,oral dama#es %or brea$h o% promise to marr" are not $olle$tible. 56) Gas'e. 5'oo>at 1a>s' vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 90336, Fe+r!ar4 19, 1993 Facts: 'n '$tober 2:, 19@:, *ithout the assistan$e o% $ounsel, private respondent %iled *ith the a%oresaid trial $ourt a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst petitioner %or the alle#ed violation o% their a#reement to #et married. (he alle#es in said $omplaint that she is 20 "ears old, sin#le, Ailipino and a prett" lass o% #ood moral $hara$ter and reputation dul" respe$ted in her $ountr"6 other petitioner, on the other hand, is an Iranian $iti=en residin# at +o=ano 0partments, <uili#, Da#upan 3it", and is an ex$han#e student, be%ore 0u#ust 20, 19@: the latter $ourted and proposed to marr" her, she a$$epted his love on the $ondition that the" #et married6 the" there%ore a#reed to #et married. he petitioner %or$ed her to live *ith him in the +o=ano apartments. (he *as a vir#in at that time6 a%ter a *ee/ be%ore the %ilin# o% $omplaint, petitioner-s attitude to*ards her started to $han#e. .e maltreated and threatened to /ill her6 as a result o% the $omplaint. Petitioner repudiated the marria#e a#reement and as/ed her not to live *ith him an"more and that the petitioner is alread" married to someone in Ca$olod 3it". Private respondent then pra"ed %or Gud#ment orderin# petitioner to pa" her dama#es. 'n the other hand, petitioner $laimed that he never proposed marria#e to or a#reed to be married *ith the private respondent and denied all alle#ations a#ainst him. 0%ter trial on the merits, the lo*er $ourt ordered petitioner to pa" the private respondent dama#es. ss!e: Whether or not 0rti$le 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode applies to the $ase at bar5

04

R!li"#: he existin# rule is that a brea$h o% promise to marr" per se is not an a$tionable *ron#. 9ot*ithstandin#, 0rti$le 21, *hi$h is desi#ned to expand the $on$epts o% torts and >uasi?deli$ts in this Gurisdi$tion b" #rantin# ade>uate le#al remed" %or the untold number o% moral *ron#s *hi$h is impossible %or human %oresi#ht to spe$i%i$all" enumerate and punish in the statute boo/s. 0rti$le 21:H o% the 3ivil 3ode, *hi$h de%ines >uasi?deli$ts thus: Whoever b" a$t or omission $auses dama#e to another, there bein# %ault or ne#li#en$e, is obli#ed to pa" %or the dama#e done. (u$h %ault or ne#li#en$e, i% there is no pre?existin# $ontra$tual relation bet*een the parties, is $alled a >uasi?deli$t and is #overned b" the provisions o% this 3hapter.! In the li#ht o% the above laudable purpose o% 0rti$le 21, the $ourt held that *here a man-s promise to marr" in %a$t the proximate $ause o% the a$$eptan$e o% his love b" a *oman and his representation to %ul%il that promise therea%ter be$omes the proximate $ause o% the #ivin# o% hersel% unto him in sexual $on#ress, proo% that he had, in realit", no intention o% marr"in# her and that the promise *as onl" subtle s$heme or de$eptive devi$e to enti$e or invei#le her to a$$ept him and obtain her $onsent to sexual a$t $ould Gusti%" the a*ard o% dama#es pursuant to 0rti$le 21 not be$ause o% su$h brea$h o% promise o% marria#e but be$ause o% the %raud and de$eit behind it, and the *il%ul inGur" to her honour and reputation *hi$h %ollo*ed therea%ter. It is essential ho*ever, that su$h inGur" should have been $ommitted in a manner $ontrar" to morals, #ood $ustoms, or publi$ poli$". 50) Cass.er vs. <ele/ G.R. No. L7200)9, Dece.+er 26, 1964 Facts: Aran$is$o U. Bele= and Ceatri= P. Wassmer, de$ided to #et married on (eptember ), 195). 'n (eptember 2, Aran$is$o sent a note to her sa"in# that their *eddin# *ould be postponed. he %ollo*in# da", he sent her a tele#ram sa"in# that his mother opposed their marria#e. herea%ter, Bele= did not appear so Ceatri= sued him %or dama#es. he de%endant *as ordered b" the trial $ourt to pa" P2, 000.00 %or a$tual dama#es, P25,000.00 as moral and exemplar"

05 dama#es, P2,500.00 as attorne"-s %ees. he de%endant %iled a motion %or relie% %rom orders. 'n 0u#ust 21, 1955, the date o% their hearin#s, de%endant %ailed to appear and instead, his $ounsel %iled a motion to de%er %or t*o *ee/s resolution %or possible ami$able settlement. Plainti%% mani%ested on June 15, 195H that the t*o *ee/s #iven b" the $ourt had expired but the de%endant %ailed to appear. 0nother $han$e o% ami$able settlement *as #iven but the $ounsel %or de%endant in%ormed the $ourt that $han$es o% settlin# the $ase ami$abl" *ere nil. De%endant asserted that the Gud#ment is $ontrar" to la* %or there is no provision o% the 3ivil 3ode authori=in# an a$tion %or brea$h o% promise to marr". ss!e: Whether or not de%endant is liable %or dama#es %rom the brea$h o% promise to marr"5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that the de%endant is liable %or dama#es. hou#h, the $ourt ruled that mere brea$h o% a promise to marr"! is not a$tionable *ron#, he is liable %or dama#es under 0rti$le 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode. Fnder 0rti$le 21, an" person *ho *ill%ull" $auses loss or inGur" to another in a manner that is $ontrar" to morals, #ood $ustoms or publi$ poli$" shall $ompensate the latter %or dama#e.! he re$ord sho*s that their *eddin# *as set and that preparation and publi$it" %or the said spe$ial o$$asion *ere alread" made. his is not a mere brea$h o% promise to marr". It is palpabl" and unGusti%iabl" $ontrar" to #ood $ustoms %or *hi$h de%endant must be held ans*erable in dama#es in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 21. .en$e, the assailed de$ision *as a%%irmed *ith modi%i$ation. he 3ourt redu$ed the moral and exemplar" dama#es to P15, 000.00 5)) ,lsa Nativi%a% vs. Ro"al% $!"ac G.R. No. 143130, 3!l4 10, 2000 Facts= his $ase ori#inated in a $omplaint %or dama#es %iled b" petitioner 7lsa 9atividad a#ainst respondent Ronald una$ %or brea$h o% promise to marr". It appears that petitioner 7lsa 9atividad and respondent Ronald una$ #re* up to#ether in Caran#a" Kuilin#, alisa", Catan#as *here their respe$tive

06 parents, petitioners ,arino and 3larita 9atividad and respondent 7usebio and 7lisa una$, resided. 0t a#e nineteen 8194, the t*o be$ame lovers. heir intimate relations $ontinued, resultin# in 7lsa #ettin# pre#nant sometime in June 1992. Ronald reassured her, a#ain promisin# her marria#e. rue enou#h, on '$tober 11, 1992, Ronald and his parents, a$$ompanied b" several relatives numberin# t*ent" in all, *ent to 7lsaNs house and as/ed her parents %or the hand o% their dau#hter. he t*o %amilies a#reed to have the *eddin# in Januar" 1991 as 7lsaNs sister had #otten married that "ear, and the" thou#ht it *as not #ood to have t*o *eddin#s in a %amil" *ithin the same "ear. ,ean*hile, 7lsa started livin# *ith Ronald in the house o% the latterNs %amil" *hile *aitin# %or the bab" to be born. Fn%ortunatel", on De$ember 19, 1992, 7lsa #ave birth to a premature bab" *hi$h died a%ter %ive 854 hours in the in$ubator. 0%ter 7lsaNs dis$har#e %rom the hospital, the t*o %amilies de$ided that 7lsa should #o ba$/ to her parents so her mother $ould ta/e $are o% her durin# her postnatal period. Durin# said period, Ronald o$$asionall" slept in 7lsaNs house. ss!e= Whether or not there is a sedu$tion done b" una$5 R!li"#= In the $ase at bar, it is $lear that no moral sedu$tion *as emplo"ed b" Ronald, mu$h less b" his parents. Aorm the narration o% the trial $ourt, the evident $on$lusion is that the t*o be$ame lovers be%ore the" en#a#ed in an" sexual inter$ourse. 0lso, the moral sedu$tion $ontemplated b" the 3ode 3ommission in dra%tin# 0rti$le 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode is one *here the de%endant is in a position o% moral as$endan$" in relation to the plainti%%. We %ail to see an" o% these $ir$umstan$es in this $ase. In addition, as the trial $ourt noted, marria#e plans *ere in %a$t arran#ed bet*een the %amilies o% the parties. hat their relationship turned sour a%ter*ards, or immediatel" a%ter 7lsaNs mis$arria#e, is alread" be"ond the punitive s$ope o% our la*s. his is simpl" a $ase o% a relationship #one a*r". 59) 5'i"r4o (o.pa"4, "c. vs. RRN "c. G.R. No. 102525, *cto+er 20, 2010

00 Facts= Petitioner (hinr"o 8Philippines4 3ompan", In$. 8petitioner4 is a domesti$ $orporation or#ani=ed under Philippine la*s. Private respondent RR9 In$orporated 8hereina%ter respondent4 is li/e*ise a domesti$ $orporation or#ani=ed under Philippine la*s. Respondent %iled a $laim %or arbitration a#ainst petitioner be%ore 3I03 %or re$over" o% unpaid a$$ount *hi$h $onsists o% unpaid portions o% thesub?$ontra$t, variations and unused materials in the total sum o% P5,2:5,1@).1: and le#al interest in the amount o% P))2,01).:1. Petitioner %iled a $ounter$laim %or overpa"ment in the amount o% P2,512,99:.9H. It *as sho*n that petitioner and respondent exe$uted an 0#reement and 3onditions o% (ub? $ontra$t 8herea%ter 0#reement si#ned on June 11, 199H and June 1), 199H, respe$tivel". Respondent si#ni%ied its *illin#ness to a$$ept and per%orm %or petitioner in an" o% its proGe$ts, a part or the *hole o% the *or/s more parti$ularl" des$ribed in 3onditions o% (ub? 3ontra$t and other (ub?$ontra$t do$uments. Respondent *as not able to %inish the entire *or/s *ith petitioner due to %inan$ial di%%i$ulties. Petitioner paid respondent a total amount o% P2H,5):,H2).:H. 'n June 25, 2005 Rshould read 2001S, respondent, throu#h its %ormer $ounsel sent a letter to petitioner demandin# %or the pa"ment o% its unpaid balan$e amountin# to P5,2:5,1@).1:. Petitioner $laimed material ba$/ $har#es in the amount o% P),0H1,H11.)1. 'n (eptember 2H, 2001, respondent onl" a$/no*led#ed P2,1:1,@95.11 as material ba$/ $har#es. herea%ter, on '$tober 1H, 2001, respondent sent another letter to petitioner %or them to meet and settle their dispute. ss!e= Whether or not there is unGust enri$hment $ommitted b" respondent5 R!li"#= FnGust enri$hment $laims do not lie simpl" be$ause one part" bene%its %rom the e%%orts or obli#ations o% others, but instead it must be sho*n that a part" *as unGustl" enri$hed in the sense that the term unGustl" $ould mean ille#all" or unla*%ull". 0s %ound b" both the 3I03 and a%%irmed b" the 30, petitioner %ailed to prove that respondentNs %ree use o% the man li%t *as *ithout le#al #round based on the provisions o% their $ontra$t. hus, the third re>uisite, i.e., that the enri$hment o% respondent is *ithout Gust or le#al #round, is missin#. In addition, petitionerNs $laim is

0) based on $ontra$t, hen$e, the %ourth re>uisite that the plainti%% has no other a$tion based on $ontra$t, >uasi?$ontra$t, $rime or >uasi?deli$t is also absent. 3learl", the prin$iple o% unGust enri$hment is not appli$able in this $ase. 60) (ar (ool &'ilippi"es, "c. vs. Develop.e"t (orp. G.R. No. 13)0)), 3a"!ar4 23, 2006 As'io Realt4 a"%

Facts: (pouses .e$tor and <loria .i=on +ope= leased a par$el o% land 8propert"!4 lo$ated at 9o. :2 811:4 Kue=on 0venue, $orner Bi$tor" 0venue, Kue=on 3it", to 30R 3''+ Philippines, In$. sin$e 19:2. he (pouses +ope= and 30R 3''+ exe$uted a *ritten lease a#reement over the propert" %or t*o "ears in 1990. Fpon the expiration o% the *ritten lease a#reement on 0u#ust 1H 1992, 3ar 3ool *as allo*ed b" the (pouses +ope= to $ontinue o$$up"in# the propert" upon pa"ment o% monthl" rentals, on a verbal month?to? month lease a#reement *hi$h $ontinued until 0u#ust 11, 1995. 'n June 15, 1995, .e$tor +ope= *rote and in%ormed 30R 3''+ o% his intention to sell the propert", and even #ave the latter the option to bu" the propert" be%ore o%%erin# the same to other prospe$tive bu"ers. 0%ter 30R 3''+-s %ailure to #ive its response re#ardin# the o%%er, .e$tor +ope= terminated the verbal lease a#reement on June 2@, 1995 and demanded 30R 3''+, %or several times, to va$ate the propert" until 0u#ust 11, 1995, *hi$h *ere alle#edl" i#nored b" the latter and $ontinued to o$$up" the same. F(.I' Realt" in%ormed 30R 3''+ re#ardin# its pur$hase o% the propert" %rom the (pouses +ope= in a letter dated 0u#ust 11, 1995, #ivin# 30R 3''+ a 10?da" extension to va$ate the propert", %rom 0u#ust 11, 1995. he latter a#ain %ailed to respond to the demand letter and $ontinued to o$$up" the propert". 'n De$ember 19, 1995, F(.I' Realt" %iled a $omplaint %or eGe$tment a#ainst 30R 3''+ a%ter the latter-s re%usal to va$ate the propert" despite the %inal demand sent on De$ember 1, 1995. 'n the other hand, on '$tober 9, 1995, 30R 3''+ %iled a $omplaint?a%%idavit, later amended to in$lude the $har#e o% #rave $oer$ion, a#ainst the a#ents and representative o% F(.I' Realt" %or robber" *ith %or$e upon thin#s and mali$ious mis$hie%, a%ter

09 the latter alle#edl" bro/e into the leased premises, demolished the improvements on the premises, and threatened and in%li$ted bodil" inGuries upon t*o emplo"ees o% 30R 3''+, on '$tober 1, 1995, despite the %ormer-s /no*led#e o% the lease a#reement bet*een 30R 3''+ and .e$tor +ope=. 30R 3''+-s President and <eneral ,ana#er, Bir#ilio de la Rosa, also %ound some personal items missin# the next da". Aurthermore, 30R 3''+ ar#ued that despite Fshio Realt"-s /no*led#e o% the lease a#reement, it still demanded the %ormer to va$ate the propert". 0s su$h, 30R 3''+ %iled a $omplaint see/in# to $ompel .e$tor +ope= to exe$ute a *ritten lease $ontra$t %or the period %rom 1 Januar" 1995 until 11 De$ember 199H and %or F(.I' Realt" to be bound b" the $ontra$t. ss!e: Whether or not the a*ard o% dama#es to Fshio Realt" b" *a" o% rentals and attorne"-s %ees $onstitutes unGust enri$hment5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that there is no unGust enri$hment *hen the person *ho *ill bene%it has a valid $laim to su$h bene%it, and that F(.I' Realt" has the le#al ri#ht to re$eive some amount as reasonable $ompensation %or 30R 3''+-s o$$upation o% the propert". 0rti$le 22 o% the 3ivil 3ode provides that ReSver" person *ho throu#h an a$t o% per%orman$e b" another, or an" other means, a$>uires or $omes into possession o% somethin# at the expense o% the latter *ithout Gust or le#al #round, shall return the same to him.! he prin$iple o% unGust enri$hment under 0rti$le 22 re>uires t*o $onditions: 814 that a person is bene%ited *ithout a valid basis or Gusti%i$ation, and 824 that su$h bene%it is derived at another-s expense or dama#e. .en$e, there is unGust enri$hment *hen a person unGustl" retains a bene%it to the loss o% another, or *hen a person retains mone" or propert" o% another a#ainst the %undamental prin$iples o% Gusti$e, e>uit" and #ood $ons$ien$e.! Aurthermore, the 3ourt ruled that F(.I' Realt", as the ne* o*ner o% the propert", has a ri#ht to ph"si$al possession o% the propert". (in$e 30R 3''+ deprived F(.I' Realt" o% its propert", 30R 3''+ should pa" F(.I' Realt" rentals as reasonable $ompensation %or the use and o$$upation o% the propert".! hus,

)0 the pa"ment o% dama#es in the %orm o% rentals %or the propert" does not $onstitute unGust enri$hment. 61) ,le#ir vs. &'ilippi"e Airli"es, "c. G.R. No. 1)1995, 3!l4 16, 2012 Facts: 'n ,ar$h 1H, 19:1, petitioner Cibiano 7le#ir *as hired b" Philippine 0irlines, In$. 8P0+4 as a $ommer$ial pilot, spe$i%i$all" .(:)@ +imited Airst '%%i$er. In 1995, as a result o% P0+-s re%leetin# pro#ram, 7le#ir, to#ether *ith seven other pilots #ot the C:):? )00 3aptain position and *as sent %or trainin# at Coein# in (eattle, Washin#ton, Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a on ,a" @, 1995, to a$>uire the ne$essar" s/ills and /no*led#e in handlin# the ne* air$ra%t a$>uired b" P0+. 7le#ir $ompleted the said trainin# on (eptember 19, 1995. 0%ter t*ent"?%ive "ears, ei#ht months and 20 da"s o% $ontinuous servi$e, be%ore rea$hin# the retirement a#e o% sixt", the petitioner applied %or optional retirement authori=ed under the 3olle$tive Car#ainin# 0#reement 83C04 bet*een P0+ and the 0irline Pilots 0sso$iation o% the Philippines 80+P0P4, in *hi$h he *as a member o% #ood standin#, on 9ovember 5, 199H .o*ever, P0+ *arned him that i% he leaves P0+ be%ore he has rendered servi$e %or at least another three "ears, the $osts o% his trainin# shall be dedu$ted %rom his retirement pa". 9onetheless, 7le#ir *ent on terminal leave %or thirt" da"s and therea%ter made e%%e$tive his retirement %rom servi$e. hus, he *as %urther in%ormed b" P0+ that the $osts o% his trainin# *ill be dedu$ted %rom his retirement pa", *hi$h *ill be $omputed at the rate o% P 5,000.00 per "ear o% servi$e, and that su$h $omputation should be based on P0+?0+P0P Retirement Plan o% 19H: 8P0+?0+P0P Retirement Plan4, reimbursin# the $ompan" *ith the proportionate $osts o% his trainin#. 7le#ir, on the other hand asserted that his retirement bene%its should be based on the $omputation stated in 0rti$le 2@: o% the +abor 3ode, as amended b" Republi$ 0$t 8R.0.4 9o. :H)1, and that the $osts o% his trainin# should not be dedu$ted there%rom.

)1 ss!e: Whether or not P0+ is entitled to reimbursement o% 7le#ir-s proportionate $osts o% trainin#, dedu$tin# it %rom the latter-s retirement pa" based on P0+?0+P0P Retirement Plan5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that Cibiano 3. 7le#irNs retirement pa" should $omputed based on the 19H: P0+?0+P0P Retirement Plan and the P0+ PilotsN Retirement Cene%it Plan, $reditin# Philippine 0irlines, In$. %or the amount it had alread" paid the petitioner under the mentioned plans. 0rti$le 22 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode states that: 7ver" person *ho throu#h an a$t o% per%orman$e b" another, or an" other means, a$>uires or $omes into possession o% somethin# at the expense o% the latter *ithout Gust or le#al #round, shall return the same to him.! Aurthermore, there is unGust enri$hment *hen a person unGustl" retains a bene%it at the loss o% another, or *hen a person retains the mone" or propert" o% another a#ainst the %undamental prin$iples o% Gusti$e, e>uit" and #ood $ons$ien$e.! hus, a person shall not be allo*ed to pro%it or enri$h himsel% ine>uitabl" at another-s expense.! 0 person must be unGustl" bene%itted and that su$h bene%it is derived at the expense o% or *ith dama#es to another. In this $ase, the petitioner leavin# the $ompan" be%ore it has %ul%illed the reasonable expe$tation o% servi$e on his part, %or another three "ears, *ill amount to unGust enri$hment at the expense o% P0+ a%ter the latter invested a $onsiderable amount o% mone" in sendin# the petitioner abroad to under#o trainin# to prepare him %or his ne* appointment as C:):?)00 3aptain. hus, 7li#ir a$>uired ne* /no*led#e and s/ills *hi$h e%%e$tivel" enri$hed his te$hni$al /no*?ho*, in$reasin# his monthl" pa" and *ithout returnin# P0+-s investment in the %orm o% servi$e, %or an estimated len#th o% three "ears. 62) <ale"/!ela vs. @o"ora+le (o!rt *- Appeals G.R. No. L75616), Dece.+er 22, 19)) Facts: 3arlos elosa, a %isherman and %armer *ith a ver" limited edu$ation, obtained a loan %rom the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena In$. on 9ovember 29, 19H0, and as a se$urit" thereo%, he mort#a#ed a par$el o% land lo$ated at Co. 0mu#eria, ,aluna", Kue=on *ith an

)2 area o% 50,000 s>uare meters *hi$h *as re#istered in the name o% the spouses 3arlos elosa P Ru%ina elosa. ,onths a%ter, the 0$tin# <overnor o% the 3entral Can/ apprised the sto$/holders o% the +u$ena Can/ that the ,onetar" Coard, in its Resolution 9o. 92@, approved on June 11, 19H, %ound that its o%%i$ers, dire$tors and emplo"ees had $ommitted $ertain anomalies or had resorted to unsound ban/in# pra$ti$es *hi$h *ere preGudi$ial to the #overnment, its depositors and $reditors. he ,onetar" Coard later on de$ided to li>uidate the +u$ena Can/, *hi$h *as a$ted upon b" the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila and ordered to turn over the said ban/-s assets to the 3entral Can/Ns authori=ed representative, 3arlota P. Balen=uela. 0mon# the a$$ounts o% the +u$ena ban/ inventoried b" the 3entral Can/Ns representative *as the a$$ount o% 3arlos elosa in the prin$ipal amount o% P5,000.00, and therea%ter, a demand letter *as thus sent to 3arlos elosa on 0u#ust 2:, 19H5 b" the 3entral Can/ examiner. elosa then exe$uted an a%%idavit dated Januar" 2),19HH, in protest o% the demand sin$e it *as to the best o% his /no*led#e that his obli#ation to the rural ban/ *as onl" P100.00 not P5,000.00. '%%i$ial Re$eipt o% the Rural Can/ sho*ed that 3arlos elosa alread" had no outstandin# balan$e as o% 0pril 1@, 19:2. 'n Januar" 11,19H@, 3arlos elosa died. hen deput" o% the 3entral Can/ assi#ned at the +u$ena ban/, $laimin# that the pa"ments made did not %ull" satis%" the *hole amount, petitioned the Deput" Provin$ial (heri%% o% Kue=on to extra?Gudi$iall" %ore$lose the mort#a#e and sell the $ollateral at publi$ au$tion, s$heduled on 0pril 20, 19:2. he *ido* and $hildren o% 3arlos elosa, %iled a $omplaint be%ore the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Kue=on, a#ainst the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena In$., to restrain the said sale, pra"in# %or the de$laration o% the $ontra$t o% mort#a#e exe$uted b" 3arlos elosa in %avor o% the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena, In$. null and void, *hi$h the 3ourt %ound insu%%i$ient in %orm and substan$e. (in$e there *as no restrainin# order, the %ore$losure sale too/ pla$e on 0pril 20, 19:2, *ith the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena, In$., as the lone and hi#hest bidder in the au$tion sale, $erti%i$ate o% sale *as issued to the latter and the same *as re#istered *ith the Re#istr" o% Deeds on (eptember 11, 19:2. 'n ,a" ), 19:2, the plainti%%s %iled their amended $omplaint a#ainst 3arlota P. Balen=uela, as (uperintendent o% Can/s and authori=ed

)3 representative o% the 3entral Can/ in the li>uidation o% the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena, In$., *hile Balen=uela moved to dismiss the amended $omplaint. ss!e: Whether or not the trial $ourt has no Gurisdi$tion over the subGe$t matter o% the a$tion as the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena, In$., is in the pro$ess o% li>uidation in the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held it *ould be ne$essar" in Gusti$e to all $on$erned that a 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e should assist and supervise the li>uidation and should a$t as umpire and arbitrator in the allo*an$e and disallo*an$e o% $laims.! 0rti$le 2) o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode states that: In all $ontra$tual, propert" or other relations, *hen one o% the parties is at a disadvanta#e on a$$ount o% his moral dependen$e, i#noran$e, indi#en$e, mental *ea/ness, tender a#e or other handi$ap, the 3ourt must be vi#ilant %or his prote$tion.! he 3ourt %urther $ontended that to order the private respondents to re%ile and reliti#ate their $ase be%ore the li>uidation $ourt *ould be an exer$ise in %utilit". It *ould mean another several "ears o% trial and additional expenses to private respondents *ho are admittedl" livin# in povert". In$identall", the propert" in >uestion is the onl" propert" o% private respondents.! hus, the %raudulent and anomalous transa$tions involvin# the o%%i$ers o% the Rural Can/ o% +u$ena, In$. too/ advanta#e o% the ver" limited edu$ation o% 3arlos elosa. 0s su$h, the do$trine o% Parens Patriae is ne$essar" to applied in this $ase, as #uardian and prote$tor o% the ri#hts o% the elosas. 63) (o"cepcio" vs. (o!rt *- Appeals G.R. No. 120006, 3a"!ar4 31, 2000 Facts: he spouses 9estor 9i$olas and 0llem 9i$olas *ere residents o% 9o. 51 ,. 3on$ep$ion (t., (an Joa>uin, Pasi# 3it", in an apartment o*ned b" Aloren$e ICin#I 3on$ep$ion, also a resident o% the same $ompound *here the apartment *as lo$ated. 9estor 9i$olas, *ho *as en#a#ed in the business o% suppl"in# #overnment a#en$ies and private entities *ith o%%i$e

)4 e>uipment, applian$es and other %ixtures on a $ash pur$hase or $redit basis, *as Goined b" Aloren$e 3on$ep$ion, b" $ontributin# $apital on $ondition that a%ter her $apital investment *as returned to her, an" pro%it earned *ould be divided e>uall" bet*een her and 9estor. In Jul" 19@5, the brother o% the de$eased husband o% Aloren$e, Rodri#o 3on$ep$ion an#ril" a$$osted 9estor at the latter-s apartment and a$$used him o% $ondu$tin# an adulterous relationship *ith Aloren$e, and even shouted: .o" 9estor, /abit /a ni Cin#Y x x x Cini#"an /a pa pala ni Cin# 3on$ep$ion n# P100,000.00 para uma/"at n# Ca#uio. Pa#/aa/"at mo at n# asa*a mo doon a" bababa /a uli para ma#/asarilinan /a"o ni Cin#.I Rodri#o even %urther a$$used Aloren$e o% the same imputations *hi$h *ere also denied b" Aloren$e. 0s a $onse>uen$e, 9estor 9i$olas %elt extreme embarrassment and shame to the extent that he $ould no lon#er %a$e his nei#hbors. Aloren$e 3on$ep$ion also stopped to venture the business *ith the spouses that the" $ould no lon#er $ope *ith their $ommitments to their $lients and $ustomers. ,oreover, 0llem 9i$olas started to doubt 9estor-s %idelit" resultin# in %re>uent bi$/erin#s and >uarrels bet*een them. his pushed 9estor to demand %or publi$ apolo#" and pa"ment o% dama#es %rom Rodri#o, *ho i#nored the said demands. he 9i$olas spouses then de$ided to %ile a $ivil suit a#ainst Rodri#o %or dama#es. ss!e: Whether or not there is basis in la* %or the a*ard o% dama#es to the spouses 9i$olas5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the %a$tual %indin#s provide enou#h basis in la* %or the a*ard o% dama#es in %avor o% the spouses 9i$olas. Fnder 0rti$le 2H o% the 3ivil 3ode, the sa$redness o% human personalit" is a $on$omitant $onsideration o% ever" plan %or human amelioration. he tou$hstone o% ever" s"stem o% la*, o% the $ulture and $ivili=ation o% ever" $ountr", is ho* %ar it di#ni%ies man. I% the statutes insu%%i$ientl" prote$t a person %rom bein# unGustl" humiliated, in short, i% human personalit" is not exalted ? then the la*s are indeed de%e$tive. hus, under this arti$le, the ri#hts o% persons are ampl" prote$ted, and dama#es are provided %or violations o% a person-s di#nit", personalit", priva$" and pea$e o% mind.! Dama#es there%ore are allo*able %or

)5 a$tions a#ainst a person-s di#nit", su$h as pro%ane, insultin#, humiliatin#, s$andalous or abusive lan#ua#e. Fnder 0rti$le 221: o% the 3ivil 3ode, moral dama#es *hi$h in$lude ph"si$al su%%erin#, mental an#uish, %ri#ht, serious anxiet", besmir$hed reputation, *ounded %eelin#s, moral sho$/, so$ial humiliation, and similar inGur", althou#h in$apable o% pe$uniar" $omputation, ma" be re$overed i% the" are the proximate result o% the de%endant-s *ron#%ul a$t or omission. hus, the in$ident $learl" an invasion on the ri#ht o% respondent 9estor as a person, *herein 9estor 9i$olas su%%ered mental an#uish, besmir$hed reputation, *ounded %eelin#s and so$ial humiliation as a proximate result o% petitioner-s abusive, s$andalous and insultin# lan#ua#e. 64) &a%al'i" vs. Lavi"a G.R. No. 1)3026, Nove.+er 14, 2012 Facts: +avi;a and 9estor *ere both Ailipino diplomats assi#ned in Jen"a as 0mbassador and 3onsul <eneral, respe$tivel". Durin# their sta" in Jen"a, Cienvenido Pasturan delivered messa#es to the Ailipino household helpers in the ambassador-s residen$e instru$tin# them to allo* the entr" o% an o%%i$er *ho *ould $ome to ta/e photo#raphs o% the ivor" souvenirs /ept therein, *herein +avi;a-s residen$e *as raided t*i$e as $ondu$ted b" the Jen"an o%%i$ials, *ithout their $onsent, in $onspira$" *ith the Padalhin spouses. Aurthermore, an investi#atin# team sent b" the DA0 entered into his residen$e unarmed *ith a sear$h *arrant, $ourt order or letter %rom the DA0 (e$retar" and alle#edl" destro"ed $abinet lo$/s, dama#ed %urnitures and too/ three sets o% $arved ivor" tus/s. 0s a result, plainti%% %elt insulted, betra"ed, depressed and even %eared %or his li%e be$ause the intelli#en$e and lo$al poli$e *ere involved in this in$ident. +avi;a su%%ered humiliation, sleepless ni#hts, serious anxiet", besmir$hed reputation and *ounded %eelin#. 0%ter Padalhin and +avi;a *ere re$alled %rom their post in Jen"a, +avi;a %iled be%ore the R 3 a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst 9estor and his *i%e, petitioner 0nnie Padalhin 80nnie4 Palao, 3abando, ,analo, 7bdalin and Di=on, and amended his $omplaint to in$lude Pasturan as a de%endant %or the mentioned

)6 in$idents in Jen"a. .en$e, the Padalhin spouses denied the alle#ations *hi$h $aused them embarrassment and sleepless ni#hts. 9evertheless, 9estor admitted the ta/in# o% photo#raphs in +avi;a-s residen$e. ss!e: Whether or not 9estor-s ta/in# o% photo#raphs in +avi;a-s residen$e *ithout the latter-s $onsent *as unla*%ul5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that, 9estor violated the 9e* 3ivil 3ode pres$riptions $on$ernin# the priva$" o% oneNs residen$e and he $annot hide behind the $loa/ o% his supposed benevolent intentions to Gusti%" the invasion. .en$e, the a*ard o% dama#es and attorne"Ns %ees in +avinaNs %avor is proper.! 0rti$le 2H states that: 7ver" person shall respe$t the di#nit", personalit", priva$" and pea$e o% mind o% his nei#hbors and other persons. he %ollo*in# and similar a$ts, thou#h the" ma" not $onstitute a $riminal o%%ense, shall produ$e a $ause o% a$tion %or dama#es, prevention and other relie%: 814 Pr"in# into the priva$" o% another-s residen$e: 824 ,eddlin# *ith or disturbin# the private li%e or %amil" relations o%% another6 814 Intri#uin# to $ause another to be alienated %rom his %riends6 8)4 Bexin# or humiliatin# another on a$$ount o% his belie%s, lo*l" station in li%e, pla$e o% birth, ph"si$al de%e$t, or other personal $ondition. .en$e, 9estor-s ta/in# o% photo#raphs in +avi;a-s residen$e *ithout the latter-s $onsent violates +avinaNs ri#ht to priva$". 65) &'ile; 2i"i"# (orporatio" vs. ( R G.R. No. 125004, A!#!st 2), 199) Facts: 'n 0u#ust 5, 1992, the Cureau o% Internal revenue 8CIR4 sent a letter to Philex, as/in# it settle its tax liabilities %or the 2nd, 1rd and )th >uarter o% 1991 as *ell as the 1st and 2nd >uarter o% 1992, amountin#, in total, to P121,@21,9@2.52. .o*ever, Philex re%used to settle said tax liabilities sin$e it has pendin# $laims %or B0 input $reditLre%und %or the taxes it paid %or the "ears 19@9 to 1991 in the amount o% P119,9::,01:.02 plus interest. hus, these $laims %or tax $reditLre%und should be applied a#ainst the tax liabilities. CIR, in response to the protest, reiterated that these pendin# $laims have not "et been established or determined *ith

)0 $ertaint", and as su$h, no le#al $ompensation $an ta/e pla$e, and %urther demanded Philex to settle the #iven amount *ithin 10 da"s. Philex brou#ht the matter to the 3ourt o% ax 0ppeals on 9ovember H, 1992, in *hi$h the latter ordered Philex to pa" the remainin# balan$e plus interest *ith redu$tion o% its tax liabilities sin$e, a$$ordin# to Paras, obli#ations must be li>uidated and demandable %irst be%ore le#al $ompensation $an ta/e pla$e. ,oreover, it ruled that taxes $annot be subGe$t to set?o%% on $ompensation sin$e $laim %or taxes is not a debt or $ontra$t.! Philex elevated the matter to 3ourt o% 0ppeals *hi$h a%%irmed the lo*er $ourt-s de$ision. It %urther $ontented that the CIR violated (e$tion 10H8e4R10S o% the 9ational Internal Revenue 3ode o% 19::, *hi$h re>uires the re%und o% input taxes *ithin H0 da"s,R11S *hen it too/ %ive "ears %or the latter to #rant its tax $laim %or B0 input $reditLre%und. ss!e: Whether or not Philex $an Gusti%" its non?pa"ment o% its tax liabilities despite CIR-s %ailure to a$t on the %ormer-s $laims5 R!li"#: he 3ourt that Philex $annot Gusti%" its non?pa"ment o% its tax liabilities despite CIR-s *ill%ul ne#le$t and unreasonable dela" in the per%orman$e o% o%%i$ial duties. 0rti$le 2: o% the 3ivil 3ode provides that: 0n" person su%%erin# material or moral loss be$ause a publi$ servant or emplo"ee re%uses or ne#le$ts, *ithout Gust $ause, to per%orm his o%%i$ial dut" ma" %ile an a$tion %or dama#es and other relie% a#ainst the latter, *ithout preGudi$e to an" dis$iplinar" a$tion that ma" be ta/en.I hus, the 3ourt a#reed *ith Philex that CIR *ill%ull" ne#le$ted to per%orm, an" other duties enGoined b" la* as per (e$tion 2H9 o% the 9ational Internal Revenue 0$t o% 199:. .en$e, the CIR, bein# the #overnment $olle$tin# arm, must and should do no less. It simpl" $annot be apatheti$ and la##ard in renderin# servi$e to the taxpa"er i% it *ishes to remain true to its mission o% hastenin# the $ountr"Ns development. .o*ever, despite the CIR-s ina$tion and unreasonable dela" in the per%orman$e o% its o%%i$ial duties, still, the same $annot Gusti%" PhilexNs non?pa"ment o% its tax liabilities sin$e the (tate is not bound b" the ne#le$t o% its a#ents and o%%i$ers.

))

66) 2a"a"ta" vs. (A G.R. No. 100125, 3a"!ar4 29, 2001 Facts: In the mornin# o% (eptember 25, 19@2, Ais$al Wil%redo 0mbro$io de$ided to $at$h shrimps at the irri#ation $anal at his %arm. .e invited the de$eased 8Ruben 9i$olas4 *ho told him that the" should borro* the Aord Aiera o% the a$$used <eor#e ,anantan *ho is also %rom 3ordon. he de$eased *ent to borro* the Aord Aiera bu said that the a$$used also *anted to $ome alon#. (o Ais$al 0mbro$io and the de$eased dropped b" the a$$used at the ,anantan e$hni$al ($hool. he" dran/ beer there be%ore the" pro$eeded to the %arm usin# the o"ota (tarlet o% the a$$used. 0t the %arm the" $onsumed one 8more4 $ase o% beer. 0t about 12:00 oN$lo$/ noon the" *ent home. hen at about 2:00 or 1:00 oN$lo$/ that a%ternoon, 8de%ense *itness ,i#uel4 a#an#in and 8Ruben4 9i$olas and the a$$used returned to the house o% Ais$al 0mbro$io *ith a du$/. he" $oo/ed the du$/ and ate the same *ith one more $ase o% beer. he" ate and dran/ until about @:10 in the evenin# *hen the a$$used invited them to #o bo*lin#. he" *ent to (antia#o, Isabela on board the o"ota (tarlet o% the a$$used *ho drove the same. he" *ent to the Bi$ap Co*lin# +anes at ,abini, (antia#o, Isabela but un%ortunatel" there *as no va$ant alle". While *aitin# %or a va$ant alle" the" dran/ one beer ea$h. 0%ter *aitin# %or about )0 minutes and still no alle" be$ame va$ant the a$$used invited his $ompanions to #o to the +C3 9i#ht 3lub. he" had drin/s and too/ some lad" partners at the +C3. 0%ter one hour, the" le%t the +C3 and pro$eeded to a nearb" store *here the" ate arro! caldoTand then the" de$ided to #o home. 0#ain the a$$used drove the $ar. ,i#uel aban#in sat *ith the a$$used in the %ront seat *hile the de$eased and Ais$al 0mbro$io sat at the ba$/ seat *ith the de$eased immediatel" behind the a$$used. he a$$used *as drivin# at a speed o% about )0 /ilometers per hour alon# the ,aharli/a .i#h*a" at ,alvar, (antia#o, Isabela, at the middle portion o% the hi#h*a" 8althou#h a$$ordin# to 3harles 3udamon, the $ar *as runnin# at a speed o% @0 to 90 /ilometers per hours on RtheS *ron# lane o% the hi#h*a" be$ause the $ar *as overta/in# a tri$"$le4 *hen the" met a passen#er Geepne" *ith bri#ht li#hts on. he a$$used immediatel"

)9 tried to s*erve the $ar to the ri#ht and move his bod" a*a" %rom the steerin# *heel but he *as not able to avoid the on$omin# vehi$le and the t*o vehi$les $ollided *ith ea$h other at the $enter o% the road. 0s a result o% the $ollision, 9i$olas dies. ss!e: Whether or not, petitionerNs a$>uittal in the $riminal $ase extin#uishes his $ivil liabilit"5 R!li"#: he a$>uittal *as based on reasonable doubt6 hen$e, petitionerNs $ivil liabilit" *as not extin#uished b" his dis$har#e. We note the trial $ourtNs de$laration that did not dis$ount the possibilit" that Ithe a$$used *as reall" ne#li#ent.I .o*ever, it %ound that Ia h"pothesis in$onsistent *ith the ne#li#en$e o% the a$$used presented itsel% be%ore the 3ourtI and sin$e said Ih"pothesis is $onsistent *ith the re$ordTthe 3ourtNs mind $annot rest on a verdi$t o% $onvi$tion.I he %ore#oin# $learl" sho*s that petitionerNs a$>uittal *as predi$ated on the $on$lusion that his #uilt had not been established *ith moral $ertaint". (tated di%%erentl", it is an a$>uittal based on reasonable doubt and a suit to en%or$e $ivil liabilit" %or the same a$t or omission lies. 60) N!#!i% vs. Nic%ao G.R. No. 1500)5, 5epte.+er 15, 2006 Facts: 5o.eti.e i" 1996, 'erei" respo"%e"t a"% 'er '!s+a"% o- <i#"ette 5!perstore approac'e% petitio"er a"% as>e% 'er i- t'e4 co!l% +orro6 .o"e4 to settle so.e o+li#atio"s. @avi"# +ee" co"vi"ce% +4 t'e. a"% +eca!se o- t'e close relatio"s'ip o- respo"%e"t to petitio"er, t'e latter le"t t'e -or.er 'er .o"e4. $'!s, ever4 .o"t', s'e 6as pers!a%e% to release &100,000.00 to t'e acc!se% !"til t'e total a.o!"t reac'e% &1,150,000.00. 0s se$urit" %or the P1,150,000.00, respondent #ave petitioner %ourteen open dated .ermosa (avin#s Can/ 8.(+C4 *ith the assuran$e that i% the entire amount is not paid *ithin one 814 "ear, petitioner $an deposit the $he$/s. In June 199:, petitioner to#ether *ith (amson 3hin# demanded pa"ment o% the

90 sums above?mentioned, but respondent re%used to a$/no*led#e the indebtedness. hus, on '$tober H, 19::, petitioner deposited all the $he$/s in the ban/ o% (amson 3hin# totalin# P1,150,000.00 si"ce all t'e .o"e4 #ive" +4 'er ca.e -ro. 5a.so" ('i"#. $'e c'ec>s 6ere all ret!r"e% -or 'avi"# +ee" %ra6" a#ai"st i"s!--icie"t -!"%s DDA F). A ver+al a"% 6ritte" %e.a"% 6as .a%e !po" respo"%e"t to pa4 t'e a.o!"t represe"te% +4 t'e +o!"ce% c'ec>s, +!t %isre#ar%e%. @e"ce, a co.plai"t -or violatio" o- 1& 22 6as -ile% a#ai"st t'e respo"%e"t. A-ter petitio"er i"stit!te% 14 cri.i"al cases -or violatio" o- 1& 22 i"volvi"# t'e s!. o- &1,150,000, correspo"%i"# 6arra"ts o- arrest 6ere iss!e% a#ai"st respo"%e"t. *" Nove.+er 12, 1990, respo"%e"t 6as arrai#"e%. 5'e plea%e% "ot #!ilt4 a"% trial e"s!e%. he ,uni$ipal (irc!it $rial (o!rt o- Di"al!pi'a", 1ataa" -o!"% respo"%e"t #!ilt4 o- t'e c'ar#es a#ai"st 'er. *" appeal, t'e %ecisio" 6as a--ir.e% i" toto +4 t'e Re#io"al $rial (o!rt. Respo"%e"t elevate% t'e case to (A 6'o reverse% t'e %ecisio" o- t'e lo6er co!rts a"% acB!itte% respo"%e"t. @e"ce, t'is i"sta"t petitio". ss!e: C'et'er or "ot, respo"%e"t re.ai"s civill4 lia+le to petitio"er -or t'e s!. o- &1, 150,000E R!li"#: $'e co!rt, i" t'is petitio", -i"%s "o reaso" to ascri+e a"4 civil lia+ilit4 to respo"%e"t. As -o!"% +4 t'e (A, 'er s!ppose% civil lia+ilit4 'a% alrea%4 +ee" -!ll4 satis-ie% a"% e;ti"#!is'e% +4 pa4.e"t, 'e"ce "o %o!+t as to respo"%e"tFs co.plete relie- -ro. civil lia+ilit4. &etitio"er %oes "ot %isp!te t'e pa4.e"ts .a%e +4 petitio"er +!t ar#!es t'at t'e De.a"% Dra-t represe"te% pa4.e"t o- a previo!s o+li#atio". @o6ever, "o evi%e"ce o6'atever "at!re 6as prese"te% +4 t'e prosec!tio" to s!+sta"tiate t'eir clai. t'at t'ere 6as i"%ee% a previo!s o+li#atio" i"volvi"# t'e sa.e a.o!"t -or 6'ic' t'e %e.a"% %ra-t 6as #ive".

91 +i/e*ise, petitioner admitted havin# re$eived the $ash pa"ments %rom petitioner on a dail" basis but ar#ues that the same *ere applied to interest pa"ments onl". It ho*ever appears that petitioner *as $har#in# respondent *ith an exorbitant rate o% interest. In an" event, the $ash pa"ments made *ere re$orded at the ba$/ o% the $i#arette $artons b" petitioner in her o*n hand*ritin# as testi%ied to b" respondent and her emplo"ees, ,elanie. Indeed, the dail" $ash pa"ments revealed that respondent had alread" paid her obli#ation to petitioner and that she stopped ma/in# %urther pa"ments *hen she reali=ed that she had alread" paid su$h amount. 2oreover, t'is co!rt -i"%s "o stip!latio" i" 6riti"# t'at i"terest 6ill +e pai% +4 respo"%e"t o" 'er loa" o+li#atio"s as reB!ire% !"%er Article 1956 o- t'e (ivil (o%e. 14 a"% lar#e, t'e o+li#atio" o- respo"%e"t 'as alrea%4 +ee" e;ti"#!is'e% lo"# +e-ore t'e e"cas'.e"t ot'e s!+8ect c'ec>s. A c'ec> is sai% to appl4 -or acco!"t o"l4 6'e" t'ere is still a pre7e;isti"# o+li#atio". " t'e case at +e"c', t'e pre7e;isti"# o+li#atio" 6as e;ti"#!is'e% a-ter -!ll pa4.e"t 6as .a%e +4 respo"%e"t. $'ere-ore, 6e -i"% t'e clear a"% co"vi"ci"# %oc!.e"tar4 evi%e"ce o- pa4.e"t prese"te% +4 respo"%e"t 6ort'4 ocre%e"ce. 6)) &eople vs. A#acer G.R. No. 100051, 3a"!ar4 0, 2013 Facts: Appella"ts co"victio" o- .!r%er o- (esario A#acer are 'erei" .otio"e% -or reco"si%eratio". $'e -or.er asserti"# t'at t'eir .ere prese"ce at t'e sce"e o- t'e cri.e is "ot evi%e"ce o- co"spirac4G t'at t'ere 6as "o treac'er4 si"ce a 'eate% ar#!.e"t prece%e% t'e >illi"# ot'e victi.G a"% t'at eve" ass!.i"# t'at t'eir #!ilt 6as %!l4 esta+lis'e%, t'e privile#e% .iti#ati"# circ!.sta"ce o- .i"orit4 s'o!l% 'ave +ee" appreciate% i" -avor oappella"t Fra">li" A#acer 6'o 6as o"l4 16 4ears a"% 106 %a4s ol% at t'e ti.e o- t'e i"ci%e"t. $'!s, t'e co!rt reB!ire% t'e *--ice o- t'e 5olicitor Ge"eral D*5G) to

92 co..e"t o" t'e 2otio" -or Reco"si%eratio" partic!larl4 o" t'e iss!e o- Fra">li"Fs .i"orit4. he '(<, in its 3omment,10 asserts t'at t'ere e;ists "o co#e"t reaso" to %ist!r+ -i"%i"#s a"% co"cl!sio"s as to t'e #!ilt o- t'e appella"ts si"ce t'e -acts a"% evi%e"ce clearl4 esta+lis'e% co"spirac4 a"% treac'er4. @o6ever, it %i% "ot oppose a"% eve" a#ree% 6it' appella"tsF ar#!.e"t t'at .i"orit4 s'o!l% 'ave +ee" appreciate% as a privile#e% .iti#ati"# circ!.sta"ce i" -avor o- Fra">li", t'e sa.e +ei"# %!l4 s!pporte% +4 a cop4 o- Fra">li"Fs (erti-icate o- Live 1irt' sec!re% -ro. t'e Natio"al 5tatistics *--ice DN5*) Doc!.e"t 2a"a#e.e"t Divisio" 2ea"6'ile, i" a letter %ate% 3!"e ), 2012, t'e *--icer7 i"7('ar#e o- t'e Ne6 1ili+i% &riso", i"-or.e% t'e co!rt t'at appella"t Flore"cio A#acer %ie% o" Fe+r!ar4 10, 2000, as evi%e"ce% +4 t'e attac'e% (erti-icate o- Deat' i"%icati"# car%io p!l.o"ar4 arrest seco"%ar4 to stat!s ast'.atic!s as t'e ca!se o- %eat' ss!e: C'et'er or "ot, t'e %eat' o- appella"t Flore"cio e;ti"#!is' 'is cri.i"al a"% civil lia+ilitiesE R!li"#: $'e co!rt r!le% t'at o" t'e e--ect o- t'e %eat' oappella"t Flore"cio o" 'is cri.i"al lia+ilit4, Article )9D1) ot'e Revise% &e"al (o%e s'all #over", vi/= 0rt. @9. .o* $riminal liabilit" is totall" extin#uished. & 3riminal liabilit" is totall" extin#uished. 1. C" the death o% the $onvi$t, as to the personal penalties6 and as to pe$uniar" penalties, liabilit" there%or is extin#uished onl" *hen the death o% the o%%ender o$$urs be%ore %inal Gud#ment6 It is also settled that Iupon the death o% the a$$used pendin# appeal o% his $onvi$tion, the $riminal a$tion is extin#uished inasmu$h as there is no lon#er a de%endant to stand as the a$$used6 the $ivil a$tion instituted therein %or re$over" o% $ivil liabilit" ex deli$to is ipso %a$to extin#uished, #rounded as it is on the $riminal.

93 here%ore, it be$omes ne$essar" %or the $ourt to de$lare Aloren$io Ns $riminal liabilit" as *ell as his $ivil liabilit" ex deli$to to have been extin#uished b" his death prior to %inal Gud#ment. he Gud#ment or $onvi$tion is thus set aside inso%ar as Aloren$io is $on$erned.

69) &eople vs. 1a4otas G.R. No. 102000, 5epte.+er 2, 1994 Facts: @erei" respo"%e"t 6as c'ar#e% 6it' Rape a"% eve"t!all4 co"victe% pe"%i"# appeal o- 'is co"victio". 1a4otas %ie% o" Fe+r!ar4 4, 1992 at t'e Natio"al 1ili+i% @ospital %!e to car%io respirator4 arrest seco"%ar4 to 'epatic e"cep'alopat'4 seco"%ar4 to 'ipato carci"o.a #astric .ali"#eri"#. (o"seB!e"tl4, t'e 5!pre.e (o!rt %is.isse% t'e cri.i"al aspect o- t'e appeal. @o6ever, it reB!ire% t'e 5olicitor Ge"eral to -ile its co..e"t 6it' re#ar% to 1a4otasH civil lia+ilit4 arisi"# -ro. 'is co..issio" o- t'e o--e"se c'ar#e%. In his $omment, the (oli$itor <eneral expressed his vie* that the death o% a$$used?appellant did not extin#uish his $ivil liabilit" as a result o% his $ommission o% the o%%ense $har#ed $itin# the $ase o% People v. (enda"die#o and i"sists t'at t'e appeal s'o!l% still +e resolve% -or t'e p!rpose o- revie6i"# 'is co"victio" +4 t'e lo6er co!rt o" 6'ic' t'e civil lia+ilit4 is +ase%. (o!"sel -or t'e acc!se%7appella"t, o" t'e ot'er 'a"%, oppose% t'e vie6 o- t'e 5olicitor Ge"eral ar#!i"# t'at t'e %eat' o- t'e acc!se% 6'ile 8!%#.e"t o- co"victio" is pe"%i"# appeal e;ti"#!is'es +ot' 'is cri.i"al a"% civil pe"alties. " s!pport o- 'is positio", sai% co!"sel i"vo>e% t'e r!li"# o- t'e (o!rt o- Appeals i" &eople v. (astillo a"% *c-e.ia 6'ic' 'el% t'at t'e civil o+li#atio" i" a cri.i"al case ta>es root i" t'e cri.i"al lia+ilit4 a"%, t'ere-ore, civil

94 lia+ilit4 is e;ti"#!is'e% i- acc!se% s'o!l% %ie +e-ore -i"al 8!%#.e"t is re"%ere%. ss!e: Whether or not, the %eat' o- t'e acc!se% pe"%i"# appeal o- 'is co"victio" e;ti"#!is'es 'is civil lia+ilit4E R!li"#: $'e (o!rt 'el% t'at t'e %eat' o- appella"t 1a4otas e;ti"#!is'e% 'is cri.i"al lia+ilit4 a"% t'e civil lia+ilit4 +ase% solel4 o" t'e act co.plai"e% o- rape. 0$$ordin#l", $ivil liabilit" survives not*ithstandin# the death o% a$$used, i% the same ma" also be predi$ated on a sour$e o% obli#ation other than deli$t *hi$h 0rti$le 115: o% the 3ivil 3ode enumerates, vi=: a4 +a* 2 b4 3ontra$ts $4 Kuasi?$ontra$ts d4 . . . e4 Kuasi?deli$ts ,oreover, *here the $ivil liabilit" survives, an a$tion %or re$over" there%ore ma" be pursued but onl" b" *a" o% %ilin# a separate $ivil a$tion and subGe$t to (e$tion 1, Rule 111 o% the 19@5 Rules on 3riminal Pro$edure as amended. his separate $ivil a$tion ma" be en%or$ed either a#ainst the exe$utorLadministrator or the estate o% the a$$used, dependin# on the sour$e o% obli#ation upon *hi$h the same is based. 00) (a"cio vs. sip G.R. No. 13390), Nove.+er 12, 2002 Facts: &etitio"er -ile% t'ree cases o- <iolatio" o- 1.&. No. 22 a"% t'ree cases o- ,sta-a, a#ai"st respo"%e"t -or alle#e%l4 iss!i"# c'ec>s 6it'o!t s!--icie"t -!"%s. $'e

95 t'ree cases o- <iolatio" o- 1.&.No. 22, 'o6ever, 6ere %is.isse%. ,ean*hile, the three $ases %or 7sta%a *ere %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Pampan#a, but a%ter %ailin# to present its se$ond *itness, the prose$ution moved to dismiss the esta%a $ases a#ainst respondent. he prose$ution li/e*ise reserved its ri#ht to %ile a separate $ivil a$tion arisin# %rom the $riminal cases. *" t'e sa.e %ate, t'e trial co!rt #ra"te% t'e .otio"s ot'e prosec!tio". $'!s, t'e i"sta"t case 6as -ile% -or collectio" o- s!. o- .o"e4, see>i"# to recover t'e a.o!"t o- t'e c'ec>s s!+8ect o- t'e esta-a cases. *" a"s6er, respo"%e"t -ile% a .otio" to %is.iss t'e co.plai"t co"te"%i"# t'at petitio"erFs actio" is +arre% +4 t'e %octri"e o- res 8!%icata. *" 2arc' 20, 199), t'e trial co!rt -o!"% i" -avor orespo"%e"t a"% %is.isse% t'e co.plai"t co"te"%i"# t'at t'e %is.issal o- t'e cri.i"al cases a#ai"st respo"%e"t o" t'e #ro!"% o- lac> o- i"terest or -ail!re to prosec!te is a%8!%icatio" o" t'e .erits 6'ic' a.o!"te% to res 8!%icata o" t'e civil case -or collectio".&etitio"erFs .otio" -or reco"si%eratio" 6as %e"ie%. ss!e: C'et'er or "ot, t'e %is.issal o- t'e esta-a cases a#ai"st respo"%e"t +ars t'e i"stit!tio" o- a civil actio" -or collectio" o- t'e val!e o- t'e c'ec>sE R!li"#: $'e trial co!rt erre% i" %is.issi"# petitio"erFs co.plai"t -or collectio" o- t'e val!e o- t'e c'ec>s iss!e% +4 respo"%e"t. 1ei"# a" i"%epe"%e"t civil actio" 6'ic' is separate a"% %isti"ct -ro. a"4 cri.i"al prosec!tio" a"% 6'ic' reB!ire "o prior reservatio" -or its i"stit!tio", t'e %octri"e o- res 8!%icata 6ill "ot operate to +ar t'e sa.e. (e$tion 1, Rule 111, o% the Revised Rules o% 3riminal Pro$edure provides:

96 (73 I'9 1. Institution o% $riminal and $ivil a$tions. & 8a4 When a $riminal a$tion is instituted, the $ivil a$tion %or the re$over" o% $ivil liabilit" arisin# %rom the o%%ense $har#ed shall be deemed instituted *ith the $riminal a$tion unless the o%%ended part" *aives the $ivil a$tion, reserves the ri#ht to institute it separatel" or institutes the $ivil a$tion prior to the $riminal a$tion. he reservation o% the ri#ht to institute separatel" the $ivil a$tion shall be made be%ore the prose$ution starts presentin# its eviden$e and under $ir$umstan$es a%%ordin# the o%%ended part" a reasonable opportunit" to ma/e su$h reservation. Where the $ivil a$tion has been %iled separatel" and trial thereo% has not "et $ommen$ed, it ma" be $onsolidated *ith the $riminal a$tion upon appli$ation *ith the $ourt tr"in# the latter $ase. I% the appli$ation is #ranted, the trial o% both a$tions shall pro$eed in a$$ordan$e *ith se$tion 2 o% this Rule #overnin# $onsolidation o% the $ivil and $riminal a$tions. Fnder the 19@5 Rules on 3riminal Pro$edure, as amended in 19@@ and under the present Rules, the $ivil liabilit" ex?deli$to is deemed instituted *ith the $riminal a$tion, but the o%%ended part" is #iven the option to %ile a separate $ivil a$tion be%ore the prose$ution starts to present eviden$e.19 0nent the independent $ivil a$tions under 0rti$les 11, 12, 11, 1) and 21:H o% the 3ivil 3ode, the old rules $onsidered them impliedl" instituted *ith the $ivil liabilit" ex?deli$to in the $riminal a$tion, unless the o%%ended part" *aives the $ivil a$tion, reserves his ri#ht to institute it separatel", or institutes the $ivil a$tion prior to the $riminal a$tion. Fnder the present Rules, ho*ever, the independent $ivil a$tions ma" be %iled separatel" and prose$uted independentl" even *ithout an" reservation in the $riminal a$tion. he %ailure to ma/e a reservation in the $riminal a$tion is not a *aiver o% the ri#ht to %ile a separate and independent $ivil a$tion based on these arti$les o% the 3ivil 3ode.20 In the $ase at bar, the $omplaint %iled b" petitioner sho* that his $ause o% a$tion is based on $ulpa $ontra$tual, an independent $ivil a$tion.

90 o reiterate, an independent $ivil a$tion arisin# %rom $ontra$ts, as in the instant $ase, ma" be %iled separatel" and prose$uted independentl" even *ithout an" reservation in the $riminal a$tion. Fnder 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode IR*Shen the $ivil a$tion is based on an obli#ation not arisin# %rom the a$t or omission $omplained o% as a %elon", Re.#. $ulpa $ontra$tualS su$h $ivil a$tion ma" pro$eed independentl" o% the $riminal pro$eedin#s and re#ardless o% the result o% the latter.I 'ne o% the elements o% res Gudi$ata is identit" o% $auses o% a$tion.25 In the instant $ase, it must be stressed that the a$tion %iled b" petitioner is an independent $ivil a$tion, *hi$h remains separate and distin$t %rom an" $riminal prose$ution based on the same a$t.2H 9ot bein# deemed instituted in the $riminal a$tion based on $ulpa $riminal, a rulin# on the $ulpabilit" o% the o%%ender *ill have no bearin# on said independent $ivil a$tion based on an entirel" di%%erent $ause o% a$tion, i.e., $ulpa $ontra$tual. 01) @eirs o- G!ari"# vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 10)395, 2arc' 0, 1990 Facts: A" !"-ort!"ate ve'ic!lar acci%e"t i"volve a 2its!+is'i La"cer car %rive" +4 $eo%oro G!ari"#, 3r., 6'o %ie% as a res!lt o- t'e .is'ap, &'ilippi"e Ra++it 1!s, %rive" +4 A"#eles (!evas, a"% a $o4ota (ressi%a car, %rive" +4 ,li#io ,"riB!e/. Petitioners, heirs o% eodoro <uarin#, Jr., brou#ht this a$tion %or dama#es, based on >uasi deli$t, in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila. heir eviden$e tended to sho* that the Rabbit bus tried to overta/e <uarin#Ns $ar b" passin# on the ri#ht shoulder o% the road and that in so doin# it hit the ri#ht rear portion o% <uarin#Ns ,itsubishi +an$er. he impa$t $aused the +an$er to s*erve to the south?bound lane, as a result o% *hi$h it $ollided *ith the o"ota 3ressida $ar $omin# %rom the opposite dire$tion. Private respondents, on the other hand, presented eviden$e tendin# to sho* that the a$$ident *as due to the ne#li#en$e o% the de$eased <uarin#. he" $laimed that it *as <uarin# *ho tried to overta/e the vehi$le ahead o% him on the hi#h*a" and that in

9) doin# so he en$roa$hed on the south?bound lane and $ollided *ith the on$omin# 3ressida .Private respondents $laim that as a result o% the $ollision the +an$er *as thro*n ba$/ to its lane *here it $rashed into the Rabbit bus. 'n ,a" 1H, 1990, the Re#ional rial 3ourt rendered Gud#ment %indin# Philippine Rabbit Cus +ines, In$. and its driver, 0n#eles 3uevas, at %ault, and holdin# them solidaril" liable %or dama#es to petitioners. Fro. t'is 8!%#.e"t, private respo"%e"t &'ilippi"e Ra++it 1!s Li"es, "c. appeale% a"% 6as #ra"te%. $'e appellate co!rt 'el% t'at si"ce t'e +asis opetitio"ersH actio" 6as t'e alle#e% "e#li#e"ce o- t'e +!s %river, t'e latterHs acB!ittal i" t'e cri.i"al case re"%ere% t'e civil case +ase% o" B!asi %elict !"te"a+le. ss!e: C'et'er t'e 8!%#.e"t i" t'e cri.i"al case e;ti"#!is'e% t'e lia+ilit4 o- private respo"%e"t &'ilippi"e Ra++it 1!s Li"es, "c. a"% its %river, A"#eles (!evas, -or %a.a#es -or t'e %eat' o- $eo%oro G!ari"#E R!li"#: $'is case .!st +e %eci%e% o" t'e +asis o- t'e evi%e"ce i" t'e civil case +eca!se t'e cri.i"al co!rt appears to 'ave +ase% its %ecisio", acB!itti"# t'e +!s %river o" t'e #ro!"% o- reaso"a+le %o!+t, solel4 o" 6'at it perceive% to +e t'e relative capacit4 -or o+servatio" ot'e prosec!tio" a"% %e-e"se 6it"esses. It is un%air to bind petitioners to the result o% the $riminal a$tion *hen the %a$t is that the" did not ta/e part therein. hat the *itnesses presented on behal% o% the petitioners are di%%erent %rom those presented b" the prose$ution should have brou#ht home to the appellate $ourt the %undamental un%airness o% $onsiderin# the de$ision in the $riminal $ase $on$lusive o% the $ivil $ase. Ce$ause the 3ourt o% 0ppeals did not $onsider the eviden$e in the $ivil $ase, this $ase should be remanded to it so that it ma" render another de$ision in a$$ordan$e *ith the la* and the

99 eviden$e. he issues raised b" the petitioners are essentiall" %a$tual and re>uire the evaluation o% eviden$e, *hi$h is the %un$tion o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals in the exer$ise o% its ex$lusive appellate Gurisdi$tion. he" $annot be de$ided in this 3ourt. 02) Ara-iles vs. &'ilippi"e 3o!r"alists "c. G.R. No. 150256, 2arc' 25, 2004 Facts: "19)0, 6'ile respo"%e"t 2orales, a reporter o&eopleFs 3o!r"al $o"i#'t, 6as at t'e Cester" &olice District DC&D) @ea%B!arters, ,.elita Desp!i#, a" e.plo4ee o- t'e Natio"al "stit!te o- At.osp'eric 5cie"ces DN A5), lo%#e% a co.plai"t a#ai"st petitio"er, a N A5 %irector, -or -orci+le a+%!ctio" 6it' rape a"% -orci+le a+%!ctio" 6it' atte.pte% rape +e-ore t'e t'e" o" %!t4 &atrol.a". In the presen$e o% ,orales, 7melita exe$uted a s*orn statement narratin# the events surroundin# the reported o%%enses $ommitted a#ainst her b" petitioner. ,orales thereupon personall" intervie*ed 7melita %or the purpose o% reportin# the same in the next issue o% People-s Journal oni#ht. C" his $laim, he, a%ter the intervie*, tried to $onta$t 0ra%iles at the 9I0( o%%i$e to veri%" 7melita-s stor" but %ailed, the o%%i$e havin# alread" $losed. ,orales then *rote an a$$ount about 7melita-s $omplaint and submitted it to his editor. hat same da", 0pril 1), 19@:, ,orales- report appeared as headline on People-s Journal oni#ht. A+o!t a 4ear -ollo6i"# t'e p!+licatio" o- a+ove7 B!ote% report, petitio"er i"stit!te% a co.plai"t +e-ore t'e Re#io"al $rial (o!rt o- I!e/o" (it4 a#ai"st respo"%e"ts -or %a.a#es arisi"# t'ere-ro. a"% 6as e"title% o%a.a#es. *" appeal to (A, t'e latter reverse% t'e prior %ecisio" o- R$(. $'!s, t'is appeal. ss!e: C'et'er or "ot, t'e (A erre% i" 'ol%i"# t'at t'e p!+licatio" o- t'e "e6s ite. 6as "ot atte"%e% 6it' .alice to t'!s -ree respo"%e"ts o- lia+ilit4 -or %a.a#esE

100 R!li"#: (o!rt -i"%s t'at case a#ai"st respo"%e"ts 'as "ot +ee" s!--icie"tl4 esta+lis'e% +4 prepo"%era"ce oevi%e"ce. 0 publi$ation $laimed to be de%amator" must be read and $onstrued in the sense in *hi$h the readers to *hom it is addressed *ould ordinaril" understand it. (o, the *hole item, in$ludin# displa" lines, should be read and $onstrued to#ether, and its meanin# and si#ni%i$ation thus determined. In order to as$ertain the meanin# o% a published arti$le, the *hole o% the arti$le must be $onsidered, ea$h phrase must be $onstrued in the li#ht o% the entire publi$ation. he headlines o% a ne*spaper must also be read in $onne$tion *ith the lan#ua#e *hi$h %ollo*s. In determinin# the manner in *hi$h a #iven event should be presented as a ne*s item and the importan$e to be atta$hed thereto, ne*spapers must enGo" a $ertain de#ree o% dis$retion. 7ver" $iti=en o% $ourse has the ri#ht to enGo" a #ood name and reputation, but *e do not $onsider that the respondents, under the $ir$umstan$es o% this $ase, had violated said ri#ht or abused the %reedom o% the press. he ne*spapers should be #iven su$h lee*a" and toleran$e as to enable them to $oura#eousl" and e%%e$tivel" per%orm their important role in our demo$ra$". In the preparation o% stories, press reporters usuall" have to ra$e *ith their deadlines6 and $onsistentl" *ith #ood %aith and reasonable $are, the" should not be held to a$$ount, to a point o% suppression, %or honest mista/es or imper%e$tion in the $hoi$e o% *ords. 03) "ter"atio"al Flavors a"% Fra#ra"ces, "c. vs. Ar#os G.R. No. 130362, 5epte.+er 10, 2001 Facts= he o%%i$e o% mana#in# dire$tor *as $reated to head the $orporations operation in the Philippines in 1992. .ernan 3osta *as appointed mana#in# dire$tor. ,erlin 0r#os and JaGa Pineda are the #eneral mana#er and $ommer$ial dire$tor o% the Ara#ran$es division o% IAAI *ho had serious di%%eren$es *ith

101 0$osta. When the positions o% the #eneral mana#er be$ame redundant, 0r#os and Pineda a#reed to the termination o% their servi$es and si#ned a Release, Waiver and Kuit$laim! on De$ember 10, 1991. 'n the other hand 3osta issued a Personal 0nnoun$ement! *hi$h des$ribed respondents as persona non grata. 'n Jul" 1, 199), 0r#os and Pineda %iled a $riminal $omplaint %or libel resultin# in %ilin# o% t*o In%ormations a#ainst 3osta do$/eted as 3riminal 3ase 9os. 991: and 991@ *ith the ,etropolitan rial 3ourt o% a#ui#. he" a#ain %iled a $ivil $ase on ,ar$h 11, 1995 %or dama#es Do$/eted as 3ivil 3ase 9o. H502H at the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Pasi# a#ainst 3osta and IAAI, in its subsidiar" $apa$it" as emplo"er. ss!e= Whether or not 0r#os and Pineda $an sue .ernan 3osta %or dama#es base on subsidiar" liabilit" in an independent $ivil a$tion under 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode, durin# the penden$" o% the $riminal $ases a#ainst petitioner-s emplo"ee5 R!li"#= 0r#os and Pineda $annot sue .enan 3osta %or dama#es. he *ell?established rule is that the alle#ations in the $omplaint and the $hara$ter o% the relie% sou#ht to determine the nature o% the a$tion. Respondents are suin# IAAI $ivill" in its subsidiar" $apa$it" %or 3osta-s alle#ed de%amator" a$ts. In institutin# the a$tion %or dama#es, respondents see/ to en%or$e a $ivil liabilit" alle#edl" arisin# %rom $rime. 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode, does not appl" to an a$tion a#ainst the emplo"er to en%or$e its subsidiar" $ivil liabilit" be$ause su$h liabilit" arises onl" a%ter $onvi$tion o% the emplo"ee in the $riminal $ase or *hen the emplo"ee is adGud#ed #uilt" o% the *ron#%ul a$t in a $riminal a$tion and %ormed to have $ommitted the o%%en$e in the dis$har#e o% his duties. 0n" a$tion brou#ht a#ainst the emplo"er based on its subsidiar" liabilit" be%ore the $onvi$tion o% its emplo"ee is premature. 04) R!i/ vs. Acol G.R. No. L745404, A!#!st 0, 19)0

102 Facts= 0tt". Jesus C. Rui= %iled an administrative $ase a#ainst 7n$arna$ion F$ol, a mid*i%e on the .ealth 3enter o% (arrat, Ilo$os 9orte. In her ans*er to the $har#es, F$ol alle#ed that 0#ustina a#a$a, a laundr" *oman *as merel" used as a tool b" 0tt". Rui= *ho *anted to #et ba$/ to the F$ol-s be$ause o% a $ase %iled b" 7n$arna$ion F$ol-s husband a#ainst Rui=. he 0dministrative $ase *as dismissed. 0tt". Rui= de$ided to %ile $riminal $omplaint %or libel a#ainst F$ol based on the alle#ed libelous portion o% F$ol-s ans*er. he lo*er $ourt a$>uitted F$ol on the #round that her #uilt *as not established be"ond reasonable doubt. Rui= %iled a separate $omplaint %or dama#es based on the same %a$ts upon *hi$h the libel $ase *as %ounded. F$ol %iled a motion to dismiss statin# that the a$tion had pres$ribed and that the $ase o% a$tion *as barred b" the de$ision in the $riminal $ase %or libel. ss!e= Whether or not the $ivil a$tion %or dama#es has alread" barred b" the $riminal $ase o% libel5 R!li"#= he $ivil a$tion %or dama#es *as alread" barred b" the $riminal $ase o% libel. he ri#ht o% the plainti%%?appellant under 0rti$le 11 o% the 3ivil 3ode to %ile the $ivil a$tion %or dama#es based on the sane %a$ts upon *hi$h he instituted the libel $ase is not *ithout limitation. 0rti$le 11 #ives an o%%ended part" in $ases o% de%amation, amon# others, the ri#ht to %ile a $ivil a$tion separate and distin$t %rom the $riminal pro$eedin#s *hether or not a reservation *as made to that e%%e$t. 0nd the a$t o% 0tt". Rui= in %ilin# su$h petition is totall" out o% reason and lo#i$. 05) <i"/o"s7('ato vs. Fort!"e $o+acco (orporatio" G.R. No. 141300, 3!"e 19, 2000 Facts= 'n Jul" 10, 1991, the le#islature ena$ted R0. 9o. :H5), this too/ e%%e$t on Jul" 1, 1991. hus, $i#arette brands 3hampion, .ope, and ,ore *ere $onsidered lo$al brands subGe$ted to a valorem tax at the rate o% 20?)5W. .o*ever, on Jul" I, 1991, +i*a"*a" Bin=ons?3hato issued R,3 1:?91 re$lassi%"in# 3hampion, .ope, and ,ore as lo$all" manu%a$tured $i#arettes bearin# a %orei#n brand subGe$t to the 55W ad valorem tax,

103 provided that the minimum tax shall not be less than %ive pesos per pa$/. 'n 0pril 10, 199:, respondent %iled be%ore the R 3 a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst petitioner in her private $apa$it". Respondent $ontented that the latter should be held liable %or dama#es under 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode $onsiderin# that the issuan$e o% R,3 1:?91 violated its $onstitutional ri#hts a#ainst deprivation o% propert" *ithout due pro$ess o% la* and the ri#ht to e>ual prote$tion o% la*s. he petitioner %iled a motion to dismiss, but the R 3 denied the petition holdin# that to rule on the alle#ations o% petitioner *ould be to prematurel" de$ide the merits o% the $ase *ithout allo*in# the parties to present eviden$e. he $ase *as elevated to the 3ourt o% appeals, but the sane *as dismissed on the #round that under 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode, +iabilit" ma" arise even i% the de%endant did not a$t *ith mali$e or bad %aith. ss!e= Whether or not 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode should #overn in determinin# *hether the instant $omplaint states a $ause o% a$tion5 R!li"#= 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode *ill #overn in determinin# *hether the instant $omplaint states a $ause o% a$tion. he rule is that *here there are t*o a$ts, one o% *hi$h is spe$ial and parti$ular and the other #eneral *hi$h, i% standin# alone *ould in$lude the same matter and thus $on%li$t *ith the spe$ial a$t, the spe$ial la* must prevail. 0rti$le 12 deals spe$i%i$all" *ith the publi$ o%%i$ers- violation o% $onstitutional ri#hts, is a spe$ial provision *hi$h should determine *hether the $omplaint states a $ause o% a$tion or not. It is not ne$essar" there%ore that there should be mali$e or bad %aith. he $lear intention there%ore o% the le#islature *as to $reate a distin$t $ause o% a$tion in the nature o% tort %or violation o% $onstitutional ri#hts irrespe$tive o% the motive or intent o% the de%endant. 200) r!li"#= Dissatis%ied, Petitioner hen$e moves %or the re$onsideration o% the June 19, 200: De$ision. In its June 25, 200@ Resolution, the $ourt stated in its June 25, 200@ Resolution that here are t*o /inds o% duties exer$ised b" publi$ o%%i$ers: the

104 dut" o*in# to the publi$ $olle$tivel"! 8the bod" politi$4, and the dut" o*in# to parti$ular individuals. (tated di%%erentl", *hen *hat is involved is a dut" o*in# to the publi$ in #eneral!, an individual $annot have a $ause o% a$tion %or dama#es a#ainst the publi$ o%%i$er, even thou#h he ma" have been inGured b" the a$tion or ina$tion o% the o%%i$er. In su$h a $ase, there is dama#e to the individual but no *ron# to him. In per%ormin# or %ailin# to per%orm a publi$ dut", the o%%i$er has tou$hed his interest to his preGudi$e6 but the o%%i$er o*es no dut" to him as an individual. R1)S he remed" in this $ase is not Gudi$ial but politi$al. hus, the 200: rulin# o% the $ourt *as reversed in its 200@ de$ision. Ce$ause the respondent-s $omplaint does not impute ne#li#en$e or bad %aith to the petitioner, an" mone" Gud#ment b" the trial $ourt a#ainst her *ill have to be assumed b" the Republi$ o% the Philippines. 0s su$h, the $omplaint is in the nature o% a suit a#ainst the (tate. 06) (o8!a"#co 3r. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals GR. No. 11939), 3!l4 2, 1999 Facts= 7duardo 3oGuan#$o is a /no*n business?sportsman o*nin# several ra$ehorses *hi$h he entered in the s*eepsta/es ra$es bet*een the periods $overin# ,ar$h H, 19@H to (eptember 1@, 19@9. (everal o% his hor$es *on the ra$es on various dates, landin# %irst, se$ond, or third pla$es, respe$tivel" *innin# pri=es to#ether *ith 10W due %or trainerL#rooms. 3oGuan#$o sent a letter o% demand to the P3(' %or the $olle$tion o% the pri=es due him. 3arras$oso $onsistenl" replied that the demanded pri=es are bein# *ithheld on advi$e o% the 3ommissioner Ramon Dia= o% the Presidential 3ommission on <ood <overnment. his $ase *as %illed be%ore the R 3 o% ,anila. Cut be%ore re$eipt o% the summons, Presidential 3ommission on <ood <overnan$e advised de%endants that it poses no more obGe$tion to the remittan$e o% the pri=e *innin#s to 3oGuan#$o. 0tt". 7stelito P. ,endo=a, petitioners $ounsel re%used to a$$ept the pri=es at this point be$ause the matter had alread" been brou#ht to $ourt. While the $ase *as endin# *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, petitioner moved %or the partial exe$ution pendin# appeal o% the R 3 Gud#ment,

105 pra"in# that the *innin#s be paid. Respondent P3(' delivered the amount to petitioner. 'n (eptember 29, 199), 3oGuan#$o %iled a motion %or re$onsideration but it *as denied. ss!e= Whether or not the a*ard %or dama#es a#ainst respondent 3arras$oso $an be appre$iated as a $ivil a$tion %or violation o% $onstitutional ri#hts5 R!li"#= Cad %aith does not simpl" $onnote bad Gud#ment or simple ne#li#en$e. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obli>uit" and $ons$ious doin# o% a *ron#, a brea$h o% a /no*n dut" due to some motive or interest or ill *ill that parta/es o% the nature o% %raud. 3arras$oso have not a$ted in bad %aith in the present $ase. he extant rule is that publi$ o%%i$ers shall not be liable b" *a" o% moral and exemplar" dama#es %or a$ts done in the per%orman$e o% o%%i$ial duties, unless there is a $lear sho*in# o% bad %aith, mali$e or #ross ne#li#en$e. 0ttorne"-s %ees and expenses o% liti#ation $annot be imposed either, in the absen$e o% $lear sho*in# o% an" o% the #rounds provided there%or under the 3ivil 3ode. he trial $ourt-s a*ard o% these /inds o% dama#es must per%or$e be deleted. 9evertheless, the $ourt a#rees *ith the petitioner and the trial $ourt that respondent 3arras$oso ma" still be held liable under 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode. It is not ne$essar" that the publi$ o%%i$er a$ted *ith mali$e or bad %aith. o be liable, it is enou#h that there *as a violation o% the $onstitutional ri#hts o% 3oGuan#$o. 00) 2a"ila ,lectric (o.pa"4 vs. (astillo G.R. No. 1)2906, 3a"!ar4 14, 2013 Facts= Respondents Pablito ,. 3astillo and <uia (. 3astillo are spouses en#a#ed in the business o% manu%a$turin# and sellin# %luores$ent %ixtures, o%%i$e steel $abinets and related metal %abri$ations under the name and st"le o% Permanent +i#ht ,anu%a$turin# 7nterprises 8Permanent +i#ht4. 'n ,ar$h 2, 199), the Coard o% rustees o% the <overnment (ervi$e Insuran$e ("stem 8<(I(4 approved the a*ard to Permanent +i#ht o% a $ontra$t %or the suppl" and installation o% 1,200 units o% lateral

106 steel %ilin# $abinets *orth P:, H1H,@00. Immediatel", Permanent +i#ht be#an produ$tion o% the steel $abinets so that it $an obtain the a*ard %or the suppl" o% 500 additional units. In the a%ternoon o% 0pril 19, 199), Joselito I#na$io and Peter +e#aspi %ull" phased inspe$tors o% petitioner ,eral$o, sou#ht permission to inspe$t permanent +i#ht-s ele$tri$ meter. he results o% the inspe$tion, *hi$h are $ontained in a (pe$ial Investi#ation Report, sho* that the terminal seal o% Permanent +i#ht-s meter *as de%ormed. 'n the basis o% these %indin#s, I#na$io $on$luded that the meter *as tampered *ith and ele$tri$ suppl" to Permanent +i#ht *as immediatel" dis$onne$ted. C" petitioner ,eral$o-s $laim, it sustained losses in the amount o% P12H,119.92 over a 2)?month period, on a$$ount o% Permanent +i#ht-s tampered meter. he next da", in order to se$ure the re$onne$tion o% ele$tri$it" to Permanent +i#ht, respondents paid P50,000 as do*n pa"ment on the di%%erential bill to be rendered b" ,eral$o. (ubse>uentl", respondents re$eived their ele$tri$ bills. he" li/e*ise $omplained o% a si#ni%i$ant in$rease in their ele$tri$ bills sin$e petitioner installed the repla$ement meter on 0pril 20, 199). ss!e= Whether or not respondents sustained dama#es %rom the abnormal in$rease in Permanent +i#ht-s ele$tri$ bills issued b" ,eral$o deprives ri#ht to propert" *ithout due pro$ess o% la*5 R!li"#= Respondent-s sustained dama#es %rom the abnormal in$rease in Permanent +i#ht-s ele$tri$ bills a%ter petitioner repla$ed the latter-s meter on 0pril 19, 199). 0rti$le 12 o% the 3ivil 3ode provides %or the a*ard o% moral dama#es in $ases *here the ri#hts o% individuals, in$ludin# the ri#ht a#ainst deprivation o% propert" *ithout due pro$ess o% la*, are violated. Aor publi$ utilities, broad as their po*ers are, have a $lear dut" to see to it that the" do not violate nor trans#ress the ri#hts o% the $onsumers. 0n" a$t on their part that militates a#ainst the ordinar" norms o% Gusti$e and %air pla" is $onsidered an in%ra$tion that #ives rise to an a$tion %or dama#es. 0)) 1arre%o vs. Garcia G.R. No. L74)006, 3!l4 ), 1942

100

Facts= 0t about hal% past one in the mornin# o% ,a" 1, 191H, on the road bet*een ,alabon and 9avotas, Provin$e o% Ri=al, there *as a head?on $ollision bet*een a taxi o% the ,alate axi$ab driven b" Pedro Aontanilla and a $arretela #uided b" Pedro Dimapalis. he $arretela *as overturned, and one o% its passen#ers, 1H?"ear?old bo" Aaustino <ar$ia, su%%ered inGuries %rom *hi$h he died t*o da"s later. 0 $riminal a$tion *as %iled a#ainst Aontanilla in the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al, and he *as $onvi$ted and senten$ed to an indeterminate senten$e o% one "ear and one da" to t*o "ears o% prision $orre$$ional. he $ourt in the $riminal $ase #ranted the petition that the ri#ht to brin# a separate $ivil a$tion be reserved. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed the senten$e o% the lo*er $ourt in the $riminal $ase. (everino <ar$ia and imotea 0lmario, parents o% the de$eased on ,ar$h :, 1919, brou#ht an a$tion in the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila a#ainst Aausto Carredo as the sole proprietor o% the ,alate axi$ab and emplo"er o% Pedro Aontanilla. ss!e= Whether or not Aausto Carredo, liable in dama#es %or the death o% Aaustino <ar$ia $aused b" the ne#li#en$e o% Pedro Aontanilla, a taxi driver emplo"ed b" the petitioner5 R!li"#= o %ind the a$$used #uilt" in a $riminal $ase, proo% o% #uilt be"ond reasonable doubt is re>uired, *hile in a $ivil $ase, preponderan$e o% eviden$e is su%%i$ient to ma/e the de%endant pa" in dama#es. here are numerous $ases o% $riminal ne#li#en$e *hi$h $annot be sho*n be"ond reasonable doubt, but $an be proved b" a preponderan$e o% eviden$e. In su$h $ases, the de%endant $an and should be made responsible in a $ivil a$tion under arti$les 1902 to 1910 o% the 3ivil 3ode. be$ause o% the broad s*eep o% the provisions o% both the Penal 3ode and the 3ivil 3ode on this subGe$t, *hi$h has #iven rise to the overlappin# or $on$urren$e o% spheres alread" dis$ussed, and %or la$/ o% understandin# o% the $hara$ter and e%%i$a$" o% the a$tion %or $ulpa a>uiliana, there has #ro*n up a $ommon pra$ti$e to see/ dama#es onl" b" virtue o% the $ivil responsibilit" arisin# %rom a $rime, %or#ettin# that there is another remed", *hi$h is b" invo/in# arti$les 1902?1910 o% the 3ivil 3ode.

10)

09) 5a-e#!ar% 5ec!rit4 A#e"c4, $a"#co G.R. No. 165032, Dece.+er 14, 2006

"c.

vs.

Facts= 'n 9ovember 1, 199:, at about 2:50 p.m., 7van#eline an#$o *ent to 7$olo#" Can/, Jatipunan Cran$h, Kue=on 3it", to rene* her time deposit per advi$e o% the ban/-s $ashier as she *ould si#n a spe$imen $ard. 7van#eline, a dul" li$ensed %irearm holder *ith $orrespondin# permit to $arr" the same outside her residen$e, approa$hed se$urit" #uard PaGarillo, *ho *as stationed outside the ban/, and pulled out her %irearm %rom her ba# to deposit the same %or sa%e/eepin#. (uddenl", PaGarillo shot 7van#eline *ith his servi$e shot#un hittin# her in the abdomen instantl" $ausin# her death. +auro an#$o, 7van#eline-s husband, to#ether *ith his six minor $hildren %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34 o% Kue=on 3it", a $riminal $ase o% .omi$ide a#ainst PaGarillo. Respondents reserved their ri#ht to %ile a separate $ivil a$tion in the said $riminal $ase. ,ean*hile, on Januar" 1), 199@, respondents %iled *ith R 3, Cran$h 2:1, ,ari/ina 3it", a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst PaGarillo %or ne#li#entl" shootin# 7van#eline and a#ainst (a%e#uard %or %ailin# to observe the dili#en$e o% a #ood %ather o% a %amil" to prevent the dama#e $ommitted b" its se$urit" #uard. ss!e= Whether or not %ilin# a separate $ivil a$tion a#ainst petitioners are limited to the re$over" o% dama#es arisin# %rom a $rime or deli$t5 R!li"#= (a%e#uard insists that the $laim %or dama#es b" respondents is based on $ulpa a>uiliana under 0rti$le 21:H o% the 3ivil 3ode, in *hi$h $ase, its liabilit" is Gointl" and severall" *ith PaGarillo. .o*ever, sin$e it has established that it had exer$ised due dili#en$e in the sele$tion and supervision o% PaGarillo, it should be exonerated %rom $ivil liabilit". he s$ope o% 0rti$le 21:H is not limited to a$ts or omissions resultin# %rom ne#li#en$e. he $ivil a$tion %iled b" respondents *as not derived %rom the $riminal liabilit" o% PaGarillo in the $riminal $ase but one based on $ulpa a>uiliana or >uasi?deli$t

109 *hi$h is separate and distin$t %rom the $ivil liabilit" arisin# %rom $rime. he sour$e o% the obli#ation sou#ht to be en%or$ed in the $ivil $ase is a >uasi?deli$t not an a$t or omission punishable b" la*. 0lthou#h the Gud#ment in the $riminal $ase %indin# PaGarillo #uilt" o% .omi$ide is alread" %inal and exe$utor", su$h Gud#ment has no relevan$e or importan$e to this $ase. It *ould have been entirel" di%%erent i% respondents- $ause o% a$tion *as %or dama#es arisin# %rom a deli$t (a%e#uard is onl" subsidiar" liable pursuant to 0rti$le 101 o% the Revised Penal 3ode. )0) (it4 o- &asi# vs. (*2,L,( G.R. No. 125646, 5epte.+er 10, 1999 Facts: 'n 0pril 22, 199H, upon petition o% the residents o% Jaran#alan Billa#e that the" be se#re#ated %rom its mother Caran#a"s ,an##ahan and Dela Pa=, 3it" o% Pasi#, and to be $onverted and separated into a distin$t baran#a" to be /no*n as Caran#a" Jaran#alan, the 3it" 3oun$il o% Pasi# passed and approved 'rdinan$e 9o. 21, (eries o% 199H, $reatin# Caran#a" Jaran#alan in Pasi# 3it". Plebis$ite on the $reation o% said baran#a" *as therea%ter set %or June 22, 199H. ,ean*hile, on (eptember 9, 199H, the 3it" o% Pasi# similarl" issued 'rdinan$e 9o. 52, (eries o% 199H, $reatin# Caran#a" 9api$o in Pasi# 3it". Plebis$ite %or this purpose *as set %or ,ar$h 15, 199:. Immediatel" upon learnin# o% su$h 'rdinan$es, the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta moved to suspend or $an$el the respe$tive plebis$ites s$heduled, and %iled Petitions *ith the 3',7+73 on June 19, 199H 8F9D 9o. 9H?01H4 and ,ar$h 12, 199: 8F9D 9o. 9:? 0024, respe$tivel". In both Petitions, the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta $alled the attention o% the 3',7+73 to a pendin# $ase be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% 0ntipolo, Ri=al, Cran$h :), %or settlement o% boundar" dispute. 0$$ordin# to the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta, the proposed baran#a"s involve areas in$luded in the boundar" dispute subGe$t o% said pendin# $ase6 hen$e, the s$heduled plebis$ites should be suspended or $an$elled until a%ter the said $ase shall have been %inall" de$ided b" the $ourt. ss!e: Whether or not the settlement dispute is a preGudi$ial >uestion to the $reation o% the baran#a"s5

110

R!li"#: In the $ivil $ase involvin# the boundar" dispute bet*een the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta and the 3it" o% Pasi# presents a preGudi$ial >uestion *hi$h must %irst be de$ided be%ore plebis$ites %or the $reation o% the proposed baran#a"s ma" be held. (urel", *hether the areas in $ontrovers" shall be de$ided as *ithin the territorial Gurisdi$tion o% the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta or the 3it" o% Pasi# has material bearin# to the $reation o% the proposed Caran#a"s Jaran#alan and 9api$o. Indeed, a re>uisite %or the $reation o% a baran#a" is %or its territorial Gurisdi$tion to be properl" identi%ied b" metes and bounds or b" more or less permanent natural boundaries. Pre$isel" be$ause territorial Gurisdi$tion is an issue raised in the pendin# $ivil $ase, until and unless su$h issue is resolved *ith %inalit", to de%ine the territorial Gurisdi$tion o% the proposed baran#a"s *ould onl" be an exer$ise in %utilit". 9ot onl" that, *e *ould be pavin# the *a" %or potentiall" ultra vires a$ts o% su$h baran#a"s. ,oreover, $onsiderin# the expenses entailed in the holdin# o% plebis$ites, it is %ar more prudent to hold in abe"an$e the $ondu$t o% the same. We also a#ree *ith petitioner-s $ontention that merel" be$ause a plebis$ite had alread" been held in the $ase o% the proposed Caran#a" 9api$o, the petition o% the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3ainta has alread" been rendered moot and a$ademi$, hen$e, the plebis$ite held on ,ar$h 15, 199: to rati%" the $reation o% Caran#a" 9api$o in the 3it" o% Pasi# is de$lared null and void.

)1) 1eltra" vs. &eople G.R. No. 130560, 3!"e 20, 2000 Facts: ,e"nardo Celtran and his *i%e 3harmaine Aelix *ere married on June 1H, 19:1 at the Imma$ulate 3on$ep$ion Parish 3hur$h in 3ubao, Kue=on 3it". 'n Aebruar" :, 199:, a%ter t*ent"? %our "ears o% marria#e and %our $hildren, ,e"nardo %iled a petition %or nullit" o% marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode be%ore Cran$h @: o% the

111 Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Kue=on 3it". 3harmaine Aelix alle#ed that it *as ,e"nardo *ho abandoned the $onGu#al home and lived *ith a $ertain *oman named ,ila#ros (altin#. (he subse>uentl" %iled a $riminal $omplaint %or $on$ubina#e under 0rti$le 11) o% the Revised Penal 3ode a#ainst ,e"nardo and his paramour be%ore the 3it" Prose$utorNs '%%i$e o% ,a/ati. 'n ,ar$h 20, 199@, ,e"nardo, in order to %orestall the issuan$e o% a *arrant %or his arrest, %iled a ,otion to De%er Pro$eedin#s In$ludin# the Issuan$e o% the Warrant o% 0rrest in the $riminal $ase. ss!e: Whether or not the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e posed a preGudi$ial >uestion to $on$ubina#e5 R!li"#: he rationale behind the prin$iple o% preGudi$ial >uestion is to avoid t*o $on%li$tin# de$isions. It has t*o essential elements: 8a4 the $ivil a$tion involves an issue similar or intimatel" related to the issue raised in the $riminal a$tion6 and 8b4 the resolution o% su$h issue determines *hether or not the $riminal a$tion ma" pro$eed. In the $ase at bar it must also be held that parties to the marria#e should not be permitted to Gud#e %or themselves its nullit", %or the same must be submitted to Gud#ment o% the $ompetent $ourts and onl" *hen the nullit" o% the marria#e is so de$lared $an it be held as void, and so lon# as there is no su$h de$laration the presumption is that the marria#e exists %or all intents and purposes. here%ore, he *ho $ohabits *ith a *oman not his *i%e be%ore the Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% the marria#e assumes the ris/ o% bein# prose$uted %or $on$ubina#e. )2) 2erce% vs. Die/ G.R. No. L715315, A!#!st 26, 1960 Facts: 'n Januar" 10, 195@, 0bundio ,er$ed %iled a $omplaint %or annulment o% his se$ond marria#e *ith 7li=abeth 3easar. .e alle#es that 7li=abeth 3easar and her relatives %or$ed, threatened and intimated him into si#nin# an a%%idavit to the e%%e$t that he and de%endant had been livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e %or over %ive "ears, *hi$h *as used to dispense *ith the marria#e li$ense re>uirement under $onvalidation o% $ohabitation! as an ex$eption6 and into enterin# the marria#e *ith her on 0u#ust 21,

112 195: be%ore ,uni$ipal Jud#e ,edardo 0. 3onde. Immediatel" a%ter the $elebration o% the marria#e 0bundio le%t le%t his *i%e and never lived *ith her. 'n Aebruar" 19, 195@, 7li=abeth %iled a $riminal $omplaint %or bi#am" be%ore the o%%i$e o% the 3it" Ais$al o% 3ebu a#ainst 0bundio %or alle#edl"6 he $ontra$ted a previous marria#e to one 7u%ro$ina an, un/no*n to 7li=abeth at the time o% their marria#e. ss!e: Whether or not the annulment o% marria#e is a preGudi$ial >uestion to bi#am"5 R!li"#: 'ne o% the essential elements o% a valid marria#e is that the $onsent thereto o% the $ontra$tin# parties must be %reel" and voluntaril" #iven. Without the element o% $onsent, a marria#e *ould be ille#al and void. 0nd in order that a person ma" be held #uilt" o% the $rime o% bi#am", the se$ond and subse>uent marria#e must have all the essential elements o% a valid marria#e, *ere it not %or the subsisten$e o% the %irst marria#e. In the $ase at bar, the issue o% the validit" o% the se$ond marria#e, should be determined be%ore hand in the $ivil a$tion, be%ore the $riminal a$tion $an pro$eed. )3) Do"ato vs. L!"a G.R. No. L753642, April 15, 19)) Facts: Prior to the solemni=ation o% the marria#e bet*een +eonilo Donato and Pa= 0ba"an, the" had lived to#ether and deported themselves as husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% *edlo$/ %or a period o% at least %ive "ears as eviden$ed b" a Goint a%%idavit exe$uted b" them on (eptember 2H, 19:@, %or *hi$h reason, the re>uisite marria#e li$ense *as dispensed *ith pursuant to 0rti$le :H o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode pertainin# to marria#es o% ex$eptional $hara$ter. 'n Januar" 21, 19:9, based on 0ba"an-s $omplaint, 0ssistant 3it" Ais$al 0mado 9. 3antor, %iled an in%ormation %or bi#am" a#ainst Donato *ith the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila. 'n (eptember 2@, 19:9, be%ore the +eonilo-s arrai#nment, Pa= %iled a $ivil a$tion %or de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e *ith petitioner, $ontra$ted on (eptember 2H, 19:@ on the #round that

113 she onl" $onsented to enterin# into the marria#e be$ause she had no previous /no*led#e that petitioner *as alread" married to a $ertain Rosalinda R. ,alupin# on June 10, 19:@. +eonilo on the other hand interposed the de%ense that his se$ond marria#e *as void sin$e it *as solemni=ed *ithout a marria#e li$ense and that %or$e, violen$e, intimidation and undue in%luen$e *ere emplo"ed b" private respondent to obtain petitionerNs $onsent to the marria#e. ss!e: Whether or not the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e is a preGudi$ial >uestion to bi#am"5 R!li"#: he re>uisites o% a preGudi$ial >uestion do not obtain in the $ase at bar. It must be noted that the issue be%ore the Juvenile and Domesti$ Relations 3ourt tou$hin# upon the nullit" o% the se$ond marria#e is not determinative o% petitioner DonatoNs #uilt or inno$en$e in the $rime o% bi#am". Aurthermore, it *as petitionerNs se$ond *i%e, Pa= 0ba"an *ho %iled the $omplaint %or annulment o% the se$ond marria#e on the #round that her $onsent *as obtained throu#h de$eit. .is averments that his $onsent *as obtained throu#h %or$e, violen$e, intimidation and undue in%luen$e in enterin# a subse>uent marria#e is bellied b" the %a$t that both o% them exe$uted an a%%idavit *hi$h stated that the" had lived to#ether as husband and *i%e *ithout bene%it o% marria#e %or %ive "ears, one month and one da" until their marital union *as %ormall" rati%ied b" the marria#e. 0nother event *hi$h militates a#ainst petitionerNs $ontentions is the %a$t that it *as onl" *hen a $ivil $ase *as %iled on (eptember 2@, 19:9, or more than the lapse o% one "ear %rom the solemni=ation o% the se$ond marria#e that petitioner $ame up *ith the stor" that his $onsent to the marria#e *as se$ured throu#h the use o% %or$e, violen$e, intimidation and undue in%luen$e. Petitioner also $ontinued to live *ith private respondent until 9ovember 19:@, *hen the latter le%t their abode upon learnin# that +eonilo Donato *as alread" previousl" married. )4) $e"e+ro vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 15005), Fe+r!ar4 1), 2004

114 Facts: Beroni$o enebro, $ontra$ted marria#e *ith +eti$ia 0n$aGas on 0pril 10, 1990 be%ore Jud#e 0l%redo C. Pere=, Jr. o% the 3it" rial 3ourt o% +apu?lapu 3it". he" lived to#ether $ontinuousl" and *ithout interruption until the latter part o% 1991, *hen enebro in%ormed 0n$aGas that he had been previousl" married to a $ertain .ilda Billare"es on 9ovember 10, 19@H. enebro sho*ed 0n$aGas a photo$op" o% a marria#e $ontra$t bet*een him and Billare"es. Invo/in# this previous marria#e, he therea%ter le%t the $onGu#al d*ellin# *hi$h he shared *ith 0n$aGas, statin# that he *as #oin# to $ohabit *ith Billare"es. 'n Januar" 25, 1991, he $ontra$ted "et another marria#e, *ith one 9ilda Bille#as. When 0n$aGas learned o% this third marria#e, she veri%ied %rom Billare"es *hether the latter *as indeed married to Beroni$o. In a hand*ritten letter, Billare"es $on%irmed that Beroni$o *as indeed her husband. 0n$aGas therea%ter %iled a $omplaint %or bi#am" a#ainst petitioner. Beroni$o denied the existen$e o% his %irst marria#e *ith Billare"es %or *hi$h there *as no marria#e $eremon" but mere si#nin# o% marria#e $ontra$t and Gudi$ial de$laration o% the nullit" o% the se$ond marria#e *ith 0n$aGas on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" retroa$ts to the date o% the $elebration o% the marria#e. ss!e: Whether or not the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e based on ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" is a preGudi$ial >uestion to bi#am"5 @el%: 0s a se$ond or subse>uent marria#e $ontra$ted durin# the subsisten$e o% petitioner-s valid marria#e to Billare"es, petitioner-s marria#e to 0n$aGas *ould be null and void ab initio $ompletel" re#ardless o% petitioner-s ps"$holo#i$al $apa$it" or in$apa$it". (in$e a marria#e $ontra$ted durin# the subsisten$e o% a valid marria#e is automati$all" void, the nullit" o% this se$ond marria#e is not per se an ar#ument %or the avoidan$e o% $riminal liabilit" %or bi#am". Pertinentl", 0rti$le 1)9 o% the Revised Penal 3ode $riminali=es Ian" person *ho shall $ontra$t a se$ond or subse>uent marria#e be%ore the %ormer marria#e has been le#all" dissolved, or be%ore the absent spouse has been de$lared presumptivel" dead b" means o% a Gud#ment rendered in the proper pro$eedin#sI. 0 plain readin# o% the la*, there%ore, *ould

115 indi$ate that the provision penali=es the mere a$t o% $ontra$tin# a se$ond or a subse>uent marria#e durin# the subsisten$e o% a valid marria#e.! hus, as soon as the se$ond marria#e to 0n$aGas *as $elebrated on 0pril 10, 1990, durin# the subsisten$e o% the valid %irst marria#e, the $rime o% bi#am" had alread" been $onsummated.

)5) Gel!/ vs. (o!rt o- Appeals 2 5(RA )01 D1961) Facts: 9ita Billanueva $ame to /no* the de%endant 80ntonio <elu=4 %or the %irst time in 19)@ O throu#h her aunt Paula Mambot. In 1950 she be$ame pre#nant b" her present husband be%ore the" *ere le#all" married. Desirin# to $on$eal her pre#nan$" %rom her parent, and a$tin# on the advi$e o% her aunt, she had hersel% aborted b" the de%endant. 0%ter her marria#e *ith the plainti%%, she a#ain be$ame pre#nant. 0s she *as then emplo"ed in the 3ommission on 7le$tions and her pre#nan$" proved to be in$onvenient, she had hersel% aborted a#ain b" the de%endant in '$tober 1951. +ess than t*o "ears later, she a#ain be$ame pre#nant. 'n Aebruar" 21, 1955, a$$ompanied b" her sister Puri%i$a$ion and the latterNs dau#hter +u$ida, she a#ain repaired to the de%endantNs $lini$ on 3arriedo and P. <ome= streets in ,anila, *here the three met the de%endant and his *i%e. 9ita *as a#ain aborted, o% a t*o?month old %oetus, in $onsideration o% the sum o% %i%t" pesos, Philippine $urren$". he plainti%% *as at this time in the provin$e o% 3a#a"an, $ampai#nin# %or his ele$tion to the provin$ial board6 he did not /no* o%, nor #ave his $onsent, to the abortion. ss!e: Whether or not the husband $an $laim dama#es %or the death o% his unborn $hild5 R!li"#: (in$e an a$tion %or pe$uniar" dama#es on a$$ount o% personal inGur" or death pertains primaril" to the one inGured, it is

116 eas" to see that i% no a$tion %or su$h dama#es $ould be instituted on behal% o% the unborn $hild on a$$ount o% the inGuries it re$eived, no su$h ri#ht o% a$tion $ould derivativel" a$$rue to its parents or heirs. In %a$t, even i% a $ause o% a$tion did a$$rue on behal% o% the unborn $hild, the same *as extin#uished b" its pre? natal death, sin$e no transmission to an"one $an ta/e pla$e %rom on that la$/ed Guridi$al personalit" 8or Guridi$al $apa$it" as distin#uished %rom $apa$it" to a$t4. It is no ans*er to invo/e the provisional personalit" o% a $on$eived $hild 8 conceptus pro nato "abetur4 under 0rti$le )0 o% the 3ivil 3ode, be$ause that same arti$le expressl" limits su$h provisional personalit" b" imposin# the $ondition that the $hild should be subse>uentl" born alive: Iprovided it be born later *ith the $ondition spe$i%ied in the %ollo*in# arti$leI. In the present $ase, there is no dispute that the $hild *as dead *hen separated %rom its motherNs *omb. )6) (atala" vs. 1asa G.R. No. 159560, 3!l4 31, 2000 Facts: 'n '$tober 20, 19)@, Aeli$iano 3atalan *as dis$har#ed %rom a$tive militar" servi$e. he Coard o% ,edi$al '%%i$ers o% the Department o% Beteran 0%%airs %ound that he *as un%it to render militar" servi$e due to his Is$hi=ophreni$! rea$tions. 'n (eptember 2@ 19)9, Aeli$iano #ot married to 3ora=on 3ere=o. 'n June 1H, 1951, a do$ument *as exe$uted, titled 0bsolute Deed o% Donation, *herein Aeli$iano alle#edl" donated to his sister ,er$edes 3atalan a par$el o% land lo$ated at Pan#asinan. he donation *as then re#istered *ith the Re#ister o% Deeds. 'n De$ember 11, 1951, People-s Can/ and rust 3ompan" 8presentl" /no*n as CPI4 %iled a (pe$ial Pro$eedin# be%ore the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Pan#asinan to de$lare Aeli$iano in$ompetent. he trial $ourt issued its order %or adGudi$ation o% In$ompeten$" %or 0ppointin# <uardian %or the 7state and Aixin# 0llo*an$e o% Aeli$iano. he trial $ourt eventuall" appointed People-s Can/ and rust 3ompan" as Aeli$iano-s #uardian. In the "ear 19:@, Aeli$iano and 3ora=on donated a real propert" to their son 7ulo#io. he spouses a#ain donated to their $hildren, 0lex, +ibrada, and Eenaida a par$el o% land in 19@1. 'n the same "ear,

110 the spouses donated a par$el o% land in %avor o% 7ulo#io and Alorida 3atalan. hen ,er$edes sold the propert" in issue in %avor o% her $hildren and herein respondents Delia and Jesus Casa. he Deed o% 0bsolute (ale! *as subse>uentl" re#istered *ith the Re#ister o% Deeds. hen on 0pril 1, 199:, CPI a$tin# as Aeli$iano-s #uardian, %iled a $ase be%ore the trial $ourt %or the De$laration o% 9ullit" o% Do$uments, Re$over" o% Possession and '*nership *ith dama#es a#ainst therein respondents.CPI $ontented that Aeli$iano *as not o% sound mind and there%ore in$apable o% #ivin# valid $onsent. hus, CPI $laimed that the Deed o% 0bsolute Donation *as void and the subse>uent Deed o% 0bsolute (ale should li/e*ise be void, %or ,er$edes had no ri#ht to sell the propert". When Aeli$iano passed a*a", the ori#inal $omplaint *as amended to substitute his heirs in lieu o% CPI as $omplainants. he trial $ourt rendered a de$ision in %avor o% respondents. 'n appeal, the 30 a%%irmed the de$ision o% the trial $ourt. .en$e, this petition. ss!e: Whether or not Aeli$iano *as $ompetent *hen he made the donation5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that in order %or donation o% propert" to be valid, *hat is $ru$ial is the donor-s $apa$it" to #ive $onsent at the time o% the donation. 3ertainl", there lies no doubt in the %a$t that insanit" impin#es on $onsent %reel" #iven. .o*ever, the burden o% provin# su$h in$apa$it" rests upon the person *ho alle#es it6 i% no su%%i$ient proo% to this e%%e$t is presented, $apa$it" *ill be presumed. In the $ase at bar, the eviden$e presented b" the petitioners *as insu%%i$ient to over$ome the presumption that Aeli$iano *as $ompetent *hen he donated the propert" in >uestion to ,er$edes. Petitioners ma/e mu$h ado o% the %a$t that, as earl" as 19)@,Aeli$iano had been %ound to be su%%erin# %rom s$hi=ophrenia b" the Coard o% ,edi$al '%%i$ers o% the Department o% Beteran 0%%airs. C" itsel%, ho*ever, the alle#ation $annot prove the in$ompeten$e o% Aeli$iano. 0$$ordin# to medi$al re%eren$es, on one hand, in persons *ith s$hi=ophrenia, there is a #radual onset o% s"mptoms, *ith s"mptoms be$omin# in$reasin#l" bi=arre as the disease pro#resses. It has been proven6 that administration o%

11) $orre$t medi$ine helps the patient to mana#e su$h s"mptoms and redu$es the $han$es o% relapse. ($hi=ophrenia $an result in a dementin# illness similar in man" aspe$ts to 0l=heimer-s disease. .o*ever, the illness *ill *ax and *ane over man" "ears, *ith onl" ver" slo* deterioration o% intelle$t. Arom these s$ienti%i$ studies it $an be dedu$ed that a person su%%erin# %rom s$hi=ophrenia does not ne$essaril" lose his $ompeten$e to intelli#entl" dispose his propert". C" merel" alle#in# the existen$e o% s$hi=ophrenia, petitioners %ailed to sho* substantial proo% that at the date o% the donation, Aeli$iano 3atalan had lost total $ontrol o% his mental %a$ulties. Aurthermore, the presumption *as bolstered b" the existen$e o% the other $ontra$t she entered into li/e his marria#e *ith 3ora=on and the other donations made in %avor o% petitioners. It must be noted that su%%i$ient proo% o% his in%irmit" to #ive $onsent to $ontra$ts *as onl" established *hen the 3AI o% Pan#asinan de$lared him an in$ompetent on De$ember 22, 1951. )0) Do.i"#o vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 120540, *cto+er 10, 2001 Facts: Paulina Ri#onan o*ned 1 par$els o% land, lo$ated at Cata$ and 7spiritu, Ilo$os 9orte, in$ludin# the house and *arehouse on one par$el. (he alle#edl" sold them to private respondents, the spouses Aelipe and 3on$ep$ion Ri#onan, *ho $laim to be her relatives. (ubse>uentl" petitioners 7u#enio Domin#o, et al., *ho $laim to be her $losest survivin# relatives, alle#edl" too/ possession o% the properties b" means o% stealth, %or$e and intimidation, and re%used to va$ate the same. 3onse>uentl", respondent Aelipe Ri#onan %iled a $omplaint %or reinvindicacion a#ainst petitioners in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Cata$, Ilo$os 9orte. .e then amended the $omplaint and in$luded his *i%e as $o?plainti%%. he" alle#ed that the" *ere the o*ners o% the three par$els o% land throu#h the deed o% sale exe$uted b" Paulina Ri#onan6 that sin$e then, the" had been in $ontinuous possession o% the subGe$t properties and had introdu$ed permanent improvements thereon6 and that petitioners entered the properties ille#all", and the" re%used to leave them *hen as/ed to do so.

119 Petitioners eventuall" $ontested plainti%%s- $laims. 0$$ordin# to them, the alle#ed deed o% absolute sale *as void %or bein# spurious as *ell as la$/in# $onsideration. he" said that Paulina Ri#onan did not sell her properties to an"one. 0s her nearest survivin# /in *ithin the %i%th de#ree o% $onsan#uinit", the" inherited the three lots and the permanent improvements thereon *hen Paulina died. he" said the" had been in possession o% the $ontested properties %or more than 10 "ears. De%endants as/ed %or dama#es a#ainst plainti%%s. Durin# trial, Juan Aran$o, 9otar" Publi$ 7varisto P. a#ata and plainti%% Aelipe Ri#onan testi%ied %or private respondents. Aran$o testi%ied that he *as a *itness to the exe$ution o% the >uestioned deed o% absolute sale. .o*ever, the deed *as not the do$ument he si#ned as a *itness, but rather it *as the *ill and testament made b" Paulina Ri#onan. 0tt". a#ata# testi%ied that he personall" prepared the deed. .e %urther testi%ied that he also notari=ed Paulina-s last *ill and testament. he *ill mentioned the same lots sold to private respondents. When as/ed *h" the subGe$t lots *ere still in$luded in the last *ill and testament, he $ould not explain. 0tt". a#ata# also mentioned that he re#istered the ori#inal deed o% absolute sale *ith the Re#ister o% Deeds. Plainti%% Aelipe Ri#onan $laimed that he *as Paulina-s $lose relative. heir %athers *ere %irst $ousins. .is $laim *as disputed b" de%endants, *ho lived *ith Paulina as their $lose /in. .e admitted the dis$repan$ies bet*een the Re#ister o% Deeds$op" o% the deed and the $op" in his possession. (ubse>uentl" $ounsel %or petitioners presented Jose Alores, the o*ner o% the adGa$ent lot6 Ruben Clan$o, then a$tin# Re#istrar o% Deeds in Ilo$os 9orte6 and Eosima Domin#o, *i%e o% de%endant 7u#enio Domin#o. Jose Alores testi%ied that he /ne* petitioners, *ho had lived on the land *ith Paulina Ri#onan even a%ter Paulina-s death. .e said he did not re$eive an" noti$e nor an" o%%er to sell the lots %rom Paulina, $ontrar" to *hat *as indi$ated in the deed o% sale that the vendor had noti%ied all the adGa$ent o*ners o% the sale. .e averred he had no /no*led#e o% an" sale bet*een Paulina and private respondents. Ruben Clan$o, the a$tin# Re#istrar o% Deeds, testi%ied that onl" the $arbon $op", also $alled a dupli$ate ori#inal, o% the deed o% sale *as %iled in his o%%i$e, but he $ould not explain *h" this *as so. Eosima Domin#o

120 testi%ied that her husband, 7u#enio Domin#o, *as Paulina-s nephe*. Paulina *as a %irst $ousin o% 7u#enio-s %ather. (he also said that the" lived *ith Paulina and her husband, Jose <uerson. he" too/ $are o% her, spent %or her dail" needs and medi$al expenses, espe$iall" *hen she *as hospitali=ed prior to her death. (he stated that Paulina *as never badl" in need o% mone" durin# her li%etime. he trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment in %avor o% the petitioners herein. Private respondents then appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *hi$h reversed the trial $ourt-s de$ision. .en$e, this petition. ss!e: Whether or not private respondents su%%i$ientl" establish the existen$e and due exe$ution o% the Deed o% 0bsolute and Irrevo$able (ale o% Real Propert"5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that at the time o% the exe$ution o% the alle#ed $ontra$t, Paulina Ri#onan *as alread" o% advan$ed a#e and senile. (he died an o$to#enarian barel" over a "ear *hen the deed *as alle#edl" exe$uted, but be%ore $opies o% the deed *ere entered in the re#istr". he #eneral rule is that a person is not in$ompetent to $ontra$t merel" be$ause o% advan$ed "ears or b" reason o% ph"si$al in%irmities. .o*ever, *hen su$h a#e or in%irmities have impaired the mental %a$ulties so as to prevent the person %rom properl", intelli#entl" and %irml" prote$tin# her propert" ri#hts then she is undeniabl" in$apa$itated. he unrebutted testimon" o% Eosima Domin#o sho*s that at the time o% the alle#ed exe$ution o% the deed, Paulina *as alread" in$apa$itated ph"si$all" and mentall". (he narrated that Paulina pla"ed *ith her *aste and urinated in bed. <iven these $ir$umstan$es, there is in our vie* su%%i$ient reason to seriousl" doubt that she $onsented to the sale o% and the pri$e %or her par$els o% land. ,oreover, there is no re$eipt to sho* that said pri$e *as paid to and re$eived b" her. hus, the 3ourt upheld the trial $ourt-s %indin# and $on$lusion on the matter. ))) 2e"%e/o"a vs. */a.i/ G.R. No. 143300, Fe+r!ar4 2, 2002

121 Facts: Petitioners ,ario J. ,ende=ona and eresita ,. ,ende=ona, et al., are the relatives o% 3armen '=amis *ith *hom the" entered into a 3ontra$t o% (ale over 1 par$els o% land lo$ated at +ahu#, 3ebu 3it". he petitioners %iled an a$tion o% >uietin# title o% a $loud over their properties b" reason an ins$ription o% noti$e o% lis pendens $aused b" the #uardians appointed %or 3armen '=ami= throu#h #uardianship pro$eedin#s. he respondents and Julio .. '=ami= et al., eventuall" opposed the petitioner-s $laim o% o*nership o% the propert" in >uestion and alle#ed that the titles issued in the petitioner-s names are de%e$tive and ille#al, and the o*nership o% the said propert" *as a$>uired in bad %aith and *ithout value inasmu$h as the $onsideration %or the sale is #rossl" inade>uate and un$ons$ionable. In the trial $ourt-s de$ision, it %ound the sale valid. Respondents then appealed to the 30 *ho reversed the trial $ourt-s de$ision. Petitioners %iled a motion %or re$onsideration and subse>uentl" a motion %or a ne* trial and %or re$eption o% eviden$e. he" $ontended, amon# other thin#s, that the appellate $ourt totall" i#nored the testimon" o% Jud#e eodori$o Durias re#ardin# the mental $ondition o% 3armen '=ami= a month be%ore the exe$ution o% the Deed o% 0bsolute (ale in >uestion. .o*ever, Jud#e Durias *as not presented as a *itness in the a$tion to >uiet title. Petitioners alle#ed that Jud#e Durias- testimon" is a ne*l"? dis$overed eviden$e *hi$h $ould not have been dis$overed prior to the trial in the $ourt belo* b" the exer$ise o% due dili#en$e. ss!e: Whether or not at the time o% the exe$ution o% the Deed o% 0bsolute (ale the mental %a$ulties o% 3armen '=ami= *ere alread" seriousl" impaired5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held in the ne#ative in *hi$h a%ter a thorou#h s$rutin" o% the trans$ripts o% the testimonies o% the *itnesses, it is %ound that the respondents- $ore *itnesses all made s*eepin# statements that %ailed to sho* the true state o% mind o% 3armen '=ami= at the time o% the exe$ution o% the disputed do$ument. he testimonies o% the respondents- *itnesses on the mental $apa$it" o% 3armen '=ami= are %ar %rom bein# $lear and $onvin$in#.

122 he revelation o% Dr. Aaith <o did not also shed li#ht on the mental $apa$it" o% 3armen '=ami= *hen the Deed o% 0bsolute (ale *as exe$uted and notari=ed. 0t best, she merel" revealed that 3armen '=ami= *as su%%erin# %rom $ertain in%irmities in her bod" and at times, she *as %or#et%ul, but there *as no $ate#ori$al statement that 3armen '=ami= su$$umbed to *hat the respondents su##est as her alle#ed se$ond $hildhood!. he petitioners- rebuttal *itness, Dr. William Cuot, a do$tor o% neurolo#", testi%ied that no $on$lusion o% mental in$apa$it" at the time the said deed *as exe$uted $an be in%erred %rom Dr. Aaith <o-s $lini$al notes nor $an su$h %a$t be dedu$ed %rom the mere pres$ription o% a medi$ation %or episodi$ memor" loss. It has been held that a person is not in$apa$itated to $ontra$t merel" be$ause o% advan$ed "ears or b" reason o% ph"si$al in%irmities. 'nl" *hen su$h a#e or in%irmities impair her mental %a$ulties to su$h extent as to prevent her %rom properl", intelli#entl", and %airl" prote$tin# her propert" ri#hts, is she $onsidered in$apa$itated. he respondents utterl" %ailed to sho* ade>uate proo% that at the time o% the sale 3armen '=ami= had alle#edl" lost $ontrol o% her mental %a$ulties. It *as also held that a person is presumed to be o% sound mind at an" parti$ular time and the $ondition is presumed to $ontinue to exist, in the absen$e o% proo% to the $ontrar". 3ompeten$" and %reedom %rom undue in%luen$e, sho*n to have existed in the other a$ts done or $ontra$ts exe$uted, are presumed to $ontinue until the $ontrar" is sho*n. )9) *posa vs. Factora" G.R. No. 1010)3, 3!l4 30, 1993 Facts: he petitioners herein are all minors dul" Goined and represented b" their respe$tive parents. Impleaded as an additional plainti%% is the Philippine 7$olo#i$al 9et*or/, In$. 8P79I4, *hi$h is a domesti$, non?sto$/ and non?pro%it $orporation or#ani=ed %or the purpose o% en#a#in# in $on$erted a$tion #eared %or the prote$tion o% our environment and natural resour$es. he ori#inal de%endant *as the .onorable Aul#en$io (. Aa$toran, Jr., then (e$retar" o% the Department o% 7nvironment and 9atural Resour$es 8D79R4. he $omplaint *as instituted as a taxpa"ersN

123 $lass suit and alle#es that the plainti%%s Iare all $iti=ens o% the Republi$ o% the Philippines, taxpa"ers, and entitled to the %ull bene%it, use and enGo"ment o% the natural resour$e treasure that is the $ountr"Ns vir#in tropi$al %orests.I (e$retar" Aa$toran, Jr., %iled a ,otion to Dismiss the $omplaint based on t*o #rounds, Airst, the plainti%%s have no $ause o% a$tion a#ainst him and, (e$ond, the issue raised b" the plainti%%s is a politi$al >uestion *hi$h properl" pertains to the le#islative or exe$utive bran$hes o% <overnment. In the petitioners 'pposition to the ,otion, the" maintain that, the $omplaint sho*s a $lear and unmista/able $ause o% a$tion, the motion is dilator" and the a$tion presents a Gusti$iable >uestion as it involves the de%endantNs abuse o% dis$retion. Respondent Jud#e then issued an order #rantin# the motion to dismiss. In the said order, not onl" *as the de%endantNs $laim that the $omplaint states no $ause o% a$tion a#ainst him and that it raises a politi$al >uestion sustained, the respondent Jud#e %urther ruled that the #rantin# o% the relie% pra"ed %or *ould result in the impairment o% $ontra$ts *hi$h is prohibited b" the %undamental la* o% the land. Petitioners subse>uentl" %iled the instant spe$ial $ivil a$tion %or $ertiorari and as/ the (upreme 3ourt to set aside the dismissal order on the #round that the respondent Jud#e #ravel" abused his dis$retion. Petitioners also $ontend that the $omplaint $learl" and unmista/abl" states a $ause o% a$tion as it $ontains su%%i$ient alle#ations $on$ernin# their ri#ht to a sound environment based on 0rti$les 19, 20 and 21 o% the 3ivil 3ode 8.uman Relations4, (e$tion ) o% 7xe$utive 'rder 87.'.4 9o. 192 $reatin# the D79R, (e$tion 1 o% Presidential De$ree 8P.D.4 9o. 1151 8Philippine 7nvironmental Poli$"4, (e$tion 1H, 0rti$le II o% the 19@: 3onstitution re$o#ni=in# the ri#ht o% the people to a balan$ed and health%ul e$olo#", the $on$ept o% #enerational #eno$ide in 3riminal +a* and the $on$ept o% manNs inalienable ri#ht to sel%? preservation and sel%?perpetuation embodied in natural la*. Petitioners also rel" on the respondentNs $orrelative obli#ation per (e$tion ) o% 7.'. 9o. 192, to sa%e#uard the peopleNs ri#ht to a health%ul environment. It is also $laimed that the issue o% the respondent (e$retar"Ns alle#ed #rave abuse o% dis$retion in #rantin# imber +i$ense 0#reements 8 +0s4 to $over more areas %or lo##in# than *hat is

124 available involves a Gudi$ial >uestion. 0nent the invo$ation b" the respondent Jud#e o% the 3onstitutionNs non?impairment $lause, petitioners maintain that the same does not appl" in this $ase be$ause +0s are not $ontra$ts. he" subse>uentl" submit that even i% +0s ma" be $onsidered prote$ted b" the said $lause, it is *ell settled that the" ma" still be revo/ed b" the (tate *hen the publi$ interest so re>uires. ss!e: Whether or not the petitioners have lo$us standi5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the ,inor petitioners indeed have lo$us standi be$ause the" represent their #eneration as *ell as #enerations "et unborn. here is no di%%i$ult" in rulin# that the" $an, %or themselves, %or others o% their #eneration and %or the su$$eedin# #enerations, %ile a $lass suit. heir personalit" to sue in behal% o% the su$$eedin# #enerations $an onl" be based on the $on$ept o% inter#enerational responsibilit" inso%ar as the ri#ht to a balan$ed and health%ul e$olo#" is $on$erned. (u$h a ri#ht, as hereina%ter expounded, $onsiders the Irh"thm and harmon" o% nature.I 9ature means the $reated *orld in its entiret". (u$h rh"thm and harmon" indispensabl" in$lude the Gudi$ious disposition, utili=ation, mana#ement, rene*al and $onservation o% the $ountr"Ns %orest, mineral, land, *aters, %isheries, *ildli%e, o%%? shore areas and other natural resour$es to the end that their exploration, development and utili=ation be e>uitabl" a$$essible to the present as *ell as %uture #enerations. 7ver" #eneration has a responsibilit" to the next to preserve that rh"thm and harmon" %or the %ull enGo"ment o% a balan$ed and health%ul e$olo#". Put a little di%%erentl", the minorsN assertion o% their ri#ht to a sound environment $onstitutes, at the same time, the per%orman$e o% their obli#ation to ensure the prote$tion o% that ri#ht %or the #enerations to $ome. 90) 2arcos vs. (*2,L,( G.R. No. 119906, 5epte.+er 1), 1995 Facts: Petitioner Imelda Romualde=?,ar$os, in or about 191@ established her domi$ile in a$loban, +e"te *here she studied and #raduated hi#h s$hool in the .ol" In%ant 0$adem" %rom 191@

125 to 19)9. (he then pursued her $olle#e de#ree o% edu$ation, in (t. Paul-s 3olle#e no* Divine Word Fniversit" also in a$loban. (ubse>uentl", she tau#ht in +e"te 3hinese ($hool in a$loban. (he *ent to manila durin# 1952 to *or/ *ith her $ousin, the late spea/er Daniel Romualde= in his o%%i$e in the .ouse o% Representatives. (he then marriedAerdinand ,ar$os in 195), *hen he *as still a 3on#ressman o% Ilo$os 9orte and she *as re#istered there as a voter. When Aerdinand ,ar$os *as ele$ted as (enator in 1959, the" lived to#ether in (an Juan, Ri=al *here she a#ain re#istered as a voter. In 19H5, *hen ,ar$os *on presiden$", the" lived in ,ala$anan# Pala$e and she then re#istered as a voter in (an ,i#uel ,anila. Petitioner also served as member o% the Catasan#Pambansa and <overnor o% ,etro ,anila durin# 19:@. 3onse>uentl" Imelda Romualde=?,ar$os *as runnin# %or the position o% Representative o% the Airst Distri$t o% +e"te %or the 1995 7le$tions. he in$umbent Representative o% the Airst Distri$t o% +e"te, 3irilo Ro" ,onteGo, *ho is also a $andidate %or the same position, %iled a Petition %or 3an$ellation and Dis>uali%i$ationI*ith the 3ommission on 7le$tions 83',7+734 alle#in# that petitioner did not meet the $onstitutional re>uirement that states that $andidate must have resided in the lo$ation %or a period o% one "ear or more%or residen$". he petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, *rote seven months under residen$", *hi$h she sou#ht to re$ti%" b" addin# the *ords Isin$e $hildhoodI in her 0mendedL3orre$ted 3erti%i$ate o% 3andida$" and that she has al*a"s maintained a$loban 3it" as her domi$ile or residen$e. (he arrived at the seven months residen$" due to the %a$t that she be$ame a resident o% the ,uni$ipalit" o% olosa in the said months. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner meets the $onstitutional residen$" re>uirement5 @el%: he 3ourt held in the a%%irmative. It *as held that residen$e is used s"non"mousl" *ith domi$ile %or ele$tion purposes. he $ourt is in %avor o% petitioner-s $laim o% le#al residen$e or domi$ile in the Airst Distri$t o% +e"te despite her de$laration o% : months residen$" in the distri$t be$ause, as the $ourt stated, a minor %ollo*s the domi$ile o% her parents. a$loban be$ame Imelda-s

126 domi$ile o% ori#in b" operation o% la* *hen her %ather brou#ht them to +e"te. Domi$ile o% ori#in is onl" lost *hen there is a$tual removal or $han#e o% domi$ile, a bona %ide intention o% abandonin# the %ormer residen$e and establishin# a ne* one, and a$ts *hi$h $orrespond *ith the purpose. In the absen$e and $on$urren$e o% all these, domi$ile o% ori#in should be deemed to $ontinue. he 3ourt also states that a *i%e does not automati$all" #ain the husband-s domi$ile be$ause the term residen$e! in 3ivil +a* does not mean the same thin# in Politi$al +a*. When Imelda married late President ,ar$os in 195), she /ept her domi$ile o% ori#in and merel" #ained a ne* home and not domi$ilium ne$essarium. 0ssumin# that Imelda #ained a ne* domi$ile a%ter her marria#e and a$>uired ri#ht to $hoose a ne* one onl" a%ter the death o% Pres. ,ar$os, her a$tions upon returnin# to the $ountr" $learl" indi$ated that she $hose a$loban, her domi$ile o% ori#in, as her domi$ile o% $hoi$e. Aurthermore, petitioner even obtained her residen$e $erti%i$ate in 1992 in a$loban, +e"te *hile livin# in her brother-s house, an a$t, *hi$h supports the domi$iliar" intention $learl" mani%ested. (he even /ept $lose ties b" establishin# residen$es in a$loban, $elebratin# her birthda"s and other important milestones. 91) Ar!e#o 3r. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 112193, 2arc' 13, 1996 Facts: 0 3omplaint %or 3ompulsor" Re$o#nition and 7n%or$ement o% (u$$essional Ri#hts *as %iled be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila b" the minors, private respondent 0ntonia A. 0rue#o and her alle#ed sister 7vel"n A. 0rue#o, represented b" their mother, +u= ,. Aabian. Petitioners herein are Jose 7. 0rue#o, Jr. and the 5 minor $hildren o% the de$eased <loria 0. orres, represented b" their %ather, Justo P. orres, Jr. he $omplaint states that the late Jose ,. 0rue#o, (r., a married man, had an amorous relationship *ith +u= ,. Aabian until his death. 'ut o% the relationship, 0ntonia A. 0rue#o and 7vel"n A. 0rue#o *ere born. he $omplaint pra"ed that 0ntonia and 7vel"n be de$lared the ille#itimate $hildren o% the de$eased Jose ,. 0rue#o, (r6 and petitioners be $ompelled to re$o#ni=e and a$/no*led#e them as the $ompulsor" heirs o% the de$eased Jose ,. 0rue#o6 that their share and parti$ipation in the

120 estate o% their de$eased %ather be determined and ordered delivered to them. he respondents alle#ed that the" are in $ontinuous possession o% the status o% ille#itimate $hildren be$ause the de$eased Jose ,. 0rue#o sho*ered them *ith $ontinuous and $lear mani%estations o% paternal $are and a%%e$tion su$h as re#ular support and edu$ational expenses6 allo*an$e to use his surname6 pa"ment o% maternal bills6 pa"ment o% baptismal expenses and attendan$e therein6 ta/in# them to restaurants and department stores on o$$asions o% %amil" reGoi$in#6 attendan$e to s$hool problems6 $allin# and allo*in# them to his o%%i$e ever" no* and then6 and introdu$in# them as su$h $hildren to %amil" %riends. Petitioners denied the alle#ations. 0%ter trial, the lo*er $ourt rendered Gud#ment de$larin# 0ntonia 0rue#o as ille#itimate dau#hter o% Jose 0rue#o and +u= Aabian *hile 7vel"n Aabian is not an ille#itimate dau#hter. 0ntonia 0rue#o is also entitled to a share e>ual to Z portion o% share o% the le#itimate $hildren o% Jose 0rue#o and $ost a#ainst petitioners herein. Petitioners then %iled a ,otion %or Partial Re$onsideration o% the de$ision *hi$h *as subse>uentl" *as denied b" the lo*er $ourt. (ubse>uentl" a Petition %or Prohibition and 3ertiorari *ith pra"er %or a Writ o% Preliminar" InGun$tion *as %iled b" petitioners be%ore the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. he petition *as eventuall" dismissed %or la$/ o% merit. 0 ,otion %or Re$onsideration *as then %iled but *as denied b" the 30. .en$e, this Petition. ss!e: Whether or not the Aamil" 3ode shall have a retroa$tive e%%e$t in the $ase5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the a$tion brou#ht b" private respondent 0ntonia 0rue#o %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition and en%or$ement o% su$$essional ri#hts *hi$h *as %iled prior to the advent o% the Aamil" 3ode, must be #overned b" 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode and not b" 0rti$le 1:5, para#raph 2 o% the Aamil" 3ode. he present la* $annot be #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t inso%ar as the instant $ase is $on$erned, as its appli$ation *ill preGudi$e the vested ri#ht o% private respondent to have her $ase de$ided under 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode. he ri#ht *as vested to her b" the %a$t that she %iled her a$tion under the re#ime o% the 3ivil

12) 3ode. Pres$indin# %rom this, the $on$lusion then ou#ht to be that the a$tion *as not "et barred, not*ithstandin# the %a$t that it *as brou#ht *hen the putative %ather *as alread" de$eased, sin$e private respondent *as then still a minor *hen it *as %iled, an ex$eption to the #eneral rule provided under 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode. .en$e, the trial $ourt, *hi$h a$>uired Gurisdi$tion over the $ase b" the %ilin# o% the $omplaint, never lost Gurisdi$tion over the same despite the passa#e o% 7.'. 9o. 209, also /no*n as the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines. 92) 1er"a+e vs. Ale8o G.R. No. 140500, 3a"!ar4 21, 2002 Facts: he late Ais$al 7rnesto 0. Cernabe alle#edl" %athered a son *ith his se$retar" 21 "ears, plainti%%?appellant 3arolina 0leGo. he son *as born on (eptember 1@, 19@1 and *as named 0drian Cernabe. Ais$al Cernabe died on 0u#ust 11, 1991, *hile his *i%e Rosalina died on De$ember 1 o% the same "ear, leavin# 7rnestina as the sole survivin# heir. herea%ter, 3arolina, in behal% o% her son, %iled a $omplaint pra"in# that 0drian be de$lared an a$/no*led#ed ille#itimate son o% Ais$al Cernabe and as su$h 0drian be #iven his share in Ais$al Cernabe-s estate. he Re#ional rial 3ourt dismissed the $omplaint, rulin# that under the provisions o% the Aamil" 3ode as *ell as the $ase o% F"#uan#$o vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals, the $omplaint is no* barred. he trial $ourt also #ranted 7rnestina Cernabe-s ,otion %or Re$onsideration o% the trial $ourt-s De$ision and ordered the dismissal o% the 3omplaint %or re$o#nition. he R 3 $ited 0rti$le 1:5 o% the Aamil" 3ode, statin# that the death o% the putative %ather had barred the a$tion. While the 3ourt o% 0ppeals ruled that 0drian should be allo*ed to prove that he *as the ille#itimate son o% Ais$al Cernabe. Ce$ause the bo" *as born in 19@1, his ri#hts are #overned b" 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode, *hi$h allo*s an a$tion %or re$o#nition to be %iled *ithin %our "ears a%ter the $hild has attained the a#e o% maGorit". he subse>uent ena$tment o% the Aamil" 3ode did not ta/e a*a" that ri#ht. .en$e, this appeal.

129 ss!e: Whether or not the Aamil" 3ode shall have a retroa$tive e%%e$t5 @el%: he 3ourt $ited the $ase o% Aabian v. Desierto, in *hi$h it laid do*n the test %or determinin# *hether a rule is pro$edural or substantive. In determinin# *hether a rule pres$ribed b" the (upreme 3ourt, %or the pra$ti$e and pro$edure o% the lo*er $ourts, abrid#es, enlar#es, or modi%ies an" substantive ri#ht, the test is *hether the rule reall" re#ulates pro$edure, that is, the Gudi$ial pro$ess %or en%or$in# ri#hts and duties re$o#ni=ed b" substantive la* and %or Gustl" administerin# remed" and redress %or a disre#ard or in%ra$tion o% them. I% the rule ta/es a*a" a vested ri#ht, it is not pro$edural. I% the rule $reates a ri#ht su$h as the ri#ht to appeal, it ma" be $lassi%ied as a substantive matter6 but i% it operates as a means o% implementin# an existin# ri#ht then the rule deals merel" *ith pro$edure. 0ppl"in# the $ited Gurispruden$e, the 3ourt held that 0rti$le 2@5 o% the 3ivil 3ode is a substantive la*, as it #ives 0drian the ri#ht to %ile his petition %or re$o#nition *ithin ) "ears %rom attainin# maGorit" a#e. here%ore, the Aamil" 3ode $annot impair or ta/e 0drian-s ri#ht to %ile an a$tion %or re$o#nition, be$ause that ri#ht had alread" vested prior to its ena$tment. 93) A"c'eta vs. A"c'eta G.R. No. 145300, 2arc' 4, 2004 Facts: Petitioner ,arietta 0n$heta and respondent Rodol%o 0n$heta a%ter their marria#e on ,ar$h 5, 1959 resided in ,untinlupa, ,etro ,anila and had ei#ht $hildren. 'n De$ember H, 1992, the petitioner le%t the respondent and their $hildren. Petitioner then %iled a petition *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,a/ati a#ainst the respondent %or the dissolution o% their $onGu#al partnership and Gudi$ial separation o% propert". heir $onGu#al properties *ere eventuall" separated throu#h a $ourt?san$tioned $ompromise a#reement *here the petitioner #ot amon# others a resort in 3avite. In the meantime, the husband *anted to marr" a#ain, subse>uentl" he %iled be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith the petitioner on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 0lthou#h he

130 /ne* that the petitioner *as alread" residin# at the resort in 3avite, he alle#ed in his petition that the petitioner *as residin# at +as Pi;as, ,etro ,anila, in order that the summons *ill never rea$h her. 9evertheless summons and $omplaint *as rendered to their son at his residen$e in 3avite. Petitioner *as then de$lared in de%ault %or %ailin# to ans*er the said petition. 0%ter a month a%ter it *as %iled, the trial $ourt #ranted the petition and de$lared the marria#e o% the parties void ab initio. he $ler/ o% $ourt then issued a 3erti%i$ate o% Ainalit" o% the 'rder on Jul" 1H, 199H, thus, allo*in# respondent to marr" a#ain. 'n Jul" :, 2000, petitioner $hallen#ed the trial $ourt-s order de$larin# her marria#e as void ab initio *ith respondent Rodol%o, $itin# extrinsi$ %raud and la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion over her person, amon# others. (he alle#ed that the respondent lied on her real address in his petition so she never re$eived summons on the $ase, hen$e deprivin# her o% her ri#ht to be heard. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals dismissed her petition so she no* $omes to the (upreme 3ourt %or revie* on $ertiorari. ss!e: Whether or not the nullit" o% the marria#e *as valid5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that it *as not valid be$ause a #rant o% annulment o% marria#e or le#al separation b" de%ault is %rau#ht *ith the dan#er o% $ollusion. In all $ases %or annulment, de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e and le#al separation, the prose$utin# attorne" or %is$al is ordered to appear on behal% o% the (tate %or the purpose o% preventin# an" $ollusion bet*een the parties and to ta/e $are that their eviden$e is not %abri$ated or suppressed. I% the de%endant?spouse %ails to ans*er the $omplaint, the $ourt $annot de$lare him or her in de%ault but instead, should order the prose$utin# attorne" to determine i% $ollusion exists bet*een the parties. he prose$utin# attorne" or %is$al ma" oppose the appli$ation %or le#al separation or annulment throu#h the presentation o% his o*n eviden$e, i% in his opinion, the proo% addu$ed is dubious and %abri$ated.! 94) A+a%illa vs. $a+ilira" A.2. No. 2$37927016, *cto+er 25, 1995

131 Facts= ,a. Cl"th 0badilla, a 3ler/ o% 3ourt, %iled a $omplaint a#ainst Jud#e abiliran on the #rounds o% #ross immoralit", de$eit%ul $ondu$t, and $orruption unbe$omin# o% a Gud#e. With respe$t to the $har#e on #ross immoralit", she $ontended that the Gud#e s$andalousl" and publi$l" $ohabited *ith Pris$illa Ca"ba"an durin# subsisten$e o% his marria#e *ith eresita Can=uela. abiliran and Pris$illa #ot married in ,a" 19@H. 'n the other hand, *ith respe$t to the $har#e on de$eit%ul $ondu$t, petitioner $laims that the Gud#e $aused his 1 ille#itimate $hildren *ith Pris$illa be re#istered as le#itimate! b" %alsel" exe$utin# separate a%%idavits statin# the dela"ed re#istration *as due to inadverten$e, ex$usable ne#li#en$e or oversi#ht *hen in %a$t, he /ne* these $hildren $annot be le#all" re#istered as le#itimate. he Gud#e averred that 25 "ears had alread" elapsed sin$e the disappearan$e o% her *i%e in 19HH *hen he married Pris$illa hen$e the $ohabitation *as neither bi#amous nor immoral. .o*ever, as earl" as 19:0, based on the re$ord, Pris$illa had be#otten her 1 $hildren 819:0, 19:1 and 19:54. ss!e= Whether or not the three 814 $hildren $an be $onsidered le#itimate5 R!li"#= he three 814 $hildren $annot be le#itimated nor in an" *a" be $onsidered le#itimate sin$e the time the" *ere born, there *as an existin# valid marria#e bet*een abiliran and eresita. 'nl" natural $hildren $an be le#itimated. 3hildren born outside o% *edlo$/ o% parents *ho, at the time o% the $on$eption o% the %ormer, *ere not dis>uali%ied b" an" impediment to marr" ea$h other, are natural. Fnder 0rti$le 1:: o% the Aamil" 3ode, onl" $hildren $on$eived and born outside o% *edlo$/ o% parents *ho, at the time o% the $on$eption o% the %ormer, *ere not dis>uali%ied b" an" impediment to marr" ea$h other ma" be le#itimated. Reasons %or this limitation: 14 he rationale o% le#itimation *ould be destro"ed6 24 It *ould be un%air to the le#itimate $hildren in terms o% su$$essional ri#hts6 14 here *ill be the problem o% publi$ s$andal, unless so$ial mores $han#e6

132 )4 It is too violent to #rant the privile#e o% le#itimation to adulterous $hildren as it *ill destro" the san$tit" o% marria#e6 54 It *ill be ver" s$andalous, espe$iall" i% the parents marr" man" "ears a%ter the birth o% the $hild. 95) Dela Rosa vs. @eirs o- R!stia v%a. De Da.ia" G.R. No. 155033, 3a"!ar4 20, 2006 Facts= 'n ,a" @, 19:5, +uisa Del#ado Bda. De Damian %iled a Petition %or +etters o% 0dministration o% the intestate estate o% the de$eased spouses Jose%a Del#ado, *ho died on (eptember @, 19:2, and Dr. <uillermo Rustia *ho died on Aebruar" 2@, 19:). he petition *as %iled b" +uisa Del#ado on behal% o% the survivin# sisters, brothers, nephe*s, nie$es and #rand?nephe*s and #rand? nie$es o% Jose%a Del#ado. With the permission o% the trial $ourt, <uillerma (. Rustia?80laras4 *as allo*ed to intervene in the pro$eedin#s upon her assertion o% the status o% an a$/no*led#ed natural $hild, and thus, the onl" survivin# $hild and sole heir, o% Dr. <uillermo J. Rustia. 'n 0pril 1, 19:@, +uisa Del#ado %iled an 0mended Petition %or +etters o% 0dministration, this time alle#in# that the de$eased Jose%a Del#ado and <uillermo Rustia had been livin# $ontinuousl" as husband and *i%e, but *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e. 'n ,ar$h 1), 19@@, herein petitioner 3arlota Del#ado Bda. De Dela Rosa *as substituted %or her sister, the petitioner +uisa Bda. de Danao, *ho had died on ,a" 1@, 19@:. 'n ,a" 11, 1990, the Re#ional rial 3ourt rendered its de$ision appointin# herein petitioner 3arlota Bda. De Dela Rosa as administrator o% the estates o% the t*o mentioned de$eased. Private respondents appealed the de$ision o% the $ourt but the" %ailed to $ompl" *ith to pres$ribed period o% %ilin#. ss!e= Whether or not the de$eased Jose%a Del#ado *as le#all" married to Dr. <uillermo Rustia5 R!li"#: Mes. 9eedless to state, it s presumed in our Gurisdi$tion that a man and a *oman deportin# themselves as husband and *i%e have entered into a la*%ul $ontra$t o% marria#e. 0bsen$e o% re$ord o% marria#e o% Jose%a Del#ado and Dr. <uillermo Rustia is

133 not enou#h to over$ome the validit" o% their marria#e. doubts must be resolved in %avor o% the marria#e. 96) ,!#e"io v. <ele/ G.R. No. )5140, 2a4 10, 1990 Facts= Fna*are o% the death on 2@ 0u#ust 19@@ o% Bitaliana Bar#as, her %ull blood brothers and sistersO he Bar#ases 8de%endants in this $ase4, %iled a petition %or habeas $orpus be%ore the R 3 o% ,isamis 'riental alle#in# that Bitaliana *as %or$ibl" ta/en %rom her residen$e sometime in 19@:and $on%ined b" omas 7u#enio in his pala$ial residen$e in Jasaan, ,isamis 'riental. Despite her desire to es$ape, Bitaliana *as alle#edl" deprived o% her libert" *ithout an" le#al authorit". 0t the time the petition *as %iled, it *as alle#ed that Bitaliana *as 25 "ears o% a#e, sin#le, and livin# *ith petitioner, 7u#enio. Petitioner re%used to surrender the bod" o% Bitaliana 8*ho had died on 2@ 0u#ust 19@@4 to the respondent sheri%%. .e said that he had alread" se$ured a burial permit P that a *rit o% .abeas 3orpus $annot be invo/ed to dead persons. 0lso, as her $ommon la* husband, 7u#enio $laimed le#al $ustod" o% her bod". he Bar#ases alle#ed that omas 7u#enio, *ho is not in an" *a" related to Bitaliana *as *ron#%ull" inter%erin# *ith their dut" to bur" their sister. Invo/in# 0rti$les 105 and 10@ o% the 3ivil 3ode, the Bar#ases $ontended that, as the next o% /in in the Philippines, the" are the le#al $ustodians o% the dead bod" o% their sister Bitaliana. 0n ex$han#e o% pleadin#s %ollo*ed. 7u#enio $laims he is the spouse $ontemplated under 0rti$le 29) o% the 3ivil 3ode, the term spouse used therein not bein# pre$eded b" an" >uali%i$ation6 hen$e, in the absen$e o% su$h >uali%i$ation, he is the ri#ht%ul $ustodian o% BitalianaNs bod". he Bar#ases-OBitalianaNs brothers and sisters $ontend other*ise. ss!e= Whether or not omas 7u#enio $an be $onsidered as a spouse o% Bitaliana Bar#as, entitled to the $ustod" o% her dead bod" as *ell as her burial P internment5 R!li"#= 9o, even thou#h, under 0rt 112 o% the Revised Penal 3ode, the term spouse! embra$es $ommon la* relation %or hus, all

134 purposes o% exemption %rom $riminal liabilit" in $ases o% the%t, s*indlin# and mali$ious mis$hie% $ommitted or $aused mutuall" b" spouses and that the Penal 3ode ma/es no distin$tion bet*een a $ouple *hose $ohabitation is san$tioned b" a sa$rament or le#al tie and another *ho are husband and *i%e de %a$to!, su$h $annot be applied to the $ase be$ause the $ourt held that the provisions o% the 3ivil 3ode, unless expressl" providin# to the $ontrar" as in 0rti$le 1)), *hen re%errin# to a spouse! $ontemplate a la*%ull" *edded spouse. Coth o% them *ere not la*%ull" *edded spouses, in %a$t 7u#enio *as not le#all" $apa$itated to marr" Bitaliana in her li%etime. he $ourt *as $orre$t *hen it a*arded the $ustod" o% the dead bod" o% Bitaliana to the Bar#ases. he $ourt used the order o% pre%eren$e to #ive support under 0rti$le 29), as basis. (in$e there *as no survivin# spouse, as$endants, or des$endants, the brothers and sisters *ere pre%erred over 7u#enio *ho *as merel" a $ommon?la* spouse, the latter bein# himsel% le#all" married to another *oman. When a man and a *oman live to#ether as husband and *i%e, but the" are not married, or their marria#e is void %rom the be#innin#, the propert" a$>uired b" either or both o% them throu#h their *or/ or industr" or their *a#es and salaries shall be #overned b" the rules on $o?o*nership. he Aamil" 3ode provides that: he re>uirement o% marria#e $eremon" prevents the re$o#nition in the Philippines o% *hat are /no*n as 3ommon +a* ,arria#es! Philippine la* does not re$o#ni=e $ommon la* marria#es. Persons representin# themselves as husbands and *ives and has been livin# to#ether %or su$h a lon# period o% time *ithout marria#e are $onsidered married! in $ommon la* Gurisdi$tion but not in the Philippines. 90) 1alo#+o# vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. )359), 2arc' 0, 1990 Facts= Petitioners +eon$ia and <audioso Calo#bo# are the $hildren o% Casilio Calo#bo# and <enoveva 0r=ibal *ho died intestate in 1951 and19H1, respe$tivel". he" had an older brother, <avino, but he died in 1915, prede$easin# their parents. In 19H@, private respondents Ramonito and <eneroso Calo#bo# brou#ht an a$tion %or partition and a$$ountin# a#ainst petitioners,

135 $laimin# that the" *ere the le#itimate $hildren o% <avino b" 3atalina Fbas and that, as su$h, the" *ere entitled to the one? third share o% <avino in the estate o% their #randparents. In their ans*er, petitioners denied /no*in# private respondents. he" alle#ed that their brother <avino died sin#le and *ithout issue in their parentsN residen$e at a#?ama/an, 0sturias, 3ebu. he 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% 3ebu 3it" rendered Gud#ment %or private respondents, orderin# petitioners to render an a$$ountin# %rom 19H0 until the %inalit" o% its Gud#ment, to partition the estate and deliver to private respondents one?third o% the estate o% Casilioand <enoveva, and to pa" attorne"Ns %ees and $osts. 'n appeal, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed. ss!e= Whether or not the marria#e bet*een <avino and 3atalina is valid even in the absen$e o% marria#e $erti%i$ate5 R!li"#= Fnder the Rules o% 3ourt, the presumption is that a man and a *oman $ondu$tin# themselves as husband and *i%e are le#all" married. his presumption ma" be rebutted onl" b" $o#ent proo% to the $ontrar". In this $ase, petitionersN $laim that the $erti%i$ation presented b" private respondents, to the e%%e$t that the re$ord o% the marria#e had been lost or destro"ed durin# the *ar, *as belied b" the produ$tion o% the Coo/ o% ,arria#es b" the assistant muni$ipal treasurer o% 0sturias. Petitioners ar#ue that this boo/ does not $ontain an" entr" pertainin# to the alle#ed marria#e o% private respondentsN parents. his $ontention has no merit. 0lthou#h a marria#e $ontra$t is $onsidered primar" eviden$e o% marria#e, the %ailure to present it is not proo% that no marria#e too/ pla$e. 'ther eviden$e ma" be presented to prove marria#e. .ere, private respondents proved, throu#h testimonial eviden$e, that <avino and 3atalina *ere married in 19296 that the" had three $hildren, one o% *hom died in in%an$"6 that their marria#e subsisted until 1915 *hen <avino died6 and that their $hildren, private respondents herein, *ere re$o#ni=ed b" <avinoNs %amil" and b" the publi$ as the le#itimate $hildren o% <avino. .en$e, the marria#e bet*een <avino and 3atalina is valid. 9)) 5ilverio v. Rep!+lic G.R No. 1046)9, *cto+er 22, 2000

136

Facts: Rommel (ilverio, a male transsexual, %iled a petition %or the $han#e o% his #ender and %irst name in his birth $erti%i$ate to %a$ilitate his marria#e *ith his %ian$[. 0 "ear be%ore, (ilverio has under*ent sex re?assi#nment sur#er" in Can#/o/, hailand. In his petition, he *ants to $han#e his %irst name %rom Rommel! to ,el"! %or he $laims that he has alread" trans%ormed ane* as a *oman. ss!e: Whether or not the $han#e in name and sex shall be allo*ed and *ill there be $onse>uen$es5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that $onsiderin# that there is no la* re$o#ni=in# sex re?assi#nment, the determination o% a person-s sex at the time o% birth, i% not attended b" error, is immutable. It held that *hile petitioner ma" have su$$eeded in alterin# his bod" and appearan$e throu#h the intervention o% modern sur#er", no la* authori=es the $han#e o% entr" as to sex in the $ivil re#istr" %or that reason. here is no spe$ial la* in the $ountr" #overnin# sex reassi#nment and its e%%e$t. his is %atal to petitioner-s $ause.! Aurther, the $han#e in #ender sou#ht b" petitioner *ill have serious and *ide?ran#in# le#al and publi$ poli$" $onse>uen$es,! i.e., substantiall" re$on%i#ure and #reatl" alter the la*s on marria#e and %amil" relations and substantiall" a%%e$t the publi$ poli$" in relation to *omen in la*s su$h as the provisions o% the +abor 3ode on emplo"ment o% *omen, $ertain %elonies under the Revised Penal 3ode, et$. 99) Rep!+lic vs. (a#a"%a'a" G.R. No. 166606, 5epte.+er 12, 200) Facts: Jenni%er 3a#andahan *as born %emale, but *hile she *as #ro*in# up, she developed se$ondar" male $hara$teristi$s and *as dia#nosed to have 3on#enital 0drenal ."perplasia, a $ondition *here a%%li$ted persons possess both male and %emale $hara$teristi$s. (he also said that %oe all interests and appearan$es, as *ell as in mind and emotion, she has be$ome a male person. (he no* pra"s that her birth $erti%i$ate be $orre$ted

130 su$h that her #ender be $han#ed %rom %emale to male and her %irst name be $han#ed %rom Jenni%er to Je%%. ss!e: Whether or not the $orre$tion o% entr" be allo*ed5 R!li"#: he 3ourt, in determinin# the #ender, based on medi$al testimon" and s$ienti%i$ development sho*in# the respondent to be other than %emale, has allo*ed the $han#e o% entr". Ce$ause the respondent is endo*ed *ith a mixed $omposition, respondent has let nature ta/e its $ourse and has not ta/en unnatural steps to arrest or inter%ere *ith *hat he *as born *ith. o him belon#s the human ri#ht to the pursuit o% happiness and o% health. .e has the $hoi$e to $hoose *hat a$tion to ta/e on the path o% his sexual development and maturation. 100) 1eso vs. Da#!.a" A.2. No. 2$379971211, 3a"!ar4 2), 2000 Facts= In a 3omplaint?0%%idavit dated De$ember 12, 199:, Eenaida (. Ceso $har#ed Jud#e Juan J. Da#uman, Jr. *ith solemni=in# marria#e outside o% his Gurisdi$tion and o% ne#li#en$e in not retainin# a $op" and not re#isterin# the marria#e $ontra$t *ith the o%%i$e o% the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar. In his $omment, the respondent Gud#e alle#ed that the marria#e o% the $omplainant had to be solemni=ed in 3alba"o# 3it" thou#h outside his territor" as muni$ipal Jud#e o% (ta. ,ar#arita, (amar be$ause : 14 ph"si$all" indisposed and unable to report to his station in (ta. ,ar#arita6 24 $omplainant said she had to %l" abroad that same da"6 14 that %or the parties to #o to another to*n %or the marria#e *ould be expensive and *ould entail serious problems o% %indin# a solemni=in# o%%i$er and another pair o% *itnesses or sponsors6 )4 i% the" %ailed to #et married on 0u#ust 2@, 199:, $omplainant *ould be out o% the $ountr" %or a lon# period and their marria#e li$ense *ould lapse and ne$essitate another publi$ation o% noti$e6 54 i% the parties #o be"ond their plans %or the s$heduled marria#e, $omplainant %eared it *ould $ompli$ate her emplo"ment abroad. ss!e= Whether or not Da#uman is authori=ed to solemni=e the marria#e5

13)

R!li"#= he authorit" o% a Gud#e to solemni=e marria#e is onl" limited to those muni$ipalities under his Gurisdi$tion. 3learl", 3alba"o# 3it" is no lon#er *ithin his area o% Gurisdi$tion. 0dditionall", there are onl" three instan$es, as provided b" 0rti$le @ o% the Aamil" 3ode, *herein a marria#e ma" be solemni=ed b" a Gud#e outside his $hamberRsS or at a pla$e other than his sala, and the $ir$umstan$es o% this $ase do not %all in an" o% these ex$eptions. ,oreover, as solemni=in# o%%i$er, respondent Jud#e ne#le$ted his dut" *hen he %ailed to re#ister the marria#e o% $omplainant to CernarditoMman. (u$h dut" is entrusted upon him pursuant to 0rti$le 21 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h provides: IIt shall be the dut" o% the person solemni=in# the marria#e to %urnish either o% the $ontra$tin# parties the ori#inal o% the marria#e $erti%i$ate re%erred to in 0rti$le H and to send the dupli$ate and tripli$ate $opies o% the $erti%i$ates not later than %i%teen da"s a%ter the marria#e, to the lo$al $ivil re#istrar o% the pla$e *here the marria#e *as solemni=ed. xxxI +astl", a Gud#e is $har#ed *ith exer$isin# extra $are in ensurin# that the re$ords o% the $ases and o%%i$ial do$uments in his $ustod" are inta$t. here is no Gusti%i$ation %or missin# re$ords save %ortuitous events. he re$ords sho* that the loss *as o$$asioned b" $arelessness on respondent Jud#e-s part. his 3ourt reiterates that Gud#es must adopt a s"stem o% re$ord mana#ement and or#ani=e their do$/ets in order to bolster the prompt and e%%i$ient dispat$h o% business. It is, in %a$t, in$umbent upon him to devise an e%%i$ient re$ordin# and %ilin# s"stem in his $ourt be$ause he is a%ter all the one dire$tl" responsible %or the proper dis$har#e o% his o%%i$ial %un$tions. 101) Ara"es vs. *ccia"o A.2. No. 2$370271390, Aprill 11, 2002 Facts= 0ranes %iled $har#es a#ainst Gud#e (alvador '$$iano o% the muni$ipal $ir$uit trial $ourt o% Catalan, 3amarines (ur *ith #ross i#noran$e o% the la*. '$$iano solemni=ed 0ranes marria#e *ithout the re>uisite marria#e li$ense the latter-s house *hi$h is outside the latter-s Gurisdi$tion. 0ranes *as not able to $laim her

139 ri#ht to inherit his de$eased husband-s pension and propert". '$$iano avers that the $eremon" too/ pla$e in 0ranes house be$ause the #room had a di%%i$ult" *al/in# and he $ouldn-t stand travelin#. he Gud#e *as a*are that there *as no marria#e li$ense but due to the pleas o% the $ouple and ever"thin# *as prepared alread" and the visitors *ere there, he a#reed to solemni=e the marria#e. .e reminded them that marria#e *on-t be valid *ithout the li$ense. he" promised to #ive it *ithin that da" but the" never did. 0ranes desisted but the $ourt still de$ided the $ase. ss!e= Whether or not the marria#e is valid5 . R!li"#= Jud#e $an onl" solemni=e marria#e *ithin their territorial Gurisdi$tion. ,arria#e li$ense is a re>uisite %or marria#e and *ithout it, marria#e *ould be void. It is the marria#e li$ense that #ives the solemni=in# o%%i$er the authorit" to solemni=e the marria#e. 0nd sin$e there *as no li$ense, '$$iano did not have the authorit" to o%%i$iate the marria#e. 102) Alca"tara vs. Alca"tara G.R. No. 160046, A!#!st 2), 2000 Facts= Restituto %iled a petition %or annulment o% marria#e a#ainst Rosita alle#in# that on @ De$ 19@2 he and Rosita, *ithout se$urin# the re>uired marria#e li$ense, *ent to the ,anila 3it" .all %or the purpose o% loo/in# %or a %ixer! *ho $ould arran#e a marria#e %or them be%ore a $ertain Rev. 9avarro. he" #ot married on the same da". Restituto and Rosita *ent throu#h another marria#e $eremon" in ondo, ,anila, on 2H ,ar$h 19@1. he marria#e *as a#ain $elebrated *ithout the parties se$urin# a marria#e li$ense. he alle#ed marria#e li$ense, pro$ured in 3armona, 3avite, appearin# on the marria#e $ontra$t, is a sham, as neither part" *as a resident o% 3armona, and the" never *ent to 3armona to appl" %or a li$ense *ith the lo$al $ivil re#istrar o% the said pla$e. In 19@@, the" parted *a"s and lived separate lives. Petitioner pra"ed that a%ter due hearin#, Gud#ment be issued de$larin# their marria#e void and orderin# the 3ivil Re#istrar to $an$el the $orrespondin# marria#e $ontra$t and its entr" on %ile.

140 Rosita ho*ever asserts the validit" o% their marria#e and maintains that there *as a marria#e li$ense issued as eviden$ed b" a $erti%i$ation %rom the '%%i$e o% the 3ivil Re#istr" o% 3armona, 3avite. Restituto has a mistress *ith *hom he has three $hildren. Restituto onl" %iled the annulment o% their marria#e to evade prose$ution %or $on$ubina#e. Rosita, in %a$t, has %iled a $ase %or $on$ubina#e a#ainst Restituto. ss!e= Whether or not their marria#e is valid5 R!li"#= he re>uirement and issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense is the (tate-s demonstration o% its involvement and parti$ipation in ever" marria#e, in the maintenan$e o% *hi$h the #eneral publi$ is interested. Petitioner $annot insist on the absen$e o% a marria#e li$ense to impu#n the validit" o% his marria#e. he $ases *here the $ourt $onsidered the absen$e o% a marria#e li$ense as a #round %or $onsiderin# the marria#e void are $lear?$ut. In this $ase, the marria#e $ontra$t bet*een the petitioner and respondent re%le$ts a marria#e li$ense number. 0 $erti%i$ation to this e%%e$t *as also issued b" the lo$al $ivil re#istrar o% 3armona, 3avite. he $erti%i$ation moreover is pre$ise in that it spe$i%i$all" identi%ied the parties to *hom the marria#e li$ense *as issued, namel" Restituto 0l$antara and Rosita 0lmario, %urther validatin# the %a$t that a li$ense *as in %a$t issued to the parties herein. Petitioner, in a %aint attempt to demolish the probative value o% the marria#e li$ense, $laims that neither he nor respondent is a resident o% 3armona, 3avite. 7ven then, *e still hold that there is no su%%i$ient basis to annul petitioner and respondent-s marria#e. Issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense in a $it" or muni$ipalit", not the residen$e o% either o% the $ontra$tin# parties, and issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense despite the absen$e o% publi$ation or prior to the $ompletion o% the 10?da" period %or publi$ation are $onsidered mere irre#ularities that do not a%%e$t the validit" o% the marria#e. 0n irre#ularit" in an" o% the %ormal re>uisites o% marria#e does not a%%e$t its validit" but the part" or parties responsible %or the irre#ularit" are $ivill", $riminall" and administrativel" liable. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. he presumption is al*a"s in %avor o% the validit" o% the marria#e. 7ver" intendment o% the la* or %a$t leans to*ard the validit" o% the marria#e bonds. he

141 3ourts loo/ upon this presumption *ith #reat %avor. It is not to be li#htl" repelled6 on the $ontrar", the presumption is o% #reat *ei#ht. 103) Rep!+lic v. (o!rt o- Appeals 5epte.+er 2, 1994 Facts= 'n June 2), 19:0, 0n#elina ,. 3astro and 7d*in A. 3ardenas *ere married in a $ivil $eremon" per%ormed b" Jud#e Pablo ,. ,alvar, 3it" 3ourt Jud#e o% Pasa" 3it". he marria#e *as $elebrated *ithout the /no*led#e o% 3astroNs parents. De%endant 3ardenas personall" attended to the pro$essin# o% the do$uments re>uired %or the $elebration o% the marria#e, in$ludin# the pro$urement o% the marria#e, li$ense. In %a$t, the marria#e $ontra$t itsel% states that marria#e li$ense no. 119H1@2 *as issued in the name o% the $ontra$tin# parties on June 2), 19:0 in Pasi#, ,etro ,anila. he $ouple did not immediatel" live to#ether as husband and *i%e sin$e the marria#e *as un/no*n to 3astroNs parents. hus, it *as onl" in ,ar$h 19:1, *hen 3astro dis$overed she *as pre#nant, that the $ouple de$ided to live to#ether. .o*ever, their $ohabitation lasted onl" %or %our 8)4 months. herea%ter, the $ouple parted *a"s. 'n '$tober 19, 19:1, 3astro #ave birth. he bab" *as adopted b" 3astroNs brother, *ith the $onsent o% 3ardenas. he bab" is no* in the Fnited (tates. Desirin# to %ollo* her dau#hter, 3astro *anted to put in order her marital status be%ore leavin# %or the (tates. (he thus $onsulted a la*"er, 0tt". Arumen$io 7. Pul#ar, re#ardin# the possible annulment o% her marria#e. hrou#h her la*"erNs e%%orts, the" dis$overed that there *as no marria#e li$ense issued to 3ardenas prior to the $elebration o% their marria#e. (he no* %iled a $erti%i$ation to establish the alle#ed non?issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense prior to the $elebration o% the marria#e bet*een the parties. ss!e= Whether or not there is a valid marria#e li$ense5 R!li"#= 0t the time the subGe$t marria#e *as solemni=ed on June 2), 19:0, the la* #overnin# marital relations *as the 9e* 3ivil 3ode. he la* provides that no marria#e shall be solemni=ed

142 *ithout a marria#e li$ense %irst issued b" a lo$al $ivil re#istrar. Cein# one o% the essential re>uisites o% a valid marria#e, absen$e o% a li$ense *ould render the marria#e void ab initio. he presentation o% su$h $erti%i$ation in $ourt is san$tioned b" (e$tion 29, Rule 112 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, vi=.: (e$. 29, proo% o% la$/ o% re$ord. 0 *ritten statement si#ned b" an o%%i$er havin# $ustod" o% an o%%i$ial re$ord or b" his deput", that a%ter dili#ent sear$h, no re$ord or entr" o% a spe$i%ied tenor is %ound to exist in the re$ords o% his o%%i$e, a$$ompanied b" a $erti%i$ate as above provided, is admissible as eviden$e that the re$ords o% his o%%i$e $ontain no su$h re$ord or entr". he above Rule authori=ed the $ustodian o% do$uments to $erti%" that despite dili#ent sear$h, a parti$ular do$ument does not exist in his o%%i$e or that a parti$ular entr" o% a spe$i%ied tenor *as not to be %ound in a re#ister. 0s $ustodians o% publi$ do$uments, $ivil re#istrars are publi$ o%%i$ers $har#ed *ith the dut", inter alia, o% maintainin# a re#ister boo/ *here the" are re>uired to enter all appli$ations %or marria#e li$enses, in$ludin# the names o% the appli$ants, the date the marria#e li$ense *as issued and su$h other relevant data. he $erti%i$ation o% Idue sear$h and inabilit" to %indI issued b" the $ivil re#istrar o% Pasi# enGo"s probative value, he bein# the o%%i$er $har#ed under the la* to /eep a re$ord o% all data relative to the issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense. Fna$$ompanied b" an" $ir$umstan$e o% suspi$ion and pursuant to (e$tion 29, Rule 112 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, a $erti%i$ate o% Idue sear$h and inabilit" to %indI su%%i$ientl" proved that his o%%i$e did not issue marria#e li$ense no. 119H1@2 to the $ontra$tin# parties. he %a$t that private respondent 3astro o%%ered onl" her testimon" in support o% her petition is, in itsel%, not a #round to den" her petition. he %ailure to o%%er an" other *itness to $orroborate her testimon" is mainl" due to the pe$uliar $ir$umstan$es o% the $ase. It *ill be remembered that the subGe$t marria#e *as a $ivil $eremon" per%ormed b" a Gud#e o% a $it" $ourt. he subGe$t marria#e is one o% those $ommonl" /no*n as a Ise$ret marria#eI a le#all" non?existent phrase but ordinaril" used to re%er to a $ivil marria#e $elebrated *ithout the /no*led#e o% the relatives andLor %riends o% either or both o% the $ontra$tin# parties. he re$ords sho* that the marria#e bet*een 3astro and 3ardenas *as initiall" un/no*n to the parents o% the %ormer. In %ine, *e hold that, under the $ir$umstan$es o% the $ase, the

143 do$umentar" and testimonial eviden$e presented b" private respondent 3astro su%%i$ientl" established the absen$e o% the subGe$t marria#e li$ense. 104) (ari"o <5. (ari"o G.R. No. 132529, Fe+r!ar4 2, 2001 Facts: Durin# the li%etime o% the late (P') (antia#o (. 3ari;o, he $ontra$ted t*o marria#es6 the %irst *as on June 20, 19H9, *ith petitioner (usan 9i$dao3ari;o, *ith *hom he had t*o $hildren. 0nd the se$ond *as on 9ovember 10, 1992, *ith respondent (usan Mee 3ari;o *ith *hom he had no $hildren in their almost ten "ear $ohabitation startin# *a" ba$/ in 19@2. In 9ovember 21, 1992, (P') (antia#o 3ari;o passed a*a" under the $are o% (usan Mee, *ho spent %or his medi$al and burial expenses. Coth petitioner and respondent %iled $laims %or monetar" bene%its and %inan$ial assistan$e pertainin# to the de$eased %rom various #overnment a#en$ies. 'n De$ember 1), 1991, respondent %iled the instant $ase %or $olle$tion o% sum o% mone" a#ainst the petitioner pra"in# that petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one?hal% o% the one hundred %ort"?six thousand pesos. o bolster her a$tion %or $olle$tion o% sum o% mone", respondent $ontended that the marria#e o% petitioner and the de$eased is void ab initio be$ause the same *as solemni=ed *ithout the re>uired marria#e li$ense $on%irmed b" the marria#e $erti%i$ate o% te de$eased and the petitioner *hi$h bears no marria#e li$ense number and a $erti%i$ation dated ,ar$h 9, 199), %rom the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% (an Juan, ,anila statin# that the" have no re$ord o% marria#e li$ense o% the spouses (antia#o 3ari;o and (usan 9i$dao3ari;o *ho alle#edl" married in the said muni$ipalit" on June 20, 19H9. ss!e: Whether or not the t*o marria#es $ontra$ted b" the de$eased (P') 3ari;o *ere valid5 R!li"#: Fnder the 3ivil 3ode *hi$h *as the la* in %or$e *hen the marria#e o% petitioner (usan 9i$dao and the de$eased *as solemni=ed in 19H9, a valid marria#e li$ense is a re>uisite o% marria#e and the absen$e thereo%, subGe$t to $ertain ex$eptions,

144 renders a marria#e void ab initio. In the $ase at bar, there is no >uestion that the marria#e o% petitioner and the de$eased does not %all *ithin the marria#es exempt %rom the li$ense re>uirement. 0 marria#e li$ense *as indispensable to the validit" o% their marria#e. he re$ords reveal that the marria#e $ontra$t o% petitioner and the de$eased bears no marria#e li$ense number and as $erti%ied b" the +o$al 3ivil re#istrar o% (an Juan, ,etro ,anila, their o%%i$e has no re$ord o% su$h marria#e li$ense. he $erti%i$ation issued b" the lo$al $ivil re#istrar enGo"s probative value, he bein# the o%%i$er $har#ed under the la* to /eep a re$ord o% all data to the issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense. here%ore, the marria#e bet*een petitioner (usan 9i$dao and the de$eased havin# been solemni=ed *ithout the ne$essar" marria#e li$ense, and not bein# one o% the marria#es exempt %rom the said re>uirement, is undoubtedl" void ab initio. he de$laration in the instant $ase o% nullit" o% the previous marria#e o% the de$eased and petitioner does not validate the se$ond marria#e o% the de$eased *ith respondent (usan Mee. he %a$t remains that their marria#e *as solemni=ed *ithout %irst obtainin# a Gudi$ial de$ree de$larin# the marria#e o% petitioner (usan 9i$dao and the de$eased void. .en$e, the marria#e o% respondent (usan Mee and the de$eased is, li/e*ise, void ab initio. o reiterate, under arti$le )0 o% Aamil" 3ode, %or purposes o% remarria#e, there must %irst be a prior Gudi$ial de$laration o% the nullit" o% a previous marria#e, thou#h void, be%ore a part" $an enter into a se$ond marria#e, other*ise, the se$ond marria#e *ould also be void. 3onsiderin# that the t*o marria#es are void ab initio, the appli$able propert" re#ime *ould not be absolute $ommunit" or $onGu#al partnership o% propert", but rather, is #overned b" the provisions o% arti$les 1): and 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, *herein, the properties a$>uired b" the parties throu#h their a$tual Goint $ontribution shall belon# to the $o?o*nership. C" intestate su$$ession, the said death bene%its! o% the de$eased shall pass to his le#al heirs and respondent, not bein# the le#al *i%e is not one o% them. 3on%ormabl", even i% the disputed death bene%its! *ere earned b" the de$eased alone as a #overnment emplo"ee, 0rti$le 1): $reates a $o?o*nership, entitlin# the petitioner to share one?hal% thereo%. here is no alle#ation o% bad %aith in the present $ase, both parties o% the %irst marria#e are presumed in #ood %aith.

145 hus, one?hal% o% the subGe$t death bene%its! under s$rutin" shall #o to the petitioner as her share in the propert" re#ime, and the other hal% pertainin# to the de$eased shall pass b", intestate su$$ession, to his le#al heirs, namel", his $hildren. 105) 54 vs. (o!rt o- Appeals 330 5(RA 550 Facts: Petitioner Ailipina M. (" and private respondent Aernando (" *as married on 9ovember 15, 19:1, both *ere 22 "rs. 'ld durin# the *eddin#. he" *ere blessed *ith t*o $hildren. he" lived in (in#alon#, ,anila then 0palit, Pampan#a and later at (an ,atias, (to, omas, Pampan#a. he" o*n a lumber and hard*are business in Pampan#a. 'n (ept. 15, 19@1 Aernando le%t their house. 'n ,a" 15, 19@@ their son Arederi$/ *ent to his %ather in ondo, ,anila to live *ith him. 'n Aebruar" 11, 19@:, Ailipina %iles a petition %or le#al separation on #rounds that her husband le%t her *ithout Gust $ause. Ailipina a#ain %iled a petition on 0u#ust ), 1992 %or the absolute nullit" o% marria#e to Aernando on #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", due to habitual al$oholism, re%usal to live *ith her *ithout %ault in her part, $hoosin# to live *ith his mistress, and re%usal to have sex *ith her, per%ormin# the marital a$t onl" to satis%" himsel%. (he also alle#ed that the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" alread" exists durin# the $elebration o% marria#e but *as onl" mani%ested a%ter*ards. he trial $ourt did not honor ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". ss!e: Whether or not the honorable $ourt o% appeals mani%estl" overloo/ed the %a$t that on the date o% the $elebration o% the partiesN marria#e on 9ovember 15, 19:1, not disputed b" respondent Aernando, there *as no marria#e li$ense5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt thus $on$ludes that under 0rti$le @0 o% the 3ivil 3ode, the marria#e bet*een petitioner and private respondent is void %rom the be#innin#. Revie*in# the do$uments and the pleadin#s on re$ord, the petitioner did not expressl" state in her petition be%ore the trial $ourt that there *as in$on#ruit" bet*een the date o% the a$tual $elebration o% their marria#e and

146 the date o% the issuan$e o% their marria#e li$ense. Arom the do$uments she presented, the marria#e li$ense *as issued on (eptember 1:,19:), almost one "ear a%ter the $eremon" too/ pla$e on 9ovember 15, 19:1. he inelu$table $on$lusion is that the marria#e *as indeed $ontra$ted *ithout a marria#e li$ense. he respondent did not den" the $laims. 0rti$le @0 o% the 3ivil 3ode is $learl" appli$able in this $ase. here bein# no $laim o% an ex$eptional $hara$ter, the purported marria#e bet*een petitioner and private respondent $ould not be $lassi%ied amon# those enumerated in 0rti$les :2?:9 o% the 3ivil 3ode. 106) 5evilla vs. (ar%e"as G.R. No. 1606)4, 3!l4 31, 2006 Facts: Jaime '. (evilla, the petitioner, $laimed that on ,a" 19. 19H9 he *as %or$ed throu#h intimidation and duress to marr" 3armelita 9. 3ardenas, the respondent, b" her %ather *ho is a retired 3olonel o% the 0rmed %or$es o% the Philippines. he marria#e *as done in ,anila 3it" .all6 he *as %or$ed to si#n a marria#e $ontra$t in the presen$e o% Reverend 3irilo D. <on=ales, ,inister o% the <ospel, and ho*ever the" never obtain a marria#e li$ense %rom an" 3ivil Re#istr" thus no marria#e li$ense *as presented to the solemni=in# o%%i$er. he respondent re%uted these alle#ations and $laimed that the" *ere married $ivill" on ,a" 19, 19H9 and in a $hur$h *eddin# on ,a" 11, 19H9. Coth marria#es *ere re#istered in the +o$al $ivil re#istr" o% manila and 9('. ss!e: Whether or not the $erti%i$ations %rom the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% (an Juan statin# that no ,arria#e +i$ense 9o. 2::0:92 as appearin# in the marria#e $ontra$t o% the parties *as issued, are su%%i$ient to de$lare their marria#e as null and void ab initio5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt denied the petition. Cased on the %ore#oin# provisions, a marria#e li$ense is an essential re>uisite

140 %or the validit" o% marria#e. he marria#e bet*een 3armelita and Jaime is o% no ex$eption. 0t %irst #lan$e, this $ase $an ver" *ell be easil" dismissed as one involvin# a marria#e that is null and void on the #round o% absen$e o% a marria#e li$ense based on the $erti%i$ations issued b" the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% (an Juan. he 3ourt held that su$h a $erti%i$ation is ade>uate to prove the non? issuan$e o% a marria#e li$ense. .avin# been solemni=ed *ithout the ne$essar" marria#e li$ense, and not bein# one o% the marria#es exempt %rom the marria#e li$ense re>uirement, is undoubtedl" void ab initio. 100) A++as vs. A++as G.R. No. 1)3)96, 3a"!ar4 30, 2013 Facts= In 1991, ("ed, a Pa/istani $iti=en, testi%ied that he met <loria, a Ailipino $iti=en, in ai*an, and the" *ere married there on 0u#ust 9, 1992. .e arrived in the Philippines in De$ember o% 1992. 'n Januar" 9, 1991, he *as at his mother?in?la*-s residen$e in ,alate, ,anila. 0lle#edl", he *as told that he *as to under#o a $eremon" %or his sta" here in the Philippines. .e and <loria si#ned a do$ument and later on, the latter told him that it *as a marria#e $eremon". ("ed testi%ied that <loria had %iled bi#am" $ases a#ainst him in 2001 and 2002, and that he had #one to the ,uni$ipal 3ivil Re#istrar o% 3armona, 3avite to #et $erti%i$ation on *hether or not there *as a marria#e li$ense on advi$e o% his $ounsel. he ,uni$ipal 3ivil Re#istrar issued a $erti%i$ation to the e%%e$t that the marria#e li$ense number appearin# in the marria#e $ontra$t he submitted, ,arria#e +i$ense 9o. 99H99H:, *as the number o% another marria#e li$ense issued to a $ertain $ouple. ss!e: Whether or not a valid marria#e li$ense had been issued %or the $ouple5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt #ranted the petition o% ("ed. 0rti$le15814 o% the Aamil" 3ode also provides that a marria#e

14) solemni=ed *ithout a li$ense is void %rom the be#innin#, ex$ept those exempt %rom the li$ense re>uirement under 0rti$les 2: to 1), 3hapter 2, itle I o% the same 3ode. 0#ain, this marria#e $annot be $hara$teri=ed as amon# the exemptions, and thus, havin# been solemni=ed *ithout a marria#e li$ense, is void ab initio. Respondent <loria %ailed to present the a$tual marria#e li$ense, or a $op" thereo%, and relied on the marria#e $ontra$t as *ell as the testimonies o% her *itnesses to prove the existen$e o% said li$ense. o prove that no su$h li$ense *as issued, ("ed turned to the o%%i$e o% the ,uni$ipal 3ivil Re#istrar o% 3armona, 3avite *hi$h had alle#edl" issued said li$ense. It *as there that he re>uested $erti%i$ation that no su$h li$ense *as issued and that the serial number o% the marria#e li$ense pertained to another $ouple. In the $ase o% Republi$ v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals su$h $erti%i$ation *as allo*ed, as permitted b" (e$. 2@, Rule 112 o% the Rules o% 3ourt *hi$h states, 0 *ritten statement si#ned b" an o%%i$er havin# the $ustod" o% an o%%i$ial re$ord or b" his deput" that a%ter dili#ent sear$h, no re$ord or entr" o% a spe$i%ied tenor is %ound to exist in the re$ords o% his o%%i$e, a$$ompanied b" a $erti%i$ate as above provided, is admissible as eviden$e that the re$ords o% his o%%i$e $ontain no su$h re$ord or entr". Fnder (e$. 18m4, Rule 111 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, it is a disputable presumption that an o%%i$ial dut" has been re#ularl" per%ormed, absent $ontradi$tion or other eviden$e to the $ontrar". 9o su$h a%%irmative eviden$e *as sho*n that the ,uni$ipal 3ivil Re#istrar *as lax in per%ormin# her dut" o% $he$/in# the re$ords o% their o%%i$e, thus the presumption must stand. In %a$t, proo% does exist o% a dili#ent sear$h havin# been $ondu$ted, as ,arria#e +i$ense 9o. 99H9H: *as indeed lo$ated and submitted to the $ourt. 10)) 2a"/a"o vs. 5a"c'e/ A.2. No. 2$370071329, 2arc' ), 2001 Facts= 3omplainant avers that she *as the la*%ul *i%e o% the late David ,an=ano, havin# been married to him on 21 ,a" 19HH in (an <abriel 0r$han#el Parish, 0raneta 0venue, 3aloo$an 3it". 'n 22 ,ar$h 1991, ho*ever, her husband $ontra$ted another marria#e *ith one +u=viminda Pa"ao be%ore respondent Jud#e.

149 When respondent Jud#e solemni=ed said marria#e, he /ne* or ou#ht to /no* that the same *as void and bi#amous, as the marria#e $ontra$t $learl" stated that both $ontra$tin# parties *ere separated.! Respondent Jud#e, on the other hand, $laims in his 3omment that *hen he o%%i$iated the marria#e bet*een ,an=ano and Pa"ao he did not /no* that ,an=ano *as le#all" married. What he /ne* *as that the t*o had been livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e %or seven "ears alread" *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e, as mani%ested in their Goint a%%idavit. .e then pra"ed that the $omplaint be dismissed %or la$/ o% merit and %or bein# desi#ned merel" to harass him. In those a%%idavits, both David ,an=ano and +u=viminda Pa"ao expressl" stated that the" *ere married to .erminia CorGa and Domin#o Relos, respe$tivel"6 and that sin$e their respe$tive marria#es had been mar/ed b" $onstant >uarrels, the" had both le%t their %amilies and had never $ohabited or $ommuni$ated *ith their spouses an"more. Respondent Jud#e alle#es that on the basis o% those a%%idavits, he a#reed to solemni=e the marria#e in >uestion in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 1) o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether the solemni=ation o% a marria#e bet*een t*o $ontra$tin# parties *ho both have an existin# marria#e $an $ontra$t marria#e i% the" have been $ohabitatin# %or 5 "ears under 0rti$le 1) o% Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#: 0mon# the re>uisites o% 0rti$le 1) is that parties must have no le#al impediment to marr" ea$h other. 3onsiderin# that both parties has a subsistin# marria#e, as indi$ated in their marria#e $ontra$t that the" are both separated! is an impediment that *ould ma/e their subse>uent marria#e null and void. Just li/e separation, %ree and voluntar" $ohabitation *ith another person %or at least 5 "ears does not severe the tie o% a subsistin# previous marria#e. 3learl", respondent Jud#e (an$he= demonstrated #ross i#noran$e o% the la* *hen he solemni=ed a void and bi#amous marria#e. 9either $an respondent Jud#e ta/e re%u#e on the Joint 0%%idavit o% David ,an=ano and +u=viminda Pa"ao statin# that the" had been $ohabitin# as husband and *i%e %or seven "ears. Just li/e separation, %ree and voluntar"

150 $ohabitation *ith another person %or at least %ive "ears does not severe the tie o% a subsistin# previous marria#e. ,arital $ohabitation %or a lon# period o% time bet*een t*o individuals *ho are le#all" $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other is merel" a #round %or exemption %rom marria#e li$ense. It $ould not serve as a Gusti%i$ation %or respondent Jud#e to solemni=e a subse>uent marria#e vitiated b" the impediment o% a prior existin# marria#e.

109) Ni"al vs. 1a4a%o# G.R. No. 13300), 2arc' 14, 2000 Facts= Pepito 9i;al *as married to eodul%a Cellones on (eptember 2H, 19:). 'ut o% their marria#e *ere born herein petitioners. eodul%a *as shot b" Pepito resultin# in her death on 0pril 2), 19@5. 'ne "ear and @ months therea%ter or on De$ember 11, 19@H, Pepito and respondent 9orma Cada"o# #ot married *ithout an" marria#e li$ense. In lieu thereo%, Pepito and 9orma exe$uted an a%%idavit dated De$ember 11, 19@H statin# that the" had lived to#ether as husband and *i%e %or at least %ive "ears and *ere thus exempt %rom se$urin# a marria#e li$ense. 'n Aebruar" 19, 199:, Pepito died in a $ar a$$ident. 0%ter their %ather-s death, petitioners %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% the marria#e o% Pepito to 9orma alle#in# that the said marria#e *as void %or la$/ o% a marria#e li$ense. he $ase *as %iled under the assumption that the validit" or invalidit" o% the se$ond marria#e *ould a%%e$t petitioner-s su$$essional ri#hts. 9orma %iled a motion to dismiss on the #round that petitioners have no $ause o% a$tion sin$e the" are not amon# the persons *ho $ould %ile an a$tion %or Iannulment o% marria#eI under 0rti$le ): o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or not the nature o% $ohabitation is $ontemplated under 0rti$le :H o% the 3ivil 3ode 8no* 0rti$le 1) o% the Aamil"

151 3ode4 to *arrant the $ountin# o% the 5?"ear period in order to exempt the %uture spouses %rom se$urin# a marria#e li$ense5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt did not honor the %ive?"ear $ohabitation o% Pepito and 9orma. n this $ase, at the time Pepito and respondent-s marria#e, it $annot be said that the" have lived *ith ea$h other as husband and *i%e %or at least 5 "ears prior to their *eddin# da". Arom the time Pepito-s %irst marria#e *as dissolved to the time o% his marria#e *ith respondent, onl" about 20 months had elapsed. Pepito had a subsistin# marria#e at the time *hen he started $ohabitin# *ith respondent. It is immaterial that *hen the" lived *ith ea$h other, Pepito had alread" been separated in %a$t %rom his la*%ul spouse. 0n" marria#e subse>uentl" $ontra$ted durin# the li%etime o% the %irst spouse shall be ille#al and void, subGe$t onl" to the ex$eption in $ases o% absen$e or *here the prior marria#e *as dissolved or annulled. he 5?"ear $ommon la* $ohabitation period, *hi$h is $ounted ba$/ %rom the date o% $elebration o% marria#e, should be a period o% le#al union had it not been %or the absen$e o% the marria#e. his 5?"ear period should be the "ears immediatel" be%ore the da" o% the marria#e and it should be a period o% $ohabitation $hara$teri=ed b" ex$lusivit"?meanin# no third part" *as involved at an" time *ithin the 5 "ears and $ontinuit" is unbro/en. 110) (osca vs. &ala4pa4o" A.2. No. 2$37927021, 5epte.+er 30, 1994 Facts: 3omplainants alle#ed that Pala"pa"on solemni=ed marria#es even *ithout the re>uisite o% a marria#e li$ense. .en$e, the %ollo*in# $ouples *ere able to #et married Gust b" pa"in# the marria#e %ees to respondent Caro": 0lano P. 0bellano P 9ell" 7dralin6 Aran$is$o (elpo P Julieta 3arrido6 7ddie errobias P ,aria <a$er6 Renato <ama" P ,ari$ris Cel#a6 0rsenio (abater P ,ar#arita 9a$ario6 (amm" Co$a"a P <ina Cismonte. 0s a $onse>uen$e, the marria#e $ontra$ts o% the %ollo*in# $ouples did not re%le$t an" marria#e li$ense number. In addition, Pala"pa"on

152 did not si#n the marria#e $ontra$ts and did not indi$ate the date o% solemni=ation reasonin# out that he alle#edl" had to *ait %or the marria#e li$ense to be submitted b" the parties *hi$h happens usuall" several da"s a%ter the marria#e $eremon". Pala"pa"on $ontends that marria#e bet*een 0bellano P 7dralin %alls under 0rti$le 1) o% the 3ivil 3ode thus exempted %rom the marria#e li$ense re>uirement. 0$$ordin# to him, he #ave stri$t instru$tions to $omplainant (ambo to %urnish the $ouple $op" o% the marria#e $ontra$t and to %ile the same *ith the $ivil re#istrar but the latter %ailed to do so. In order to solve the problem, the spouses subse>uentl" %ormali=ed the marria#e b" se$urin# a marria#e li$ense and exe$utin# their marria#e $ontra$t, a $op" o% *hi$h *as then %iled *ith the $ivil re#istrar. he other %ive marria#es *ere not ille#all" solemni=ed be$ause Pala"pa"on did not si#n their marria#e $ontra$ts and the date and pla$e o% marria#e are not in$luded. It *as alle#ed that $opies o% these marria#e $ontra$ts are in the $ustod" o% $omplainant (ambo. he alle#ed marria#e o% (elpo P 3arrido, errobias P <a$er, <ama" P Cel#a, (abater P 9a$ario *ere not $elebrated b" him sin$e he re%used to solemni=e them in the absen$e o% a marria#e li$ense and that the marria#e o% Co$a"a P Cismonte *as $elebrated even *ithout the re>uisite li$ense due to the insisten$e o% the parties to avoid embarrassment *ith the #uests *hi$h he a#ain did not si#n the marria#e $ontra$t. ss!e: Whether or not the marria#es solemni=ed b" respondent Gud#e are valid5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held Jud#e Pala"pa"on as administrativel" liable. 0rti$le ) o% the Aamil" 3ode pertinentl" provides that in the absen$e o% an" o% the essential or %ormal re>uisites shall render the marria#e void ab initio *hereas an irre#ularit" in the %ormal re>uisite shall not a%%e$t the validit" o% the marria#e but the part" or parties responsible %or the irre#ularit" shall be $ivill", $riminall", and administrativel" liable. Co$a"a P Cesmonte-s marria#e *as solemni=ed *ithout a marria#e li$ense alon# *ith the other $ouples. he testimonies o% Co$a" and Pompeo 0riola in$ludin# the photo#raphs ta/en

153 sho*ed that it *as reall" Jud#e Pala"pa"on *ho solemni=ed their marria#e. Co$a"a de$lared that the" *ere advised b" Gud#e to return a%ter 10 da"s a%ter the solemni=ation and brin# *ith them their marria#e li$ense. he" alread" started livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e even *ithout the %ormal re>uisite. With respe$t to the photo#raphs, Gud#e explained that it *as a simulated solemni=ation o% marria#e and not a real one. .o*ever, $onsiderin# that there *ere pi$tures %rom the start o% the *eddin# $eremon" up to the si#nin# o% the marria#e $erti%i$ates in %ront o% him. he $ourt held that it is hard to believe that it *as simulated. 'n the other hand, Jud#e Pala"pa"on admitted that he solemni=ed marria#e bet*een 0bellano P 7dralin and $laimed it *as under 0rti$le 1) o% the 3ivil 3ode so the marria#e li$ense *as dispensed *ith $onsiderin# that the $ontra$tin# parties exe$uted a Goint a%%idavit that the" have been livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e %or almost H "ears alread". .o*ever, it *as sho*n in the marria#e $ontra$t that 0bellano *as onl" 1@ "rs 2months and : da"s old. I% he and 7dralin had been livin# to#ether %or H "ears alread" be%ore the" #ot married as *hat is stated in the Goint a%%idavit, 0bellano must have been less than 11 "ears old *hen the" started livin# to#ether *hi$h is hard to believe. Pala"pa"on should have been a*are, as it is his dut" to as$ertain the >uali%i$ation o% the $ontra$tin# parties *ho mi#ht have exe$uted a %alse Goint a%%idavit in order to avoid the marria#e li$ense re>uirement.

111) 2ori#o vs. &eople G.R. No. 145226, Fe+r!ar4 6, 2004 Facts: +u$io ,ori#o and +u$ia Carrete *ere then boardmates %or a len#th" period o% time until the" part *a"s and lost $onta$t. 0%ter man" "ears, +u$io *as surprised to re$eive a $ard %rom +u$ia, all the *a" %rom (in#apore. he" maintained $onstant $ommuni$ation and be$ame s*eethearts. he" married ea$h

154 other at I#lesia de Ailipina 9a$ional at Cohol b" merel" si#nin# a marria#e $ontra$t b" themselves and *ithout solemni=ation. herea%ter, +u$ia *ent ba$/ to 3anada. (he soon %iled a petition %or divor$e *ith the 'ntario 3ourt and *as #ranted. +u$io remarried *ith ,aria Je$e$ha +umba#o. 'nl" a%ter*ards did he %ile %or a de$laration o% nullit" be%ore the trial $ourt on the #round o% the absen$e o% a marria#e $eremon" in his %irst marria#e. 9ot*ithstandin#, he *as $har#ed and $onvi$ted o% bi#am". In herein $riminal $ase, trial $ourt dis$ounted petitioner-s $laim that his %irst marria#e to +u$ia *as null and void ab initio and ruled that *ant o% a valid marria#e $eremon" is not a de%ense in a $har#e o% bi#am". Petitioner appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, sin$e in the $ivil $ase, the trial $ourt ruled his %irst marria#e void ab initio due to the *ant o% marria#e $eremon", in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$les 1 and ) o% the Aamil" 3ode. .o*ever, 30 a%%irmed the de$ision o% trial $ourt in his $riminal $ase. ss!e: Whether or not +u$io ,ori#o $ommitted bi#am" even *ith his de%ense o% #ood %aith5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that ,ori#o-s marria#e *ith Carrete is void ab initio $onsiderin# that there *as no a$tual marria#e $eremon" per%ormed bet*een them. +u$io ,ori#o and +u$ia Carrete merel" si#ned a marria#e $ontra$t on their o*n. he mere private a$t o% si#nin# a marria#e $ontra$t bears no semblan$e to a valid marria#e and thus, needs no Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit". (u$h a$t alone, *ithout more, $annot be deemed to $onstitute an ostensibl" valid marria#e %or *hi$h +u$io mi#ht be held liable %or bi#am" unless he %irst se$ures a Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" be%ore he $ontra$ts a subse>uent marria#e. he la* abhors an inGusti$e and the 3ourt is mandated to liberall" $onstrue a penal statute in %avor o% an a$$used and *ei#h ever" $ir$umstan$e in %avor o% the presumption o% inno$en$e to ensure that Gusti$e is done. Fnder the $ir$umstan$es o% the present $ase, (upreme 3ourt held that petitioner has not $ommitted bi#am" and that it need not tarr" on the issue o% the validit" o% his de%ense o% #ood %aith or la$/ o% $riminal intent, *hi$h is no* moot and a$ademi$.

155

112) 2ore"o vs. 1er"a+e A.2. No. 2$37947963, 3!l4 14, 1995 Facts: ,arilou 9ama ,oreno %iled this $omplaint a#ainst Jud#e Jose 3. Cernabe o% the ,etropolitan rial 3ourt, Cran$h :2, Pasi#, ,etro ,anila %or #rave mis$ondu$t and #ross i#noran$e o% the la*. 3omplainant alle#es that on '$tober ), 1991, she and ,ar$elo ,oreno *ere married be%ore respondent Jud#e Cernabe. (he avers that Respondent Jud#e assured her that the marria#e $ontra$t *ill be released ten 8104 da"s a%ter '$tober ), 1991. 3omplainant then visited the o%%i$e o% the Respondent Jud#e on '$tober 15, 1991 onl" to %ind out that she $ould not #et the marria#e $ontra$t be$ause the '%%i$e o% the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar %ailed to issue a marria#e li$ense. (he $laims that Respondent Jud#e $onnived *ith the relatives o% ,ar$elo ,oreno to de$eive her. Respondent denied that he $onspired *ith the relatives o% ,ar$elo ,oreno to solemni=e the marria#e %or the purpose o% de$eivin# the $omplainant.Respondent $ontends that the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% Pasi# has a$tuall" prepared the marria#e li$ense but it *as not released due to the subse>uent obGe$tion o% the %ather o% ,ar$elo ,oreno. hat he did not violate the la* nor did he have the sli#htest intention to violate the la* *hen he, in #ood %aith, solemni=ed the marria#e, as he *as moved onl" b" a desire to help a be##in# and pleadin# $omplainant *ho *anted some /ind o% assuran$e or se$urit" due to her pre#nant $ondition that in order to pa$i%" $omplainant, ,ar$elo ,oreno re>uested him to per%orm the marria#e $eremon", *ith the express assuran$e that Ithe marria#e li$ense *as de%initel" %orth$omin# sin$e the ne$essar" do$uments *ere $ompleted!, that the $ontra$tin# parties *ere not /no*n to him and hat both parties, parti$ularl" the $omplainant, *ere %ull" apprised o% the e%%e$ts o% a marria#e per%ormed *ithout the re>uired marria#e li$ense. ss!e: Whether or not respondent be held liable %or mis$ondu$t %or solemni=in# a marria#e *ithout a marria#e li$ense5

156 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held respondent Jud#e liable. Respondent, b" his o*n admission that he solemni=ed the marria#e bet*een $omplainant and ,ar$elo ,oreno *ithout the re>uired marria#e li$ense, has dismall" %ailed to live up to his $ommitment to be the Iembodiment o% $ompeten$e, inte#rit" and independen$eI and to his promise to be I%aith%ul to the la*.I Respondent $annot hide behind his $laim o% #ood %aith and 3hristian motives *hi$h, at most, *ould serve onl" to miti#ate his liabilit" but not exonerate him $ompletel". <ood intentions $ould never Gusti%" violation o% the la*. 'n the $har#e re#ardin# ille#al marria#es the Aamil" 3ode pertinentl" provides that the %ormal re>uisites o% marria#e are, inter alia, a valid marria#e li$ense ex$ept in the $ases provided. 3omplementaril", it de$lares that the absen$e o% an" o% the essential or %ormal re>uisites shall #enerall" render the marria#e void ab initio and that, *hile an irre#ularit" in the %ormal re>uisites shall not a%%e$t the validit" o% the marria#e, the part" or parties responsible %or the irre#ularit" shall be $ivill", $riminall" and administrativel" liable. he $ivil aspe$t is addressed to the $ontra$tin# parties and those a%%e$ted b" the ille#al marria#es, and *hat *e are providin# %or herein pertains to the administrative liabilit" o% respondents, all *ithout preGudi$e to their $riminal responsibilit". he Revised Penal 3ode provides that Ipriests or ministers o% an" reli#ious denomination or se$t, or $ivil authorities *ho shall per%orm or authori=e an" ille#al marria#e $eremon" shall be punished in a$$ordan$e *ith the provisions o% the ,arria#e +a*.I his is o% $ourse, *ithin the provin$e o% the prose$utorial a#en$ies o% the <overnment. 113) Navarro vs. Do.a#to4 A.2. No. 2$3796710)), 3!l4 19, 1996 Facts= 9avarro is the ,uni$ipal ,a"or o% Dapa, (uri#ao del 9orte. .e has submitted eviden$e in relation to t*o spe$i%i$ a$ts $ommitted b" ,uni$ipal 3ir$uit rial 3ourt Jud#e .ernando Doma#to", *hi$h, he $ontends, exhibits #ross mis$ondu$t as *ell as ine%%i$ien$" in o%%i$e and i#noran$e o% the la*. Airst, on

150 (eptember 2:, 199), respondent Gud#e solemni=ed the *eddin# bet*een <aspar a#adan and 0rl"n Cor#a, despite the /no*led#e that the #room is merel" separated %rom his %irst *i%e. Doma#to" $laimed that he merel" relied on an a%%idavit a$/no*led#ed be%ore him attestin# that a#adan-s *i%e has been absent %or seven "ears. he said a%%idavit *as alle#ed to have been s*orn to be%ore another Gud#e. (e$ond, it is alle#ed that he per%ormed a marria#e $eremon" bet*een Aloriano Dador (uma"lo and <emma <. del Rosario outside his $ourt-s Gurisdi$tion on '$tober 2:, 199). Doma#to" $ounters that he solemni=ed the marria#e outside o% his Gurisdi$tion upon the re>uest o% the parties. ss!e: Whether or not there *as an irre#ularit" in the %ormal re>uisite o% marria#e5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held respondent Jud#e .ernando 3. Doma#to" suspended. In 0rt. @. the marria#e shall be solemni=ed publi$l" in the $hambers o% the Gud#e or in open $ourt, in the $hur$h, $hapel or temple, or in the o%%i$e o% the $onsul?#eneral, $onsul or vi$e?$onsul, as the $ase ma" be, and not else*here, ex$ept in $ases o% marria#es $ontra$ted on the point o% death or in remote pla$es in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 29 o% this 3ode, or *here both parties re>uest the solemni=in# o%%i$er in *ritin# in *hi$h $ase the marria#e ma" be solemni=ed at a house or pla$e desi#nated b" them in a s*orn statement to that e%%e$t.I Respondent Gud#e points to 0rti$le @ and its ex$eptions as the Gusti%i$ations %or his havin# solemni=ed the marria#e bet*een Aloriano (uma"lo and <emma del Rosario outside o% his $ourtNs Gurisdi$tion. 0s the a%ore>uoted provision states, a marria#e $an be held outside o% the Gud#eNs $hambers or $ourtroom onl" in the %ollo*in# instan$es: 814 at the point o% death, 824 in remote pla$es in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 29 or 814 upon re>uest o% both parties in *ritin# in a s*orn statement to this e%%e$t. here is no pretense that either (uma"lo or del Rosario *as at the point o% death or in a remote pla$e. ,oreover, the *ritten re>uest presented addressed to the respondent Gud#e *as made b" onl" one part", <emma del Rosario. ,ore importantl", the elementar" prin$iple underl"in# this provision is the authorit" o% the

15) solemni=in# Gud#e. Fnder 0rti$le 1, one o% the %ormal re>uisites o% marria#e is the Iauthorit" o% the solemni=in# o%%i$er.I Fnder 0rti$le :, marria#e ma" be solemni=ed b", amon# others, Ian" in$umbent member o% the Gudi$iar" *ithin the $ourtNs Gurisdi$tion.I 0rti$le @, *hi$h is a dire$tor" provision, re%ers onl" to the venue o% the marria#e $eremon" and does not alter or >uali%" the authorit" o% the solemni=in# o%%i$er as provided in the pre$edin# provision. 9on?$omplian$e here*ith *ill not invalidate the marria#e. 0 priest *ho is $ommissioned and allo*ed b" his lo$al ordinar" to marr" the %aith%ul, is authori=ed to do so onl" *ithin the area o% the dio$ese or pla$e allo*ed b" his Cishop. 0n appellate $ourt Justi$e or a Justi$e o% this 3ourt has Gurisdi$tion over the entire Philippines to solemni=e marria#es, re#ardless o% the venue, as lon# as the re>uisites o% the la* are $omplied *ith. .o*ever, Gud#es *ho are appointed to spe$i%i$ Gurisdi$tions, ma" o%%i$iate in *eddin#s onl" *ithin said areas and not be"ond. Where a Gud#e solemni=es a marria#e outside his $ourtNs Gurisdi$tion, there is a resultant irre#ularit" in the %ormal re>uisite laid do*n in 0rti$le 1, *hi$h *hile it ma" not a%%e$t the validit" o% the marria#e, ma" subGe$t the o%%i$iatin# o%%i$ial to administrative liabilit". 114) <%a. %e 3aco+ vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 135216, A!#!st 19, 1999 Facts: Petitoner omasa $laimed to be the survivin# spouse o% the late Dr. 0l%redo 7. Ja$ob and *as appointed (pe$ial 0dministratix %or the various estates o% the latter b" virtue o% a re$onstru$ted ,arria#e 3ontra$t bet*een hersel% and the de$eased. 'n the other hand, throu#h a ,otion %or Intervention, Pedro Pilapil $laimed to be the le#all"?adopted son o% 0l%redo and presented an 'rder, #rantin# the petition %or adoption %iled b" de$eased 0l%redo. .e also >uestioned the validit" o% the marria#e bet*een omasa and his adoptive %ather 0l%redo, $laimin# his share o% the de$eased-s estate as the sole survivin# heir. omasa opposed the ,otion %or Intervention, also >uestionin# Pedro-s $laim as the le#al heir o% 0l%redo. omasa presented as se$ondar" eviden$e a re$onstru$ted ,arria#e 3ontra$t issued in 19:@, %or %ailure to present the

159 ori#inal $op" o% the ,arria#e 3ontra$t o% the marria#e bet*een her and 0l%redo, *hi$h *as solemni=ed b" ,s#r. Aloren$io 3. Mllana, 3C3P, Intramuros, ,anila, sometime in 19:5. It *as observed that no $op" o% the ,arria#e 3ontra$t *as sent to the lo$al $ivil re#istrar b" the solemni=in# o%%i$er, nor a re$ord o% it exists in the $ivil re#istr" o% ,anila6 there *as even no re$ord o% the purported marria#e entered in the boo/ o% re$ords in (an 0#ustin 3hur$h *here the marria#e *as alle#edl" solemni=ed. 0l%redo Ja$ob also merel" pla$ed his thumbmar/,! in si#nin# the ,arria#e 3ontra$t on (eptember 1H, 19:5. 9evertheless, 0l%redo Ja$ob a%%ixed his $ustomar" si#nature on a (*orn 0%%idavit exe$uted bet*een omasa and 0l%redo a da" be%ore the alle#ed date o% marria#e or on (eptember 15, 19:5, attestin# that both o% them lived to#ether as husband and *i%e %or %ive 854 "ears. ,oreover, 'n the other hand, omasa >uestioned the authenti$it" o% the si#nature o% Jud#e ,o"a, *ho issued the 'rder #rantin# the petition %or adoption %iled b" de$eased 0l%redo and de$larin# Pedro Pilapil as the le#all" adopted son o% 0l%redo. Jud#e ,o"a attested that he $ould no lon#er remember the %a$ts in Gudi$ial pro$eedin#s ta/en about t*ent"?nine 8294 "ears a#o *hen he *as then presidin# Gud#e sin$e he *as alread" :9 "ears old and *as su%%erin# %rom #lau$oma!. he trial $ourt then $onsulted t*o hand*ritin# experts to test the authenti$it" and #enuineness o% Jud#e ,o"a-s si#nature, *hi$h resulted to t*o $on%li$tin# reports. ss!es: 14 Whether or not the marria#e bet*een omasa Bda. De Ja$ob and de$eased 0l%redo 7. Ja$ob *as valid5 24 Whether or not Pedro Pilapil is the le#all" adopted son o% 0l%redo 7. Ja$ob5 @el%: he 3ourt held that omasa-s marria#e is valid, but respondent-s adoption has not been su%%i$ientl" established. he 3ourt emphasi=ed that, It is settled that i% the ori#inal *ritin# has been lost or destro"ed or $annot be produ$ed in $ourt, upon proo% o% its exe$ution and loss or destru$tion, or unavailabilit", its $ontents ma" be proved b" a $op" or a re$ital o% its $ontents in some authenti$ do$ument, or b" re$olle$tion o%

160 *itnesses.! hus, upon a sho*in# that the do$ument *as dul" exe$uted and subse>uentl" lost, *ithout an" bad %aith on the part o% the o%%eror, se$ondar" eviden$e ma" be addu$ed to prove its $ontents. .en$e, the exe$ution o% a do$ument ma" be proven b" the parties themselves, b" the s*earin# o%%i$er, b" *itnesses *ho sa* and re$o#ni=ed the si#natures o% the parties6 or even b" those to *hom the parties have previousl" narrated the exe$ution thereo%.! Aurthermore, the 3ourt held that RtShe loss ma" be sho*n b" an" person *ho R/no*sS the %a$t o% its loss, or b" an" one *ho haRsS made, in the Gud#ment o% the $ourt, a su%%i$ient examination in the pla$e or pla$es *here the do$ument or papers o% similar $hara$ter are usuall" /ept b" the person in *hose $ustod" the do$ument lost *as, and has been unable to %ind it6 or *ho has made an" other investi#ation *hi$h is su%%i$ient to satis%" the $ourt that the instrument RhasS indeed RbeenS lost.! hus, I estimon" b" one o% the parties to the marria#e, or b" one o% the *itnesses to the marria#e, has been held to be admissible to prove the %a$t o% marria#e. he person *ho o%%i$iated at the solemni=ation is also $ompetent to testi%" as an e"e*itness to the %a$t o% marria#e.I he 3ourt a$$epted the %ollo*in# pie$es o% se$ondar" eviden$e: a4 testimonies o% petitioner, 0dela Pilapil and ,s#r. Aloren$io Mllana6 b4 photo#raphs o% the *eddin# $eremon"6 $4 the letter o% ,onsi#nor Mllana statin# that he had solemni=ed the marria#e bet*een Dr. Ja$ob and petitioner, in%ormed the 0r$hbishop o% ,anila that the *eddin# had not been re$orded in the Coo/ o% ,arria#es, and at the same time re>uested the list o% parties to the marria#e6 d4 the subse>uent authori=ation issued b" the 0r$hbishop ?? throu#h his vi$ar #eneral and $han$ellor, ,s#r. CenGamin +. ,arino ?? ordainin# that the union bet*een Dr. Ja$ob and petitioner be re%le$ted throu#h a $orrespondin# entr" in the Coo/ o% ,arria#es6 and e4 the 0%%idavit o% ,onsi#nor Mllana statin# the $ir$umstan$es o% the loss o% the marria#e $erti%i$ate. .o*ever, the 3ourt $onsidered the result o% the tests $ondu$ted b" hand*ritten expert 0lba$ea, *ho *as a disinterested part". 0lba$ea $on$luded that the >uestioned and the standard si#natures J'(7 +. ,'M0! *ere not *ritten b" one and the same person.! In addition, Jud#e ,o"a de$lared that he did not di$tate de$isions in adoption $ases. he onl" de$isions he

161 made in open $ourt *ere $riminal $ases, in *hi$h the a$$used pleaded #uilt".! 115) Rep!+lic vs. 4o4 G.R. No. 152500, 5epte.+er 21, 2005 Facts: 'n De$ember 1H, 19H1, 3rasus I"o" married Ael" at Crad%ord ,emorial 3hur$h, Jones 0venue, 3ebu 3it" and had %ive $hildren. 3rasus soon learned that Aell" *as hot?tempered, a na##er and extrava#ant.! In 19@), Ael" *ent to the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a, leavin# all o% their $hildren to the $are o% 3rasus. 0%ter a "ear, 3rasus re$eived letters %rom Ael" re>uestin# him to si#n divor$e papers, *hi$h he disre#arded. hrou#h the letters sent b" Ael" to their $hildren, 3rasus learned sometime in 19@5 that Ael" married an 0meri$an *ith *hom she had a $hild. Ael" returned to the Philippines several times but never met 3rasus. In 19@:, she even $ame to the Philippines *ith her 0meri$an %amil". 3rasus %inall" de$ided to %ile a 3omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e on ,ar$h, 25 199: sin$e it had been 11 "ears sin$e Ael" le%t and abandoned 3rasus, and there *as no more possibilit" o% re$on$iliation bet*een them. Aurthermore, Ael", *ho had been openl" usin# the surname o% her 0meri$an husband in the Philippines and in the F.(.0., brou#ht dan#er and dishonor to the %amil", and $learl" demonstrated her in$urable ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to per%orm the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. Ael", on the other hand, asserted that she *as alread" an 0meri$an $iti=en sin$e 19@@ and alread" le#all" married to (tephen ,i$/lus. 0s su$h, her status shall be #overned b" the la* o% her present nationalit". Ael" denied the alle#ations o% 3rasus a#ainst her and %urther insisted that it *as the latter-s drun/enness, *omani=in#, and la$/ o% sin$ere e%%ort to %ind emplo"ment and to $ontribute to the maintenan$e o% their household! that made her indi#nant to 3rasus. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed the Re#ional rial 3ourt-s de$ision to de$lare the marria#e o% 3rasus and Ael" null and void ab i#nition on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". ss!e: Whether or not the divor$e obtained b" Ael" abroad *as valid5

162

R!li"#: 0rti$le 2H, para#raph 2 o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines provides that Where a marria#e bet*een a Ailipino $iti=en and a %orei#ner is validl" $elebrated and a divor$e is th erea%ter validl" obtained abroad b" the alien spouse $apa$itatin# him or her to remarr", the Ailipino spouse shall li/e*ise have $apa$it" to remarr" under Philippine la*.! Ael" %irst obtained a divor$e %rom 3rasus in 19@) a%ter she le%t %or the Fnited (tates be%ore she married her 0meri$an husband in 19@5 and be$ame an 0meri$an $iti=en in 19@@. 0t the time Ael" obtained the divor$e, she *as still a Ailipino $iti=en and *as still bound b" Philippine la*s on %amil" ri#hts and duties, status, $ondition, and le#al $apa$it", even *hen she *as alread" livin# abroad! pursuant to 0rti$le 15 o% the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines. .en$e, the" *ere still both Ailipinos at the time the divor$e *as obtained6 thus, 0rti$le 2H o% the Aamil" 3ode does not appl" to the $ase. 116) Rep!+lic vs. *r+eci%o G.R. No. 1543)0, *cto+er 5, 2005 Facts: 'n ,a" 2), 19@1, 3ipriano 'rbe$ido III married +ad" ,"ros ,. Billanueva at the Fnited 3hur$h o% 3hrist in the Philippines in +am?an, '=amis 3it", and therea%ter blessed *ith a son and a dau#hter namel", Jristo%%er (imbortri= B. 'rbe$ido and +ad" Jimberl" B. 'rbe$ido. In 19@H, 3ipriano-s *i%e le%t %or the Fnited (tates brin#in# alon# their son Jristo%%er. 3ipriano later on dis$overed that his *i%e had been naturali=ed as an 0meri$an $iti=en, and learned %rom his son that sometime in 2000, his *i%e had obtained a divor$e de$ree and then married a $ertain (tanle". 0s su$h, 3ipriano %iled *ith the trial $ourt a petition %or authorit" to remarr", invo/in# Para#raph 2 o% 0rti$le 2H o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h *as initiall" #ranted b" the $ourt and assailed b" the (oli$itor <eneral. ss!e: Whether or not 3ipriano $an remarr" under 0rti$le 2H o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that 0rti$le 2H, para#raph 2 o% the Aamil" 3ode re>uires the existen$e o% a valid marria#e that has been

163 $elebrated bet*een a Ailipino $iti=en and a %orei#ner, and a valid divor$e obtained abroad b" the alien spouse $apa$itatin# him or her to remarr". .en$e, $ases involvin# parties *ho, at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e *ere Ailipino $iti=ens, but later on, one o% them be$omes naturali=ed as a %orei#n $iti=en and obtains a divor$e de$ree- are in$luded under the said provision. In this $ase, *hen 3ipriano-s *i%e *as naturali=ed as an 0meri$an $iti=en, there *as still a valid marria#e that has been $elebrated bet*een her and 3ipriano. 0s %ate *ould have it, the naturali=ed alien *i%e subse>uentl" obtained a valid divor$e $apa$itatin# her to remarr". 3learl", the t*in re>uisites %or the appli$ation o% Para#raph 2 o% 0rti$le 2H are both present in this $ase. hus 3ipriano, the divor$ed! Ailipino spouse, should be allo*ed to remarr".! .o*ever, 3ipriano %ailed to sho* that the divor$e de$ree allo*s his %ormer *i%e to remarr" as spe$i%i$all" re>uired in 0rti$le 2H, as our $ourts $annot ta/e Gudi$ial noti$e o% %orei#n la*s. .en$e, there is no su%%i$ient eviden$e submitted and on re$ord, the 3ourt is unable to de$lare, that his *i%e, *ho *as naturali=ed as an 0meri$an $iti=en, had obtained a divor$e de$ree and had remarried an 0meri$an, and that 3ipriano is no* $apa$itated to remarr". 110) <a" Dor" vs. Ro.illo 3r. G.R. No. L76)400, *cto+er ), 19)5 Facts: Petitioner 0li$e Re"es Ban Dorn, a Ailipino $iti=en, married a F.(. $iti=en, and the private respondent, in .on#/on# in 19:2. herea%ter, the" established their residen$e in the Philippines and be#ot t*o $hildren. In 19@2, the parties *ere divor$ed in 9evada, Fnited (tates, and 0li$e has re?married in 9evada to heodore Ban Dorn. 'n June @, 19@1, private respondent %iled suit a#ainst 0li$e assertin# that the latter-s business, the <alleon (hop, in 7rmita, ,anila is their $onGu#al propert". 0s su$h, he as/ed that 0li$e be ordered to render an a$$ountin# o% that business and that he be #ranted *ith ri#ht to mana#e the said $onGu#al propert". 'n the other hand, 0li$e $ontended that the divor$e pro$eedin#s be%ore the 9evada 3ourt involves a$/no*led#ement o% both parties that the" Ino $ommunit" propert"I as o% June 11, 19@26 *hi$h *as

164 denied b" the $ourt on the #round that the propert" involved is lo$ated in the Philippines so that the Divor$e De$ree has no bearin# in the $ase. ss!e: Whether or not the %orei#n divor$e on the parties has bindin# e%%e$t on the parties and their alle#ed $onGu#al propert" in the Philippines5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that private respondent is no lon#er the husband o% 0li$e, as the 9evada divor$e de$ree is bindin# on private respondent as an 0meri$an $iti=en. hus, he had no standin# to sue as the husband o% 0li$e, entitled to exer$ise $ontrol over $onGu#al assets. .en$e, aliens ma" obtain divor$es abroad, *hi$h ma" be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, provided the" are valid a$$ordin# to their national la*. 0s su$h, private respondent is not entitled to the alle#ed $onGu#al propert". 11)) 5a" L!is vs. 5a" L!is G.R. No. 133043, Fe+r!ar4 6, 2000 Facts: Aormer +a#una #overnor, Aeli$isimo . (an +uis, %irst married Bir#inia (ulit on ,ar$h 1:, 19)2, out o% *hi$h *ere born six $hildren, namel": Rodol%o, ,ila, 7d#ar, +inda, 7milita and ,anuel. 'n 0u#ust 11, 19H1, Bir#inia prede$eased Aeli$isimo. Aive "ears later, on ,a" 1, 19H@, Aeli$isimo married ,err" +ee 3or*in, an 0meri$an $iti=en, *ith *hom he had a son, obias. .o*ever, ,err" +ee 3or*in %iled a 3omplaint %or Divor$e be%ore the Aamil" 3ourt o% the Airst 3ir$uit, (tate o% .a*aii, Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a 8F.(.0.4, on '$tober 15, 19:1, *hi$h later on issued a De$ree <rantin# 0bsolute Divor$e and 0*ardin# 3hild 3ustod" on De$ember 1), 19:1. 'n June 20, 19:), Aeli$isimo, %or the third time, married Aeli$idad (a#alon#os (an +uis be%ore Rev. Ar. William ,e"er, ,inister o% the Fnited Presb"terian at Wilshire Coulevard, +os 0n#eles, 3ali%ornia, F.(.0., and lived *ith her %or 1@ "ears %rom the time o% their marria#e up to his death on De$ember 1@, 1992, leavin# her *ith no $hildren. herea%ter, Aeli$idad %iled %or dissolution o% their $onGu#al partnership assets and the settlement o% Aeli$isimo-s estate, and %iled a petition %or letters o% administration be%ore the Re#ional

165 rial 3ourt o% ,a/ati 3it" on De$ember 1:, 1991. he said petition *as $ontested b" Aeli$isimo-s $hildren b" his %irst marria#e, on the #rounds o% improper venue and %ailure to state a $ause o% a$tion. .en$e, the petition %or letters o% administration should have been %iled in the Provin$e o% +a#una be$ause this *as Aeli$isimo-s pla$e o% residen$e prior to his death and Aeli$idad has no le#al personalit" to %ile the petition be$ause she *as onl" a mistress o% Aeli$isimo sin$e the latter, at the time o% his death, *as still le#all" married to ,err" +ee. Aeli$idad, on the other hand, submitted do$umentar" eviden$e sho*in# that *hile Aeli$isimo exer$ised the po*ers o% his publi$ o%%i$e in +a#una, he re#ularl" *ent home to their house in 9e* 0laban# Billa#e, 0laban#, ,etro ,anila *hi$h the" bou#ht sometime in 19@2, and %urther presented the de$ree o% absolute divor$e issued b" the Aamil" 3ourt o% the Airst 3ir$uit, (tate o% .a*aii to prove that the marria#e o% Aeli$isimo to ,err" +ee had alread" been dissolved, #rantin# Aeli$isimo le#al $apa$it" to marr" her. ss!es: 14 Whether or not there *as proper venue in the %ilin# o% petition5 24 Whether or not Aeli$idad has le#al $apa$it" to %ile the petition5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that there *as proper venue in the %ilin# o% petition. Fnder (e$tion 1, 19 Rule :1 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, the petition %or letters o% administration o% the estate o% Aeli$isimo should be %iled in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% the provin$e Iin *hi$h he resides at the time o% his death.I he term IresidesI pertains to Ia$tual residen$eI as distin#uished %rom Ile#al residen$e or domi$ile. In the appli$ation o% venue statutes and rules & (e$tion 1, Rule :1 o% the Revised Rules o% 3ourt is o% su$h nature & residen$e rather than domi$ile is the si#ni%i$ant %a$tor6 *hi$h should be vie*ed or understood in its popular sense, meanin#, the personal, a$tual or ph"si$al habitation o% a person, a$tual residen$e or pla$e o% abode, and si#ni%ies ph"si$al presen$e in a pla$e and a$tual sta" thereat. hus, it re%ers to personal residen$e, *hi$h simpl" re>uires bodil" presen$e as an inhabitant in a #iven pla$e, and not le#al residen$e or domi$ile.

166 ,oreover, the 3ourt ruled that Aeli$idad has $apa$it" to %ile the petition. he 3ourt-s rulin# in Ban Dorn v. Romillo 819@54 provides the le#al basis %or holdin# valid divor$e obtained b" an alien spouse a#ainst the Ailipino spouse, thus $apa$itatin# the Ailipino spouse to remarr" a#ain. In this $ase, ho*ever, the 3ourt $annot ta/e Gudi$ial noti$e o% %orei#n la*s as the" must be alle#ed and proved %irst b" providin# eviden$e on the divor$e de$ree obtained b" ,err" +ee and the marria#e o% respondent and Aeli$isimo. 9evertheless, Aeli$idad *ould still >uali%" as an interested person *ho has a dire$t interest in the estate o% Aeli$isimo b" virtue o% their $ohabitation. 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode #overns the propert" relations bet*een parties *ho live to#ether as husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e, or their marria#e is void %rom the be#innin#, and %urther provides that the propert" a$>uired b" either or both o% them throu#h their *or/ or industr" or their *a#es and salaries shall be #overned b" the rules on $o?o*nership. 119) (orp!/ vs. 5to. $o.as G.R. No. 1)6501, A!#!st 11, 2010 Facts: 'n Januar" 1@, 2005, Petitioner <erbert 3orpu=, a %ormer Ailipino $iti=en *ho a$>uired 3anadian $iti=enship throu#h naturali=ation on 9ovember 29, 2000, married a Ailipina named Dais"l"n . (to. omas. (oon a%ter the *eddin#, <erbert le%t %or 3anada due to *or/ and other pro%essional $ommitments. (ometime in 0pril 2005, he returned to the Philippines to surprise Dais"l"n, but *as sho$/ed to dis$over that his *i%e *as havin# an a%%air *ith another man. herea%ter, <erbert returned to 3anada and %iled a petition %or divor$e sin$e he *as hurt and disappointed. he (uperior 3ourt o% Justi$e, Windsor, 'ntario, 3anada #ranted <erbert-s petition %or divor$e on De$ember @, 2005, and the divor$e de$ree too/ e%%e$t on Januar" @, 200H. *o "ears a%ter the divor$e, <erbert has %ound another Ailipina to love and de$ided to marr" her in the Philippines. .e *ent to the Pasi# 3it" 3ivil Re#istr" '%%i$e and re#istered the 3anadian divor$e de$ree on his and Dais"l"n-s marria#e $erti%i$ate. Despite the re#istration o% the divor$e de$ree, an o%%i$ial o% the 9ational (tatisti$s '%%i$e 89('4 in%ormed <erbert that the marria#e bet*een him and Dais"l"n still subsists under

160 Philippine la*. .en$e, to be en%or$eable, the %orei#n divor$e de$ree must %irst be Gudi$iall" re$o#ni=ed b" a $ompetent Philippine $ourt, pursuant to 9(' 3ir$ular 9o. ), series o% 19@2. <erbert then %iled a petition %or Gudi$ial re$o#nition o% %orei#n divor$e andLor de$laration o% marria#e as dissolved, *ith the R 3, *hile Dais"l"n o%%ered no opposition and re>uested %or the same pra"er and even alle#ed her desire to %ile a similar $ase hersel%. he R 3 $on$luded that <erbert *as not the proper part" to institute the a$tion %or Gudi$ial re$o#nition o% the %orei#n divor$e de$ree as he is a naturali=ed 3anadian $iti=en6 pursuant to 0rti$le 2H, para#raph 2 o% the Aamil" 3ode, the Ailipino spouse shall li/e*ise have $apa$it" to remarr" under Philippine la*.: ss!e: Whether or not <erbert *as the proper part" to institute the a$tion %or Gudi$ial re$o#nition o% the %orei#n divor$e de$ree, thereb" $apa$itatin# him to remarr" in the Philippines5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that dire$t involvement or bein# the subGe$t o% the %orei#n Gud#ment is su%%i$ient to $lothe a part" *ith the re>uisite interest to institute an a$tion be%ore our $ourts %or the re$o#nition o% the %orei#n Gud#ment. he divor$e obtained b" an alien abroad ma" be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, provided the divor$e is valid a$$ordin# to his or her national la*6 *hi$h $an be proved b" the %ollo*in# re>uirements: 814 o%%i$ial publi$ations or 824 $opies attested b" the o%%i$er havin# le#al $ustod" o% the do$uments. I% the $opies o% o%%i$ial re$ords are not /ept in the Philippines, these must be 8a4 a$$ompanied b" a $erti%i$ate issued b" the proper diplomati$ or $onsular o%%i$er in the Philippine %orei#n servi$e stationed in the %orei#n $ountr" in *hi$h the re$ord is /ept and 8b4 authenti$ated b" the seal o% his o%%i$e. In addition, the la* should be read in relation *ith the re>uirement o% a Gudi$ial re$o#nition o% the %orei#n Gud#ment be%ore the entr" o% the divor$e de$ree in the $ivil re#istr", and thus $an be #iven res Gudi$ata e%%e$t. In the $ase o% <erbert, atta$hed to his petition a $op" o% the divor$e de$ree, as *ell as the re>uired $erti%i$ates provin# its authenti$it", but %ailed to in$lude a $op" o% the 3anadian la* on divor$e. Aurthermore, the re#istration o% the %orei#n divor$e de$ree *ithout the re>uisite Gudi$ial re$o#nition in the Pasi# 3it"

16) 3ivil Re#istr" '%%i$e is patentl" void and $annot produ$e an" le#al e%%e$t. 120) Garcia7Recio vs. Recio G.R. No. 13)322, *cto+er 2, 2001 Facts: Rederi$/ 0. Re$io, a Ailipino, *as married to 7ditha (amson, an 0ustralian $iti=en, in ,alabon, Ri=al, on ,ar$h 1, 19@:6 and the" lived to#ether as husband and *i%e in 0ustralia. 'n ,a" 1@, 19@9, an 0ustralian %amil" $ourt issued a divor$e de$ree, dissolvin# the marria#e. 'n June 2H, 1992, Rederi$/ be$ame an 0ustralian $iti=en. .e later on married <ra$e, a Ailipina, on Januar" 12, 199) in 'ur +ad" o% Perpetual .elp 3hur$h in 3abanatuan 3it", *here he *as de$lared as sin#le! and Ailipino! in their appli$ation %or a marria#e li$ense. Without prior Gudi$ial dissolution o% their marria#e, the" lived separatel" startin# '$tober 22, 1995. While the" *ere still in 0ustralia, their $onGu#al assets *ere divided on ,a" 1H, 199H, in a$$ordan$e *ith their (tatutor" De$larations se$ured in 0ustralia. <ra$e %iled a 3omplaint %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e on ,ar$h 1, 199@, on the #round o% bi#am", a%ter the %ormer learned, onl" in 9ovember 199:, that Rederi$/-s marria#e to 7ditha (amson *as still subsistin# at the time o% their marria#e on Januar" 12, 199). .o*ever, Rederi$/ $ontended that his %irst marria#e to an 0ustralian $iti=en had been validl" dissolved b" a divor$e de$ree obtained in 0ustralia in 19@96 thus, he *as le#all" $apa$itated to marr" petitioner in 199). ss!e: Whether or not Rederi$/ has le#al $apa$it" to marr" <ra$e <ar$ia5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the le#al $apa$it" to $ontra$t marria#e is determined b" the national la* o% the part" $on$erned. 0s an 0ustralian $iti=en, *as no lon#er bound b" Philippine personal la*s. 9onetheless, a divor$e obtained abroad b" a $ouple, *ho are both aliens, ma" be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, provided it is $onsistent *ith their respe$tive national la*s. Ce%ore a %orei#n divor$e de$ree $an be re$o#ni=ed b" our $ourts, the part" pleadin# it must prove the divor$e as a %a$t and

169 demonstrate its $on%ormit" to the %orei#n la* allo*in# it6 presentation solel" o% the divor$e de$ree is insu%%i$ient. .en$e, a *ritin# or do$ument ma" be proven as a publi$ or o%%i$ial re$ord o% a %orei#n $ountr" b" either 814 an o%%i$ial publi$ation or 824 a $op" thereo% attested b" the o%%i$er havin# le#al $ustod" o% the do$ument. I% the re$ord is not /ept in the Philippines, su$h $op" must be 8a4 a$$ompanied b" a $erti%i$ate issued b" the proper diplomati$ or $onsular o%%i$er in the Philippine %orei#n servi$e stationed in the %orei#n $ountr" in *hi$h the re$ord is /ept and 8b4 authenti$ated b" the seal o% his o%%i$e. he presented divor$e de$ree bet*een Rederi$/ and 7ditha (amson appears to be an authenti$ one, issued b" an 0ustralian %amil" $ourt. .o*ever, appearan$e is not su%%i$ient6 it must be proven as a publi$ or o%%i$ial re$ord o% a %orei#n $ountr" 121) Atie"/a vs. 1rilla"tes, 3r. A.2. No. 2$37927006, 2arc' 29, 1995 Facts: +upo 0tien=a %iled a $omplaint a#ainst Jud#e Aran$is$o Crillantes, Jr. on the #round o% <ross Immoralit" and 0ppearan$e o% Impropriet" a%ter learnin# that the latter had been $ohabitin# *ith Molanda De 3astro, mother o% 0tien=a-s $hildren. In De$ember 1991, 0tien=a *as surprised *hen he $ame to visit his t*o $hildren, livin# *ith Molanda De 3astro, and sa* Jud#e Aran$is$o Crillantes, Jr. sleepin# on his bed. 0tien=a did not bother to *a/e up the Jud#e and Molanda, and instead le%t the house a%ter #ivin# instru$tions to his housebo" to ta/e $are o% his $hildren. herea%ter, Molanda prevented him %rom visitin# his $hildren and even alienated the a%%e$tion o% his $hildren %or him. Aurthermore, 0tien=a alle#ed that Jud#e Crillantes, Jr. is married to a Eenaida 'n#/i/o *ith *hom he has %ive $hildren. In addition, 0tien=a alle#ed that respondent $aused his arrest on Januar" 11, 1992, a%ter he had a heated ar#ument *ith De 3astro inside the latterNs o%%i$e. he said alle#ations *ere denied b" the respondent Jud#e Crillantes, Jr. Respondent %urther $laimed that *hen he married De 3astro in $ivil rites in +os 0n#eles, 3ali%ornia on De$ember ), 1991, he believed, ins all #ood %aith and %or all le#al intents and purposes, that he *as sin#le be$ause his %irst marria#e *as solemni=ed *ithout a li$ense. In addition, the

100 respondent $ontended that there is no need o% a Gudi$ial de$laration o% the nullit" o% his previous marria#e be%ore he $an enter into a se$ond marria#e sin$e the provision o% 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode does not appl" to him $onsiderin# that his %irst marria#e too/ pla$e in 19H5 and *as #overned b" the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines, *hile the se$ond marria#e too/ pla$e in 1991 and #overned b" the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or not 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode is appli$able to the $ase at bar5 R!li"#: It *as held that 0rti$le )0 is appli$able to remarria#es entered into a%ter the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@ re#ardless o% the date o% the %irst marria#e. Cesides, under 0rti$le 25H o% the Aamil" 3ode, said 0rti$le is #iven Vretroa$tive e%%e$t inso%ar as it does not preGudi$e or impair vested or a$>uired ri#hts in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3ivil 3ode or other la*s.- his is parti$ularl" true *ith 0rti$le )0, *hi$h is a rule o% pro$edure. Respondent has not sho*n an" vested ri#ht that *as impaired b" the appli$ation o% 0rti$le )0 to his $ase.! ,oreover, respondent is the last person allo*ed to invo/e #ood %aith6 thus he %ailed to meet the standard o% moral %itness %or membership in the le#al pro%ession. he 3ode o% Judi$ial 7thi$s mandates that the $ondu$t o% a Gud#e must be %ree o% a *hi%% o% impropriet", not onl" *ith respe$t to his per%orman$e o% his Gudi$ial duties but also as to his behavior as a private individual.! 122) 2erope ,"riB!e/ <%a. De (atala" vs. Lo!ella A. (atala"7Lee, G. R. No. 1)3622, Fe+r!ar4 ), 2012 Facts: Petitioner Aeli$itas 0mor?3atalan married respondent 'rlando on June ), 1950 in ,abini, Pan#asinan. herea%ter, the" mi#rated to the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a and alle#edl" be$ame naturali=ed $iti=ens thereo%. 0%ter 1@ "ears o% marria#e, Aeli$itas and 'rlando divor$ed in 0pril 19@@. *o months a%ter the divor$e, or on June 1H, 19@@, 'rlando married respondent ,eropein 3alasiao, Pan#asinan.3ontendin# that said marria#e *as bi#amous sin$e ,erope had a prior subsistin# marria#e *ith

101 7usebioCristol, petitioner %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e *ith dama#es in the R 3 o% Da#upan 3it" a#ainst 'rlando and ,erope. Petitioner $ontends that the bi#amous marria#e o% the respondents, *hi$h brou#ht embarrassment to her and her $hildren, $on%ers upon her an interest to see/ Gudi$ial remed" to address her #rievan$es and to prote$t her %amil" %rom %urther embarrassment and humiliation. (he $laims that the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted reversible error in not de$larin# the marria#e void despite over*helmin# eviden$e and the state poli$" dis$oura#in# ille#al and immoral marria#es. ss!e: Whether or not %orei#n divor$e is re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines5 @el%: he 3ourt held that %orei#n divor$e $an be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, $itin# the rulin# in in Ban Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., statin# that aliens ma" obtain divor$es abroad, *hi$h ma" be re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines, provided the" are valid a$$ordin# to their national la*. In this $ase, the divor$e in 9evada released private respondent %rom the marria#e %rom the standards o% 0meri$an la*, under *hi$h divor$e dissolves the marria#e. 123) Fe D. I!ita vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 124)62, Dece.+er 22, 199) Facts: Ae D. Kuita and 0rturo . Padlan, both Ailipinos, *ere married in the Philippines on ,a" 1@, 19)1. 9o $hildren *ere born out o% their marria#e. 'n Jul" 21, 195), petitioner obtained a %inal Gud#ment o% divor$e in (an Aran$is$o, 3ali%ornia, F.(.0. 'n 0pril 1H, 19:2, 0rturo died leavin# no *ill. 'n 0u#ust 11, 19:2, +ino Javier In$ion# %iled a petition *ith the R 3 %or issuan$e o% letters o% administration $on$ernin# the estate o% 0rturo in %avor o% the Philippine rust 3ompan". Respondent Clandina Dandan, $laimin# to be the survivin# spouse o% 0rturo Dandan and the survivin# $hildren, all surnamed Padlan, opposed the petition. he R 3 expressed that the marria#e bet*een 0ntonio and petitioner subsisted until the death o% 0rturo in 19:2, that the marria#e existed bet*een private respondent and 0rturo *as $learl" void sin$e it *as $elebrated durin# the existen$e o% his previous

102 marria#e to petitioner. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals remanded the $ase to the trial $ourt %or %urther pro$eedin#s. ss!es: 14 Whether or not Clandina-s marria#e to 0rturo is void ab initio5 24 Whether or not Ae D. Kuita be de$lared the primar" bene%i$iar" as the survivin# spouse o% 0rturo5 R!li"#: he marria#e o% Clandina and 0rturo is not void. he $iti=enship o% Ae D. Kuita at the time o% their divor$e is relevant to this $ase. he divor$e is valid here sin$e she *as alread" an alien at the time she obtained divor$e, and su$h is valid in their $ountr"-s national la*. Private respondent is not a survivin# spouse that $an inherit %rom him as this status presupposes a le#itimate relationship. .er marria#e to 0rturo bein# a bi#amous marria#e $onsidered void ab inito under 0rti$les @0 and @1 o% the 3ivil 3ode renders her not a survivin# spouse. hus, Ae D. Kuita is no lon#er re$o#ni=ed as a *i%e o% 0rturo. (he $annot be the primar" bene%i$iar" or *ill be re$o#ni=ed as survivin# spouse o% 0rturo. 124) <ero"ico $e"e+ro vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 15005), Fe+r!ar4 1), 2004 Facts: enebro $ontra$ted marria#e *ith 0n$aGas in 1990. he t*o lived to#ether $ontinuousl" and *ithout interruption until the latter part o% 1991, *hen enebro in%ormed 0n$aGas that he had been previousl" married to a $ertain .ilda Billare"es in 19@H. Petitioner therea%ter le%t the $onGu#al d*ellin# *hi$h he shared *ith 0n$aGas, statin# that he *as #oin# to $ohabit *ith Billare"es. In 1991, petitioner $ontra$ted "et another marria#e *ith a $ertain 9ilda Bille#as. 0n$aGas therea%ter %iled a $omplaint %or bi#am" a#ainst petitioner. Bille#as $ountered that his marria#e *ith Billare"es $annot be proven as a %a$t there bein# no re$ord o% su$h. .e %urther ar#ued that his se$ond marria#e, *ith 0n$aGas, has been de$lared void ab initio due to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". .en$e he $annot be $har#ed %or bi#am".

103 ss!e: Whether or not enebro is #uilt" o% bi#am"5 R!li"#: he prose$ution *as able to establish the validit" o% the %irst marria#e. 0s a se$ond or subse>uent marria#e $ontra$ted durin# the subsisten$e o% petitioner-s valid marria#e to Billare"es, petitioner-s marria#e to 0n$aGas *ould be null and void ab initio $ompletel" re#ardless o% petitioner-s ps"$holo#i$al $apa$it" or in$apa$it". (in$e a marria#e $ontra$ted durin# the subsisten$e o% a valid marria#e is automati$all" void, the nullit" o% this se$ond marria#e is not per se an ar#ument %or the avoidan$e o% $riminal liabilit" %or bi#am". Pertinentl", 0rti$le 1)9 o% the Revised Penal 3ode $riminali=es an" person *ho shall $ontra$t a se$ond or subse>uent marria#e be%ore the %ormer marria#e has been le#all" dissolved, or be%ore the absent spouse has been de$lared presumptivel" dead b" means o% a Gud#ment rendered in the proper pro$eedin#s!. 0 plain readin# o% the la*, there%ore, *ould indi$ate that the provision penali=es the mere a$t o% $ontra$tin# a se$ond or a subse>uent marria#e durin# the subsisten$e o% a valid marria#e. 125) 3arillo vs. &eople G.R. No. 164435, 5epte.+er 29, 2009 Facts= 'n 9ovember 19:9, the a$$used Bi$toria (. Jarillo,bein# previousl" united in la*%ul marria#e *ith Ra%ael ,. 0lo$illo in 19:), and *ithout the said marria#e havin# been le#all" dissolved, $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ith 7mmanuel 7bora (antos F" *hi$h marria#e *as onl" dis$overed in 1999. 'n the same "ear, 7mmanuel F" 82nd husband4 %iled a#ainst the appellant a $ivil $ase %or annulment o% marria#e be%ore the R 3. Parentheti$all", Jarillo %iled %or de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e a#ainst 0lo$illo in 2000. Aor her de%ense, petitioner insisted that 814 her marria#e to 0lo$illo *as null and void be$ause 0lo$illo *as alle#edl" still married to a $ertain +oretta illman at the time o% the $elebration o% their marria#e6 824 her marria#es to both 0lo$illo and F" *ere null and void %or la$/ o% a valid marria#e li$ense6 and 814 the a$tion had pres$ribed, sin$e F" /ne* about her marria#e to

104 0lo$illo as %ar ba$/ as 19:@. 9ot*ithstandin# her de%enses, the R 3 %ound Jarillo #uilt" %or the $rime o%bi#am" in 2001 and *as senten$ed to su%%er imprisonment o% six "ears to ten "ears o% prision ma"or. 'n appeal to the 30, petitioner-s $onvi$tion *as a%%irmed. It held that petitioner $ommitted bi#am" *hen she $ontra$ted marria#e *ith 7mmanuel (antos F" be$ause, at that time, her marria#e to Ra%ael 0lo$illo had not "et been de$lared null and void b" the $ourt. his bein# so, the presumption is, her previous marria#e to 0lo$illo *as still existin# at the time o% her marria#e to F". he 30 also stru$/ do*n, %or la$/ o% su%%i$ient eviden$e, petitioner-s $ontentions that her marria#es *ere $elebrated *ithout a marria#e li$ense, and that F" had noti$e o% her previous marria#e as %ar ba$/ as 19:@. In the meantime, the R 3 rendered a de$ision in 2001, de$larin# petitioner-s 19:) marria#e to 0lo$illo null and void ab initio on the #round o% 0lo$illo-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". (aid de$ision be$ame %inal and exe$utor". In her motion %or re$onsideration, petitioner invo/ed said de$laration o% nullit" as a #round %or thereversal o% her $onvi$tion. ss!e= Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted a reversible error in a%%irmin# the $onvi$tion o% Jarillo %or the$rime o% bi#am" despite the supervenin# proo% that her marria#e to 0lo$illo had been de$lared void5 R!li"#= 9o. Jarillo-s $onvi$tion o% the $rime o% bi#am" must be a%%irmed. he subse>uent Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e to 0lo$illo $annot be $onsidered a valid de%ense in the $rime o% bi#am". he moment petitioner $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ithout the previous one havin# been Gudi$iall" de$lared null and void, the$rime o% bi#am" *as alread" $onsummated. Fnder the la*, a marria#e, even one *hi$h is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until de$lared other*ise in a Gudi$ial pro$eedin#. he out$ome o% the $ivil $ase %or annulment o% petitioner-s marria#e to Rprivate $omplainantS had no bearin# upon the determination o% petitioner-s inno$en$e or #uilt in the $riminal

105 $ase %or bi#am", be$ause all that is re>uired %or the $har#e o% bi#am" to prosper is that the %irst marria#e be subsistin# at the time the se$ond marria#e is $ontra$ted. Without a Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% the %irst marria#e, it is presumed to be subsistin#. 0n" de$ision in the $ivil a$tion %or nullit" *ould not erase the %a$t that the #uilt" part" entered into a se$ond marria#e durin# the subsisten$e o% a %irst marria#e. hus, a de$ision in the $ivil $ase is not essential to the determination o% the $riminal $har#e. It is, there%ore, not a preGudi$ial >uestion.

126) 2acar!++o vs. 2acar!++o A.(. No. 614), Fe+r!ar4 20, 2004 Facts= Aloren$e eves ,a$arrubo 8$omplainant %iled a veri%ied $omplaint %or disbarment a#ainst 0tt". 7dmundo +. ,a$arubbo 8respondent4 *ith the Inte#rated Car o% the Philippines 8ICP4, alle#in# that respondent de$eived her into marr"in# him despite his prior subsistin# marria#e *ith a $ertain .elen 7spar=a. 3omplainant averred that he started $ourtin# her in 0pril 1991, he representin# himsel% as a ba$helor6 that the" eventuall" $ontra$ted marria#e *hi$h *as $elebrated on t*o o$$asions administered b" Rev. Ro#elio J. Colivar, and that althou#h respondent admitted that he *as married to .elen 7spar=a on June 1H, 19@2, he su$$eeded in $onvin$in# $omplainant, her %amil" and %riends that his previous marria#e *as void. 3omplainant %urther averred that respondent entered into a third marria#e *ith one Josephine . 3onstantino6 and that he abandoned $omplainant and their $hildren *ithout providin# them an" re#ular support up to the present time, leavin# them in pre$arious livin# $onditions. 3omplainant submitted do$umentar" eviden$e $onsistin# o% the marria#e $ontra$t bet*een respondent and .elen 7spar=a and that bet*een her and respondent, and photo#raphs o% their 8$omplainant and respondent4 nuptials and o% $aptured moments in their li%e as a $ouple and a %amil". 3op" o% the $omplaint $ould not be immediatel" served upon respondent o*in# to the di%%i$ult" o% lo$atin# him. 3omplainant later %iled a ,ani%estation be%ore the ICP, %urnishin# therein

106 respondent-s address *here he supposedl" resided *ith his third *i%e Jo . 3onstantino?,a$arubbo. he ICP 3ommission on Car Dis$ipline thereupon thri$e re>uired respondent to %ile his 0ns*er. .e %ailed to do so, ho*ever, on motion o% $omplainant, he *as de$lared in de%ault. ss!e= Whether or not respondent 7dmundo +. ,a$arubbo should be disbarred5 R!li"#: Respondent here has exhibited the vi$e o% enterin# into multiple marria#es and then leavin# them behind b" the mere expedient o% resortin# to le#al remedies to sever them. he impa$t o% respondent-s $ondu$t is in$al$ulable upon his ex?*ives as *ell as the $hildren he had b" them, their lives havin# been dislo$ated be"ond re$all. Respondent-s assertion that he has not %ailed to support his $hildren b" $omplainant is not totall" supported b" the eviden$e on re$ord. .e ma" have se$ured edu$ational plans %or them and doled out some sums o% mone" in the past, but it appears that he has %ailed to provide them re#ular, monthl" support. In %a$t, he admitted that even be%ore he le%t $omplainant-s residen$e in 1995, he *as onl" #ivin# intermittent support to his $hildren *ith her. (u$h pattern o% mis$ondu$t b" respondent undermines the institutions o% marria#e and %amil", institutions that this so$iet" loo/s to %or the rearin# o% our $hildren, %or the development o% values essential to the survival and *ell?bein# o% our $ommunities, and %or the stren#thenin# o% our nation as a *hole. his must be $he$/ed i% not stopped. 0s o%%i$ers o% the $ourt, la*"ers must not onl" in %a$t be o% #ood moral $hara$ter but must also be per$eived to be o% #ood moral $hara$ter and must lead a li%e in a$$ordan$e *ith the hi#hest moral standards o% the $ommunit".

120) Cei#el vs. 5e.po Di4 G.R. No. L753003, A!#!st 19, 19)6

100 Facts= Jarl Wie#el *as married to +ilia Wie#el on Jul" 19:@. +ilia *as married *ith a $ertain 7duardo ,axion in 19:2. Jarl then %iled a petition in the Juvenile and Domesti$ Relations 3ourt %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith +ilia on the #round o% latter-s %ormer marria#e. .avin# been alle#edl" %or$e to enter into a marital union, she $ontents that the %irst marria#e is null and void. +ilia li/e*ise alle#ed that Jarl *as married to another *oman be%ore their marria#e. ss!e= Whether Jarl-s marria#e *ith +ilia is void5 R!li"#= It *as not ne$essar" %or +ilia to prove that her %irst marria#e *as vitiated *ith %or$e be$ause it *ill not be void but merel" voidable. (u$h marria#e is valid until annulled. (in$e no annulment has "et been made, it is $lear that *hen she married Jarl, she is still validl" married to her %irst husband. 3onse>uentl", her marria#e to Jarl is void. +i/e*ise, there is no need o% introdu$in# eviden$e on the prior marria#e o% Jarl %or then su$h marria#e thou#h void still needs a Gudi$ial de$laration be%ore he $an remarr". 0$$ordin#l", Jarl and +ilia-s marria#e are re#arded void under the la*.

12)) 2o"tae/ vs. (ipria"o G.R. No. 1)10)9, *cto+er 22, 2012 Facts= Respondent married (o$rates Alores in +e=o, 0/lan. 'n Januar" 2), 19@1, durin# the subsisten$e o% the said marria#e, respondent married (ilverio B. 3ipriano in (an Pedro, +a#una. In 2001, respondent %iled *ith the R 3 a Petition %or the 0nnulment o% her marria#e *ith (o$rates on the #round o% the latter-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as de%ined under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. he R 3 o% ,untinlupa rendered an 0mended De$ision de$larin# the marria#e o% respondent *ith (o$rates null and void. Petitioner ,erlinda 3ipriano ,onta;e=, (ilverio-s dau#hter %rom the %irst marria#e, %iled *ith the ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt o% (an Pedro, +a#una, a 3omplaint %or Ci#am" a#ainst respondent. 'n Jul" 2), 200: and be%ore her arrai#nment, respondent, throu#h $ounsel, %iled a ,otion to Kuash In%ormation alle#in# that her marria#e *ith (o$rates had alread" been de$lared void ab initio

10) in 2001, thus, there *as no more marria#e to spea/ o% prior to her marria#e to (ilverio on Januar" 2), 19@16 that the basi$ element o% the $rime o% bi#am", i.e., t*o valid marria#es, is there%ore *antin#. (he also $laimed that sin$e the se$ond marria#e *as held in 19@1, the $rime o% bi#am" had alread" pres$ribed. ss!e= Whether the trial $ourt erred re#ardin# the ne$essit" o% se$urin# a de$laration o% nullit" o% the %irst marria#e be%ore enterin# a se$ond marria#e5 R!li"#= Respondent-s $lear intent is to obtain a Gudi$ial de$laration nullit" o% his %irst marria#e and therea%ter to invo/e that ver" same Gud#ment to prevent his prose$ution %or bi#am". .e $annot have his $a/e and eat it too. 'ther*ise, all that an adventurous bi#amist has to do is disre#ard 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode, $ontra$t a subse>uent marria#e and es$ape a bi#am" $har#e b" simpl" $laimin# that the %irst marria#e is void and that the subse>uent marria#e is e>uall" void %or la$/ o% a prior Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% the %irst. 0 part" ma" even enter into a marria#e li$ense and therea%ter $ontra$t a subse>uent marria#e *ithout obtainin# a de$laration o% nullit" o% the %irst on the assumption that the %irst marria#e is void. (u$h s$enario *ould render nu#ator" the provision on bi#am".

129) Rep!+lic vs. Nolasco G.R. No. 94053, 2arc' 10, 1993 Facts= <re#orio 9olas$o is a seaman. .e met Janet Par/er, a Critish, in bar in 7n#land. 0%ter that, Janet started livin# *ith 9olas$o in his ship %or six months. It lasted until the $ontra$t o% 9olas$o expired then he brou#ht her to his hometo*n in 0nti>ue. he" #ot married in Januar" 19@2. Due to another $ontra$t, 9olas$o le%t the provin$e. In 19@1, 9olas$o re$eived a letter %rom his mother in%ormin# him that his son had been born but 15 da"s a%ter, Janet le%t. 9olas$o *ent home and $ut short his $ontra$t to %ind Janet-s *hereabouts. .e did so b" se$urin# another seaman-s $ontra$t #oin# to +ondon. .e *rote several letters to the bar *here the" %irst met but it *as all returned. <re#orio

109 petitioned in 19@@ %or a de$laration o% presumptive death o% Janet. ss!e= Whether or not 9olas$o had a *ell?%ounded belie% that his *i%e, Janet, is alread" dead5 R!li"#= he (upreme 3ourt ruled that 9olas$o-s e%%orts to lo$ate Janet *ere not persistent to sho* that he has a *ell?%ounded belie% that his *i%e *as alread" dead be$ause instead o% see/in# assistan$e o% lo$al authorities and the Critish 7mbass", he even se$ured another $ontra$t. ,ore so, *hile he *as in +ondon, he did not even tr" to soli$it help o% the authorities to %ind his *i%e.

130) Rep!+lic vs. (o!rt o- Appeals 400 5(RA 200 Facts= In 1955 3lemente Cailon and 0li$e Dia= married in Car$elona, (orso#on. 15\ "ears later, 3lemente %iled an a$tion to de$lare the presumptive death o% 0li$e she bein# an absentee. he petition *as #ranted in 19:0. In 19@1, 3lemente married Jar>ue. he t*o live to#ether untile 3lemente-s death in 199@. Jar>ue then sou#ht to $laim her husband-s ((( bene%its and the same *ere #ranted her. 'n the other hand, a $ertain 3e$ilia Caion?Map *ho $laimed that she is the dau#hter o% Cailon to a $ertain 7lisa Ja"ona petitioned be%ore the ((( that the" be #iven the reimbursement %or the %uneral spendin# %or it *as a$tuall" them *ho shouldered the burial expenses o% 3lemente. he" %urther $laim that 3lemente $ontra$ted three marria#es6 one *ith 0li$e, another *ith 7lisa and the other *ith Jar>ue. 3e$ilia also averred that 0li$e is alive and /i$/in# and 0li$e subse>uentl" emer#ed6 3e$ilia $laimed that 3lemente obtained the de$laration o% 0li$e-s presumptive death in bad %aith %or he *as a*are o% the *hereabouts o% 0li$e or i% not he $ould have easil" lo$ated her in her parent-s pla$e. (he *as in (orso#on all alon# in her parentspla$e. (he *ent there upon learnin# that 3lemente had been havin# extra?marital a%%airs. ((( then ruled that Jar>ue should reimburse *hat had been #ranted her and to return the same to 3e$ilia sin$e she shouldered the burial expenses and that the bene%its should #o to 0li$e be$ause her reappearan$e had

1)0 terminated 3lemente-s marria#e *ith .ar>ue. Aurther, ((( ruled that the R 3-s de$ision in de$larin# 0li$e to be presumptivel" death is erroneous. eresita appealed the de$ision o% the ((( be%ore the (o$ial (e$urit" 3omission and the ((3 a%%irmed (((. he 30 ho*ever ruled the $ontrar". ss!e= Whether or not the mere appearan$e o% the absent spouse de$lared presumptivel" dead automati$all" terminates the subse>uent marria#e5 R!li"#= here is no previous marria#e to restore %or it is terminated upon 3lemente-s death. +i/e*ise there is no subse>uent marria#e to terminate %or the same is terminated upon 3lemente-s death. ((( is $orre$t in rulin# that it is %utile %or 0li$e to pursue the re$ordin# o% her reappearan$e be%ore the lo$al $ivil re#istrar throu#h an a%%idavit or a $ourt a$tion. Cut it is not $orre$t %or the ((( to rule upon the de$laration made b" the R 3. he ((3 or the ((( has no Gudi$ial po*er to revie* the de$ision o% the R 3. ((( is indeed empo*ered to determine as to *ho should be the ri#ht%ul bene%i$iar" o% the bene%its obtained b" a de$eased member in $ase o% disputes but su$h po*er does not in$lude the appellate po*er to revie* a $ourt de$ision or de$laration. In the $ase at bar, the R 3 rulin# is bindin# and Jar>ue-s marria#e to 3lemente is still valid be$ause no a%%idavit *as %iled b" 0li$e to ma/e /no*n her reappearan$e le#all". 0li$e reappeared onl" a%ter 3lemente-s death and in this $ase she $an no lon#er %ile su$h an a%%idavit6 in this $ase the bad %aith Ror #ood %aithS o% 3lemente $an no lon#er be raised & the marria#e herein is $onsidered voidable and must be atta$/ed dire$tl" not $ollaterall" & it is ho*ever impossible %or a dire$t atta$/ sin$e there is no lon#er a marria#e to be atta$/ed %or the same has been terminated upon 3lemente-s death.

131) 1ie"ve"i%o vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 111010, *cto+er 24, 1994 Facts= 0urelio P. 3ama$ho married 3onseGo Belas$o in ,anila on '$tober 1, 19)2. 'n Aebruar" H, 19H2, *ithout his marria#e to 3onseGo Belas$o bein# dissolved, 0urelio P. 3ama$ho $ontra$ted

1)1 another marria#e *ithrespondent +uisita 3. 3ama$ho 8+uisita4 *ith *hom he had been livin# sin$e 1951 and b" *hom he be#ot a $hild, respondent 0urelio +uis Aaustino 3. 3ama$ho 83hito4 born on ,a" 22, 19H1. he marria#e *as solemni=ed in o/"o, Japan *here 0urelio and +uisita had been livin# sin$e 195@. here *ere instan$es durin# +uisita and 0urelio-s marria#e *hen, be$ause o% their >uarrels, one or the other le%t the d*ellin# pla$e %or lon# periods o% time. In her $ase +uisita sta"ed on those o$$asions at various times in Davao 3it", .on#/on# or Japan. In 19H: 0urelio met petitioner 9enita . Cienvenido, *ho had been estran#ed %rom her husband, +uis Rivera. .e lived *ith her %rom June 19H@ until 0urelio-s death on ,a" 2@, 19@@, he lived *ith her, the last time in a duplex apartment in Kue=on 3it". Petitioner-s dau#hter, 9anette, sta"ed *ith them as did 0urelio-s son, 3hito, *ho lived *ith them %or about a "ear in 19:H. 'n 0pril 10,19@2, 0urelio bou#ht the house and the lot on Del#ado (treet in *hi$h the" *ere sta"in# %rom the o*ners, Pa= +oren=o In%ante and (u=ette In%ante?,o;o=$a. In the deed o% sale and rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 9o. 2@@150 o% the Re#istr" o% Deeds o% Kue=on 3it", issued in his name, 0urelio *as des$ribed as sin#le. 'n 9ovember 2H, 19@), 0urelio exe$uted a deed o% sale o% the propert" in %avor o% petitioner 9enita in $onsideration o% the sum o% P250,000.00, b" virtue o% *hi$h rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 9o.12HH@1 *as issued in petitioner-s name on Januar" 11, 19@5. 'n (eptember :, 19@@, +uisita and her son 3hito brou#ht this $ase in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Kue=on 3it", see/in# the annulment o% the sale o% the propert" to petitioner and the pa"ment to them o% dama#es. +uisita alle#ed that the deed o% sale *as a %or#er" and that in an" event it *as exe$uted in %raud o% her as the le#itimate *i%e o% 0urelio. In ans*er petitioner 9enita $laimed that she and the late 0urelio had pur$hased the propert" in >uestion usin# their Goint %unds *hi$h the" had a$$umulated a%ter livin# to#ether %or %ourteen "ears, that the sale o% the propert" b" the late 0urelio to her *as *ith respondent +uisita-s $onsent6 and that she *as a pur$haser in #ood %aith. ss!e= Whether the marria#e o% 0urelio and +uisita is valid5 R!li"#= he de$ision appealed %rom is R7B7R(7D and another one is entered, DI(,I((I9< the $omplaint a#ainst petitioner and

1)2 D73+0RI9< the deed o% sale exe$uted in her %avor and rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 9o. 12HH@1 o% the Re#ister o% Deeds o% Kue=on 3it" issued in her name to be B0+ID. In the $ase at bar, the burden o% proo% *as on respondents to sho* that +uisita and 0urelio-s marria#e %alls under an" o% these ex$eptions in order to be $onsidered valid. he" %ailed to dis$har#e this burden. Instead the $ontrar" appears. It has been held that the %irst ex$eption re%ers to the subse>uent marria#e o% the abandoned spouse and not the remarria#e o% the desertin# spouse, a%ter the period o% seven "ears had lapsed. H his ex$eption $annot be invo/ed in this $ase in order to sustain the validit" o% 0urelio-s marria#e to +uisita be$ause apparentl" it *as 0urelio *ho had le%t his %irst *i%e. 0t the time o% his se$ond marria#e to +uisita, he and +uisita had alread" been livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e %or %ive "ears. In %a$t the $ouple be#ot a $hild, in 19H1, even be%ore their marria#e in 19H2. 3onse>uentl", there is no basis %or holdin# that the propert" in >uestion *as propert" o% the $onGu#al partnership o% +uisita and the late 0urelio be$ause there *as no su$h partnership in the %irst pla$e. he sale to petitioner must be presumed. Petitioner-s o*nership is eviden$ed b" a deed o% absolute sale : exe$uted *ith all the solemnit" o% a publi$ do$ument and b" rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 9o. 12HH@1 issued in due $ourse in her name. Indeed, the propert" in >uestion *as a$>uired b" 0urelio durin# a lon# period o% $ohabitation *ith petitioner *hi$h lasted %or t*ent" "ears 819H@?19@@4. While petitioner /ne* respondent 3hito to be 0urelio-s son *a" ba$/ in 19:H, there is nothin# to sho* that she /ne* 0urelio to be married to +uisita. o the $ontrar", 0urelio represented himsel% to be sin#le. 0s %ar as petitioner *as $on$erned, 3hito $ould have been 0urelio-s $hild b" a *oman not his *i%e. here *as, there%ore, no basis %or the 3ourt o% 0ppeals- rulin# that 9enita *as not a bu"er in #ood %aith o% the propert" be$ause she ou#ht to have /no*n that 0urelio *as married to +uisita.

132) 2a"!el vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 165)42, Nove.+er 29, 2005

1)3 Facts= his $ase is a petition %or revie* on $ertiorari o% the de$ision o% 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmin# the de$ision o% the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Ca#uio 3it", $onvi$tin# the petitioner %or the $rime o% bi#am". 7duardo P. ,anuel, herein petitioner, *as %irst married to Rub"lus <a;a on Jul" 1@, 19:5, *ho, a$$ordin# to the %ormer, *as $har#ed *ith esta%a in 19:5 and therea%ter imprisoned and *as never seen a#ain b" him a%ter his last visit. ,anuel met ina C. <andalera in Januar" 199H *hen the latter *as onl" 21 "ears old. hree months a%ter their meetin#, the t*o #ot married throu#h a $ivil *eddin# in Ca#uio 3it" *ithout <andalera-s /no*led#e o% ,anuel-s %irst marria#e. In the $ourse o% their marria#e, thin#s #ot ro$/" and <andalera learned that 7duardo *as in %a$t alread" married *hen he married him. (he then %iled a $riminal $ase o% bi#am" a#ainst 7duardo ,anuel. he latter-s de%ense bein# that his de$laration o% sin#le! in his marria#e $ontra$t *ith <andalera *as done be$ause he believed in #ood %aith that his %irst marria#e *as invalid and that he did not /no* that he had to #o to $ourt to see/ %or the nulli%i$ation o% his %irst marria#e be%ore marr"in# ina. he Re#ional rial 3ourt ruled a#ainst him senten$in# him o% imprisonment o% %rom H "ears and 10 months to ten "ears, and an amount 0% P200,000.00 %or moral dama#es. 7duardo appealed the de$ision to the 30 *here he alle#ed that he *as not $riminall" liable %or bi#am" be$ause *hen he married the private $omplainant, he did so in #ood %aith and *ithout an" mali$ious intent. he 30 ruled a#ainst the petitioner but *ith modi%i$ation on the R 3-s de$ision. Imprisonment *as %rom 2 "ears, months and 1 da" to ten "ears. Pe$uniar" re*ard %or moral dama#es *as a%%irmed. ss!e= Whether or not the 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted reversible error o% la* *hen it ruled that petitioner-s *i%e $annot be le#all" presumed dead under 0rti$le 190 o% the 3ivil 3ode as there *as no Gudi$ial de$laration o% presumptive death as provided %or under 0rti$le )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= he petition is denied %or la$/ o% merit. he petitioner is presumed to have a$ted *ith mali$e or evil intent *hen he married the private $omplainant. 0s a #eneral rule, mista/e o%

1)4 %a$t or #ood %aith o% the a$$used is a valid de%ense in a prose$ution %or a %elon" b" dolo6 su$h de%ense ne#ates mali$e or $riminal intent. .o*ever, i#noran$e o% the la* is not an ex$use be$ause ever"one is presumed to /no* the la*. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Where a spouse is absent %or the re>uisite period, the present spouse ma" $ontra$t a subse>uent marria#e onl" a%ter se$urin# a #udgment declaring t"e presumptive deat" of t"e absent spouse to avoid bein# $har#ed and $onvi$ted o% bi#am"6 the present spouse *ill have to addu$e eviden$e that he had a *ell?%ounded belie% that the absent spouse *as alread" dead. (u$h Gud#ment is proo% o% the #ood %aith o% the present spouse *ho $ontra$ted a subse>uent marria#e6 thus, even i% the present spouse is later $har#ed *ith bi#am" i% the absentee spouse reappears, he $annot be $onvi$ted o% the $rime.

133) Rep!+lic vs. 1er"!%es G.R. No. 160259, 3a"!ar4 19, 2005 Facts= <loria Cermude= and Aran$is$o +orino *ere married in June 19@:. he *i%e *as una*are that her husband *as a habitual drin/er *ith violent attitude and $hara$ter and had the propensit" to #o out *ith his %riends to the point o% bein# unable to *or/. In 1991 she le%t him and returned to her parents to#ether *ith her three $hildren. (he *ent abroad to *or/ %or her support her $hildren. Arom the time she le%t him, she had no $ommuni$ation *ith him or his relatives. In 2000, nine "ears a%ter leavin# her husband, <loria %iled a veri%ied petition *ith the R 3 under the rules on (ummar" Judi$ial Pro$eedin#s in the Aamil" +a*. he lo*er $ourt issued an order %or the publi$ation o% the petition in a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation. In 9ovember :, 2001, the R 3 #ranted the summar" petition. 0lthou#h the Gud#ment *as %inal and exe$utors under the provisions o% 0$t. 2): o% the Aamil" 3ode, the '(< %or the Republi$ o% the Philippines %iled a noti$e o% appeal. ss!e= Whether or not the %a$tual and le#al bases %or a Gudi$ial de$laration o% presumptive death under 0rt )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode *ere dul" established5

1)5

R!li"#= 0rt. 21@ o% the Aamil" 3ode under itle UI (ummar" Judi$ial Pro$eedin# in the Aamil" +a*, sets the tenor %or $ases s$oured b" these rules, to *it: 0rt21@. Fntil modi%ied b" the (upreme 3ourt, the pro$edural rules in this itle shall appl" in all $ases provided %or in this 3ode re>uirin# summar" $ourt pro$eedin#. (u$h $ases shall be de$ided in an expedition-s manner *ith out re#ards te$hni$al rules. he Gud#e o% the R 3 %ull" $omplied *ith the above?$ited provision b" expeditiousl" rendin# Gud#ment *ithin ninet" 8904 da"s a%ter the %ormal o%%er o% eviden$e b" the petitioner. 134) (alisterio vs. (alisterio GR No. 136460, April 6, 2000 Facts= ,arietta 3alisterio *as married to James William Counds in 19)H but James Counds disappeared *ithout a tra$e on 19):. ,arrietta married eodori$o 3alisterio eleven "ears a%ter or in 195@, *ithout ,arietta havin# priorl" se$ured a $ourt de$laration that James *as presumptivel" dead. In 1992, eodori$o died intestate, leavin# several par$els o% land. .e *as survived b" his ,arietta, ho*ever 0rtonia 0rmas " 3alisterio, a survivin# sister o% eodori$o, %ileda petition entitled, IIn the ,atter o% Intestate 7state o% the De$eased eodori$o 3alisterio " 3a$abelos, 0ntonia 0rmas, Petitioner,I $laimin# to be inter alia, the sole survivin# heir o% eodori$o 3alisterio, the marria#e bet*een the latter and respondent ,arietta 7spinosa 3alisterio bein# alle#edl" bi#amous and thereb" null and void. (he pra"ed that her son (in%roniano 3. 0rmas, Jr., be appointed administrator, *ithout bond, o% the estate o% the de$eased and that the inheritan$e be adGudi$ated to her a%ter all the obli#ations o% the estate *ould have been settled. ,arietta opposed the petition. ,arietta stated that her %irst marria#e *ith James Counds had been dissolved due to the latterNs absen$e, his *hereabouts bein# un/no*n, %or more than eleven "ears be%ore she $ontra$ted her se$ond marria#e *ith eodori$o. 3ontendin# to be the survivin# spouse o% eodori$o, she sou#ht priorit" in the administration o% the estate o% the de$edent. ss!e= Is the marria#e o% eodori$o and ,arietta valid5

1)6

R!li"#= Mes. he la* in %or$e at the time o% their marria#e *as the 3ivil 3ode, not the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h too/ e%%e$t onl" on 0u#ust 1, 19@@. 0rti$le 25H o% the Aamil" 3ode 5 itsel% limited its retroa$tive #overnan$e onl" to $ases *here it thereb" *ould not preGudi$e or impair vested or a$>uired ri#hts in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3ivil 3ode or other la*s. 0rti$le @1 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode *hi$h provides: 0rt. @1. 0n" marria#e subse>uentl" $ontra$ted b" an" person durin# the li%etime o% the %irst spouse o% su$h person *ith an" person other than su$h %irst spouse shall be ille#al and void %rom its per%orman$e, unless: 14 he %irst marria#e *as annulled or dissolved6 or 24 he %irst spouse had been absent %or seven $onse$utive "ears at the time o% the se$ond marria#e *ithout the spouse present havin# ne*s o% the absentee bein# alive, or i% the absentee, thou#h he has been absent %or less than seven "ears, is #enerall" $onsidered as dead and believed to be so b" the spouse present at the time o% $ontra$tin# su$h subse>uent marria#e, or i% the absentee is presumed dead a$$ordin# to arti$les 190 and 191. he marria#e so $ontra$ted shall be valid in an" o% the three $ases until de$lared null and void b" a $ompetent $ourt. Fnli/e in the Aamil" 3ode, the 9e* 3ivil 3ode does not ne$essitate a Gudi$ial de$laration o% absen$e o% the absentee spouse as lon# as the pres$ribed period o% absen$e is met. 135) Rep!+lic vs. Gra"a%a G.R. No. 1)0512, 3!"e 13, 2012 Facts: 3"rus and Molanda <ranada, both emplo"ees o% (umida 7le$tri$ 3ompan", #ot married in 1991. (ometime in ,a" 199), *hen (umida 7le$tri$ Philippines $losed do*n, 3"rus *ent to ai*an to see/ emplo"ment. Molanda $laimed that %rom that time, she did not re$eive an" $ommuni$ation %rom her husband, not*ithstandin# e%%orts to lo$ate him. .er brother testi%ied that he had as/ed the relatives o% 3"rus re#ardin# the latter-s *hereabouts, to no avail. 0%ter nine 894 "ears o% *aitin#, Molanda

1)0 %iled a Petition to have 3"rus de$lared presumptivel" dead *ith the R 3 +ipa 3it". 'n Aebruar" :, 2005, the R 3 rendered a De$ision de$larin# 3"rus as presumptivel" dead. 'n ,ar$h 10, 2005, Republi$ o% the Philippines, represented b" the '%%i$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral 8'(<4, %iled a ,otion %or Re$onsideration o% this De$ision. Republi$ o% the Philippines ar#ued that Molanda had %ailed to exert earnest e%%orts to lo$ate 3"rus and thus %ailed to prove her *ell?%ounded belie% that he *as alread" dead. he motion *as denied. he '(< then elevated the $ase on appeal to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. Molanda %iled a ,otion to Dismiss on the #round that the 30 had no Gurisdi$tion over the appeal. (he ar#ued that her Petition %or De$laration o% Presumptive Death, based on 0rti$le )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode, *as a summar" Gudi$ial pro$eedin#, in *hi$h the Gud#ment is immediatel" %inal and exe$utor" and, thus, not appealable. he appellate $ourt #ranted Molanda-s ,otion to Dismiss on the #round o% la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion. 3itin# Republi$ v. Cermude=?+orino, the 30 ruled that a petition %or de$laration o% presumptive death under Rule )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode is a summar" pro$eedin#. hus, Gud#ment thereon is immediatel" %inal and exe$utor" upon noti$e to the parties. ss!e= Was the order o% the R 3 in a summar" pro$eedin# %or the de$laration o% presumptive death is immediatel" %inal and exe$utor" upon noti$e to the parties and, hen$e, is not subGe$t to ordinar" appeal5 R!li"#= Mes. he belie% o% the present spouse must be the result o% proper and honest to #oodness in>uiries and e%%orts to as$ertain the *hereabouts o% the absent spouse and *hether the absent spouse is still alive or is alread" dead. Whether or not the spouse present a$ted on a *ell?%ounded belie% o% death o% the absent spouse depends upon the in>uiries to be dra*n %rom a #reat man" $ir$umstan$es o$$urrin# be%ore and a%ter the disappearan$e o% the absent spouse and the nature and extent o% the in>uiries made b" present spouse. he R 3 rulin# on the issue o% *hether respondent *as able to prove her *ell?%ounded belie%! that her absent spouse *as alread" dead prior to her %ilin# o% the Petition to de$lare him presumptivel" dead is alread" %inal and $an no lon#er be modi%ied or reversed. Indeed, nothin# is

1)) more settled in la* than that *hen a Gud#ment be$omes %inal and exe$utor", it be$omes immutable and unalterable. he same ma" no lon#er be modi%ied in an" respe$t, even i% the modi%i$ation is meant to $orre$t *hat is per$eived to be an erroneous $on$lusion o% %a$t or la*. 136) Do.i"#o vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R No. 104)1), 5epte.+er 10, 1993 Facts= Delia (oledad Domin#o %iled a petition be%ore R 3 o% Pasi# %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e and separation o% propert" a#ainst Roberto Domin#o. (he alle#ed that the" *ere married at 3armona, 3avite *ith eviden$es o% marria#e $erti%i$ate and marria#e li$ense, un/no*n to her, petitioner had a previous marria#e *ith 7merlina dela Pa= *hi$h is still valid and existin#. (he $ame to /no* the prior marria#e *hen 7merlina sued them %or bi#am". (he pra"s that their marria#e be de$lared null and void and, as a $onse>uen$e, to de$lare that she is the ex$lusive o*ner o% all properties she a$>uired durin# the marria#e and to re$over them %rom him. Roberto moved to dismiss the petition on the #round that the marria#e bein# void ab initio, the petition o% de$laration o% nullit" is unne$essar". It added that Delia has no propert" *hi$h in his possession. ss!e= 3an Delia $laim %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e and separation o% propert" a#ainst Roberto on the #round o% bi#am"5 R!li"#= Mes. here is no >uestion that the marria#e o% petitioner and private respondent $elebrated *hile the %ormerNs previous marria#e *ith one 7merlina de la Pa= *as still subsistin# is bi#amous. 0s su$h, it is %rom the be#innin#. Roberto himsel% does not dispute the absolute nullit" o% their marria#e. he 3ourt had ruled that no Gudi$ial de$ree is ne$essar" to establish the invalidit" o% a void, bi#amous marria#e. he Aamil" 3ode has $learl" provided the e%%e$ts o% the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e, one o% *hi$h is the separation o% propert" a$$ordin# to the re#ime o% propert" relations #overnin# them. It stands to reason that the lo*er $ourt be%ore *hom the issue o% nullit" o% a

1)9 %irst marria#e is brou#ht is li/e*ise $lothed *ith Gurisdi$tion to de$ide the in$idental >uestions re#ardin# the $oupleNs properties. 130) Atie"/a vs. 1rilla"tes A.2. No. 2$37927006, 2arc' 29, 1995 Facts= +upo 0. 0tien=a %iled a $omplaint %or <ross Immoralit" and 0ppearan$e o% Impropriet" a#ainst Jud#e Aran$is$o Crillantes, Jr. 0tien=a alle#ed that he has t*o $hildren *ith Molanda De 3astro *ith *hom respondent Jud#e *as $ohabitin# *ith. 0tien=a $laimed that respondent is married to one Eenaida 'n#/i/o *ith *hom he has 5 $hildren. In his de%ense, Crillantes alle#es that *hile he and 'n#/i/o *ent throu#h a marria#e $eremon" in 19H5 be%ore a 9ueva 7$iGa to*n ,a"or, the same *as not a valid marria#e %or la$/ o% a marria#e li$ense. Fpon re>uest o% the parents o% 'n#/i/o, Crillantes *ent throu#h another marria#e $eremon" *ith her in ,anila. 0#ain, neither part" applied %or a marria#e li$ense. Respondent $laims that *hen he married Molanda De 3astro in $ivil rites in +os 0n#eles, 3ali%ornia in 1991, he believed in all #ood %aith and %or all le#al intents and purposes that he *as sin#le be$ause his %irst marria#e *as solemni=ed *ithout a li$ense. Crillantes also ar#ues that the provision o% 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode does not appl" to him $onsiderin# that his %irst marria#e too/ pla$e in 19H5 and *as #overned b" the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines6 *hile the se$ond marria#e too/ pla$e in 1991 and #overned b" the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e= Is 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode is appli$able to the $ase at bar5 R!li"#= Mes. 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides: he absolute nullit" o% previous marria#e ma" be invo/ed %or the purposes o% remarria#e on the basis solel" o% a %inal Gud#ment de$larin# su$h previous marria#e void,! is appli$able to remarria#es entered into a%ter the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@ re#ardless o% the date o% the %irst marria#e. Cesides, under 0rti$le 25H o% the Aamil" 3ode, said 0rti$le is #iven retroa$tive e%%e$t inso%ar as it does not preGudi$e or impair vested or a$>uired ri#hts in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3ivil 3ode or

190 other la*s.! his is parti$ularl" true *ith 0rti$le )0, *hi$h is a rule o% pro$edure. Crillantes has not sho*n an" vested ri#ht that *as impaired b" the appli$ation o% 0rti$le )0 to his $ase. 13)) ('i 2i"# $soi vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 119190, 3a"!ar4 16, 1990 Facts= <ina +oi and 3hi ,in# soi *ere married at the ,anila 3athedral on ,a" 22, 19@@. 3ontrar" to <ina-s expe$tations that the ne*l"*eds *ere to enGo" ma/in# love or havin# sexual inter$ourse *ith ea$h other, the de%endant Gust *ent to bed, slept on one side thereo%, then turned his ba$/ and *ent to sleep. 9o sexual inter$ourse o$$urred durin# their %irst ni#ht, se$ond, third and %ourth ni#ht. Durin# their hone"moon in Ca#uio, 3hi ,in# soi invited hesr ,other, an un$le, his ,other and his nephe* and "et there *as no sexual inter$ourse that happened. Arom ,a" 22, 19@@ until ,ar$h 15, 19@9, the" slept to#ether in the same room and on the same bed but durin# this period, there *as no attempt o% sexual inter$ourse bet*een them. 0 $ase *as then %iled to de$lare the annulment o% the marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". <ina alle#ed that 3hi ,in# *as impotent, a $loset homosexual as he did not sho* him his penis 8$lini$all" %ound to be onl" 1 in$hes and 1 $m. *hen ere$t4. De%endant admitted that no sexual $onta$t *as ever made and a$$ordin# to him ever" time he *anted to have sexual inter$ourse *ith his *i%e, she al*a"s avoided him and *henever he $aressed her private parts she al*a"s removed his hands. ss!e= Is the re%usal o% 3hi ,in# soi to have sexual $ommunion *ith his *i%e $onstitutes ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#= Mes. I% a spouse, althou#h ph"si$all" $apable but simpl" re%uses to per%orm his or her essential marria#e obli#ations, and the re%usal is senseless and $onstant, 3atholi$ marria#e tribunals attribute the $auses to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" than to stubborn re%usal. (enseless and protra$ted re%usal is e>uivalent to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". hus, the prolon#ed re%usal o% a spouse to have sexual inter$ourse *ith his or her spouse is $onsidered a si#n o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 7videntl", one o% the essential marital obli#ations under the Aamil" 3ode is o pro$reate

191 $hildren based on the universal prin$iple that pro$reation o% $hildren throu#h sexual $ooperation is the basi$ end o% marria#e.! 3onstant non?%ul%illment o% this obli#ation *ill %inall" destro" the inte#rit" or *holeness o% the marria#e. In the $ase at bar, the senseless and protra$ted re%usal o% one o% the parties to %ul%ill the above marital obli#ation is e>uivalent to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". While the la* provides that the husband and the *i%e are obli#ed to live to#ether, observe mutual love, respe$t and %idelit" 80rt. H@, Aamil" 3ode4, the san$tion there%or is a$tuall" the spontaneous, mutual a%%e$tion bet*een husband and *i%e and not an" le#al mandate or $ourt order. +ove is useless unless it is shared *ith another. Indeed, no man is an island6 the $ruellest a$t o% a partner in marria#e is to sa" I $ould not have $ared less.! his is so be$ause an un#iven sel% is an un%ul%illed sel%. he e#oist has nothin# but himsel%. In the natural order, it is sexual intima$" *hi$h brin#s spouses *holeness and oneness. (exual intima$" is a #i%t and a parti$ipation in the m"ster" o% $reation. It is a %un$tion *hi$h enlivens the hope o% pro$reation and ensures the $ontinuation o% %amil" relations. 139) 5a"tos vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 112019, 3a"!ar4 4, 1995 Facts= +eouel (antos, *ho then held the ran/ o% Airst +ieutenant in the Philippine 0rm", %irst met Julia. In 19@H, the" ex$han#e vo*s be%ore ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt Jud#e 3ornelio <. +a=aro o% Iloilo 3it", %ollo*ed, shortl" therea%ter, b" a $hur$h *eddin#. +eouel and Julia lived *ith the JuliaNs parents. In 19@:, Julia #ave birth to a bab" bo". In 19@@, Julia %inall" le%t %or the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a to *or/ as a nurse despite +eouelNs pleas to so dissuade her. (even months a%ter her departure, or Julia $alled up +eouel %or the %irst time b" lon# distan$e telephone. (he promised to return home upon the expiration o% her $ontra$t in Jul" 19@9. (he never did. When +eouel #ot a $han$e to visit the Fnited (tates, *here he under*ent a trainin# pro#ram under the auspi$es o% the 0rmed Aor$es o% the Philippines %rom 0pril 1 up to 0u#ust 25, 1990, he desperatel" tried to lo$ate, or to someho* #et in tou$h *ith, Julia but all his e%%orts *ere o% no avail. .avin# %ailed to #et Julia to someho* $ome home, +eouel %iled *ith the re#ional trial

192 3ourt o% 9e#ros 'riental, Cran$h 10, a $omplaint %or IBoidin# o% marria#e Fnder 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3odeI 0rti$le 1H 8as amended b" 7.'. 9o. 22: dated 1: Jul" 19@:4, *hi$h de$lares: 0 marria#e $ontra$ted b" an" part" *ho, at the time o% the $elebration, *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations o% marria#e, shall li/e*ise be void even i% su$h in$apa$it" be$omes mani%est onl" a%ter its solemni=ation. ss!e= Does the %ailure o% Julia to return home or $ommuni$ate *ith him %or more than %ive "ears $onstitute ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#= 9o. 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode $annot be ta/en and $onstrued independentl" o%, but must stand in $onGun$tion *ith, existin# pre$epts in our la* on marria#e. hus $orrelated, Ips"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"I should re%er to no less than a mental 8not ph"si$al4 in$apa$it" that $auses a part" to be trul" in$o#nitive o% the basi$ marital $ovenants that $on$omitantl" must be assumed and dis$har#ed b" the parties to the marria#e *hi$h, as so expressed b" 0rti$le H@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, in$lude their mutual obli#ations to live to#ether, observe love, respe$t and %idelit" and render help and support. Justi$e (empio?Di" upheld the *or/ o% Dr. <erardo Beloso, a %ormer Presidin# Jud#e o% the ,etropolitan ,arria#e ribunal o% the 3atholi$ 0r$hdio$ese o% ,anila 8Cran$h 14, *ho opines that ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b": 8a4 #ravit", 8b4 Guridi$al ante$eden$e, and 8$4 in$urabilit". he in$apa$it" must be #rave or serious su$h that the part" *ould be in$apable o% $arr"in# out the ordinar" duties re>uired in marria#e6 it must be rooted in the histor" o% the part" antedatin# the marria#e, althou#h the overt mani%estations ma" emer#e onl" a%ter the marria#e6 and it must be in$urable or, even i% it *ere other*ise, the $ure *ould be be"ond the means o% the part" involved. In the $ase at bar, the 3ourt $annot de$lare the nullit" o% marria#e o% +ouel on the mere basis that Julia %ailed to return or $ommuni$ate *ith him. 140) @er"a"%e/ vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 126010, Dece.+er ), 1999

193

Facts= +u$ita 7strella .ernande= and ,ario 3. .ernande= *ere married at the (ilan# 3atholi$ Parish 3hur$h in (ilan#, 3avite. hree $hildren *ere born to them. herea%ter, +u$ita %iled %or annulment o% her marria#e to ,ario on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". +u$ita alle#ed that ,ario %ailed to per%orm his obli#ation to support the %amil" and $ontribute to the mana#ement o% the household, devotin# most o% his time en#a#in# in drin/in# sprees *ith his %riends. (he %urther $laimed that a%ter the" *ere married, ,ario $ohabited *ith another *oman *ith *hom he had an ille#itimate $hild, *hile havin# a%%airs *ith di%%erent *omen, and that, be$ause o% his promis$uit"6 he endan#ered her health b" in%e$tin# her *ith #onorrhea, a sexuall" transmissible disease 8( D4. (he averred that ,ario *as irresponsible, immature and unprepared %or the duties o% a married li%e. ss!e= (hould the marria#e o% +u$ita and ,ario be annulled on the #round o% ,ario-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#= 9o. +u$ita %ailed to sho* that ,arioNs ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" existed at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e, 0rt. 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode provides 0 marria#e $ontra$ted b" an" part" *ho, at the time o% the $elebration, *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations o% marria#e, shall li/e*ise be void even i% su$h in$apa$it" be$omes mani%est onl" a%ter its solemni=ation!. ,oreover, +u$ita-s alle#ed habitual al$oholism, sexual in%idelit" or perversion, and abandonment do not b" themselves $onstitute #rounds %or %indin# that he is su%%erin# %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *ithin the $ontemplation o% the Aamil" 3ode. It must be sho*n that these a$ts are mani%estations o% a disordered personalit" *hi$h ma/e private respondent $ompletel" unable to dis$har#e the essential obli#ations o% the marital state, and not merel" due to ,arioNs "outh and sel%?$ons$ious %eelin# o% bein# handsome, as the appellate $ourt held. 0s pointed out in Republi$ o% the Philippines v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals: he root $ause o% the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be: 8a4 medi$all" or $lini$all" identi%ied, 8b4 alle#ed in the $omplaint, 8$4 su%%i$ientl" proven b" experts and 8d4

194 $learl" explained in the de$ision. 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode re>uires that the in$apa$it" must be ps"$holo#i$al O not ph"si$al, althou#h its mani%estations andLor s"mptoms ma" be ph"si$al. he eviden$e must $onvin$e the $ourt that the part", or one o% them, *as mentall" or ph"si$all" ill to su$h an extent that the obli#ations he *as assumin#, or /no*in# them, $ould not have #iven valid assumption thereo%. 0lthou#h no example o% su$h in$apa$it" need #iven here so as not to limit the appli$ation o% the provision under the prin$iple o% eGusdem #eneris, nevertheless su$h root $ause must be identi%ied as a ps"$holo#i$al illness and its in$apa$itatin# nature %ull" explained. 7xpert eviden$e ma" be #iven b" >uali%ied ps"$hiatrists and $lini$al ps"$holo#ists. he burden o% proo% to sho* the nullit" o% the marria#e rests upon rests petitioner. he 3ourt is mind%ul o% the poli$" o% the 19@: 3onstitution to prote$t and stren#then the %amil" as the basi$ autonomous so$ial institution and marria#e as the %oundation o% the %amil". hus, an" doubt should be resolved in %avor o% the validit" o% the marria#e. 141) 9a.+ao vs. Rep!+lic G.R. No. 1)4063, 3a"!ar4 24, 20011 Facts= 3"nthia Mambao is married to Patri$io Mambao. When a%ter 15 "ears o% marria#e 3"nthia %iled a Petition %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% her marria#e *ith respondent Patri$io. (he invo/ed the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" pursuant to 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. 3"nthia alle#ed that sin$e the be#innin#, their marria#e had been marred b" bi$/erin#, >uarrels, and re$rimination due to Patri$io-s inabilit" to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations to married li%e. (he elaborated that all the "ears o% their married li%e, she *as the onl" one *ho earned a livin# and too/ $are o% the $hildren and that Patri$io Gust ate and slept all da" and *ould spend time *ith %riends. Patri$io *ould venture into several businesses but all %ailed. .e *as also a #ambler. hat *hen their $hildren *ere babies, Patri$io did not even help to $han#e their diapers or %eed them, even *hile she *as re$overin# %rom her $aesarean operation, pro%%erin# the ex$use that he /ne* nothin# about $hildren. +ater, Patri$io be$ame inse$ure and Gealous and *ould #et mad ever" time he

195 *ould see her tal/in# to other people, even to her relatives. When Patri$io started threatenin# to /ill her, she de$ided to leave the $onGu#al abode and live separatel" %rom him. (he then $onsulted a ps"$hiatrist *ho $on$luded that Patri$io *as indeed ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations. ss!e= Does the totalit" o% 3"thia- eviden$e establishes Patri$io-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#= 9o. In (antos v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals, the 3ourt held that ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b" 8a4 #ravit" 8b4 Guridi$al ante$eden$e, and 8$4 in$urabilit". hese #uidelines do not re>uire that a ph"si$ian examine the person to be de$lared ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. In %a$t, the root $ause ma" be medi$all" or $lini$all" identi%ied.! Aor a marria#e to be annulled under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, the ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated spouse must be sho*n to su%%er no less than a mental 8not ph"si$al4 in$apa$it" that $auses him or her to be trul" in$o#nitive o% the basi$ marital $ovenants. It is a malad" so #rave and so permanent as to deprive one o% a*areness o% the duties and responsibilities o% the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. In this $ase, there is no sho*in# that Patri$io *as su%%erin# %rom a ps"$holo#i$al $ondition so severe that he *as una*are o% his obli#ations to his *i%e and %amil". 0rti$le 1H $ontemplates in$apa$it" or inabilit" to ta/e $o#ni=an$e o% and to assume basi$ marital obli#ations and not merel" di%%i$ult", re%usal, or ne#le$t in the per%orman$e o% marital obli#ations or ill *ill. his in$apa$it" $onsists o% the %ollo*in#: 8a4 a true inabilit" to $ommit onesel% to the essentials o% marria#e6 8b4 this inabilit" to $ommit onesel% must re%er to the essential obli#ations o% marria#e: the $onGu#al a$t, the $ommunit" o% li%e and love, the renderin# o% mutual help, the pro$reation and edu$ation o% o%%sprin#6 and 8$4 the inabilit" must be tantamount to a ps"$holo#i$al abnormalit". It is not enou#h to prove that a spouse %ailed to meet his responsibilit" and dut" as a married person6 it is essential that he must be sho*n to be in$apable o% doin# so due to some ps"$holo#i$al illness.

196 142) Rep!+lic vs. (o!rt o- Appeals a"% 2oli"a G.R. No. 10)063, Fe+r!ar4 13, 1990 Facts= Roridel 'laviano *as married to Re"naldo ,olina in 19@5 in ,anila, and #ave birth to a son a "ear a%ter. Re"naldo sho*ed si#ns o% immaturit" and irresponsibilit"! on the earl" sta#es o% the marria#e, observed %rom his tenden$" to spend time *ith his %riends and s>uanderin# his mone" *ith them, %rom his dependen$" %rom his parents, and his dishonest" on matters involvin# his %inan$es. Re"naldo *as relieved o% his Gob in 19@H, Roridel be$ame the sole bread*inner therea%ter. In 19@:, Roridel resi#ned %rom her Gob in ,anila and pro$eeded to Ca#uio 3it". Re"naldo le%t her and their $hild a *ee/ later. he $ouple is separated?in?%a$t %or more than three "ears. In 1990, Roridel %iled a veri%ied petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e to Re"naldo ,olina. 7viden$e %or Roridel $onsisted o% her o*n testimon", that o% t*o o% her %riends, a so$ial *or/er, and a ps"$hiatrist o% the Ca#uio <eneral .ospital and ,edi$al 3enter. Re"naldo did not present an" eviden$e as he appeared onl" durin# the pre?trial $on%eren$e. In 1991, the trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment de$larin# the marria#e void be$ause the marria#e bet*een the parties bro/e up be$ause o% their opposin# and $on%li$tin# personalities. ss!e= Does opposin# or $on%li$tin# personalities be $onstrued as ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#= 9o. he 3ourt reiterated its rulin# in (antos v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals, *here ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" should re%er to no less than a mental 8not ph"si$al4 in$apa$it", existin# at the time the marria#e is $elebrated, and that there is hardl" an" doubt that the intendment o% the la* has been to $on%ine the meanin# o% Vps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"- to the most serious $ases o% personalit" disorders $learl" demonstrative o% an utter insensitivit" or inabilit" to #ive meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to the marria#e. Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b" #ravit", Guridi$al ante$eden$e, and in$urabilit". In the present $ase, there is no $lear sho*in# that the ps"$holo#i$al de%e$t spo/en o% is in$apa$it"6 but appears to be more o% a di%%i$ult",! i% not outri#ht

190 re%usal! or ne#le$t! in the per%orman$e o% some marital obli#ations. ,ere sho*in# o% irre$on$ilable di%%eren$es! and $on%li$tin# personalities! does not $onstitute ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he 3ourt, in this $ase, promul#ated the #uidelines in the interpretation and appli$ation o% 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, removin# an" visa#es o% it bein# the most liberal divor$e pro$edure in the *orld: 814 he burden o% proo% belon#s to the plainti%%6 824 the root $ause o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be medi$all" or $lini$all" identi%ied, alle#ed in the $omplaint, su%%i$ientl" proven b" expert, and $learl" explained in the de$ision6 814 he in$apa$it" must be proven existin# at the time o% the $elebration o% marria#e6 8)4 the in$apa$it" must be $lini$all" or medi$all" permanent or in$urable6 854 su$h illness must be #rave enou#h6 8H4 the essential marital obli#ation must be embra$ed b" 0rti$les H@ to :1 o% the Aamil" 3ode as re#ards husband and *i%e, and 0rti$les 220 to 225 o% the same $ode as re#ards parents and their $hildren6 8:4 interpretation made b" the 9ational 0ppellate ,atrimonial ribunal o% the 3atholi$ 3hur$h, and 8@4 the trial must order the %is$al and the (oli$itor?<eneral to appeal as $ounsels %or the (tate. hus, the marria#e o% Roridel 'laviano to Re"naldo ,olina subsists and remains valid. 143) 1arcelo"a vs. (A a"% 1e"#/o" GR No. 1300)0, 5epte.+er 24, 2003 Facts: 'n ,ar$h 29, 1995, private respondent adeoCen#=on %iled %or a petition %or 0nnulment o% ,arria#e a#ainst petitioner Diana Car$elona6 ho*ever, on ,a" 9, 1995, private respondent %iled a ,otion to Withdra* Petition *hi$h the $ourt #ranted. (ubse>uentl", on Jul" 21, 1995, private respondent ane* %iled a Petition %or 0nnulment a#ainst the petitioner on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the latter. Petitioner then %iled a ,otion %or Dismiss on the #rounds that it %ailed to state a $ause o% a$tion and it violates the rule o% %orum shoppin#. he trial $ourt de%erred the motion and later denied petitioner-s motion %or re$onsideration. Petitioner then appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals but then the 30 dismissed her petition.

19) ss!e: Whether or not, an expert opinion needs to be alle#ed to determine the root $ause o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: 9e* Rules on De$laration o% 0bsolute 9ullit" o% Boid ,arria#es and 0nnulment o% Boidable ,arria#es spe$i%i$all" provides that $omplete %a$ts should alle#e the ph"si$al mani%estations indi$ative o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" but expert opinion need not to be alle#ed. Pro$edural rules appl" to a$tions pendin# and unresolved at the time o% their passa#e. he obvious e%%e$t o% the ne* Rules providin# that expert opinion need not be alle#ed! in the petition is that there is also no need to alle#e the root $ause o% the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 'nl" experts in the %ields o% neurolo#i$al and behavioral s$ien$es are $ompetent to determine the root $ause o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". (in$e the ne* Rules do not re>uire the petition to alle#e expert opinion on the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", it %ollo*s that there is also no need to alle#e in the petition the root $ause o% the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 144) $o"#ol vs. $o"#ol G.R. No. 150610, *cto+er 19, 2000 Facts: 'n 0u#ust 2:, 19H, petitioner 'rlando on#ol and respondent Ailipinas on#ol #ot married. he" be#ot %our $hildren a%ter their marria#e. 0t the earl" sta#e o% their marria#e, Ailipinas treated her husband *ith $ontempt and *ithout the love and respe$t due to him. Despite o% this situation, 'rlando be$ame su$$ess%ul businessman and Ailipinas be#an to inter%ere in the operation o% the business. (he then started to #et Gealous to their emplo"ees and embarrass his husband in %ront o% them *henever the" >uarrel. heir $ontinued %i#htin# persisted and a%%e$ted their $hildren. 0s a result, 'rlando de$ided to live separatel" %rom Ailipinas in 1990. In 199), the spouses %iled a petition %or dissolution o% their $onGu#al partnership o% #ains *hi$h *as #ranted b" the $ourt on 1995. 'n 0u#ust 19, 199H, 'rlando %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% Ailipinas. Petitioner presented eviden$es *hi$h in$lude: his testimon", his sister and emplo"ee-s testimon", Dr. Bille#as

199 %indin#s and other do$umentar" eviden$es. .o*ever, the R 3 dismissed his petition *hi$h the 30 later a%%irmed the same. ss!e: Whether or not, the totalit" o% eviden$e presented b" the petitioner is enou#h to sustain a %indin# that the respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith her essential marital obli#ation5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the totalit" o% the eviden$e presented in the $ase does not sho* that respondent-s personalit" disorder is o% the /ind $ontemplated b" 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode as *ell as Gurispruden$e as to render her ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated or in$apable o% $ompl"in# *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. he #uidelines set %orth in Republi$ v. ,olina *ere not met in the present $ase. Airst, the testimon" o% Dr. Bille#as %ailed to lin/ respondentNs personalit" disorder to her $on$lusion that respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm her obli#ations as *i%e and mother. he 3ourt $annot see ho* respondentNs personalit" disorder *hi$h *ould render her una*are o% the essential marital obli#ations. (e$ond, her testimon" also %ailed to %ull" and satis%a$toril" explain that the personalit" disorder o% respondent is #rave enou#h to brin# about her disabilit" to assume the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. 7ven #rantin# that respondentNs ps"$holo#i$al disorder is serious, the %a$t remains that there is no eviden$e to prove that su$h $ondition is o% su$h nature as to render respondent in$apable o% $arr"in# out the ordinar" duties re>uired in marria#e. hird, there is no eviden$e that su$h in$apa$it" is in$urable as sho*n in the testimon" o% the expert *itness. Aourth, the testimonies o% both petitioner and respondent as *ell as the other *itnesses re#ardin# the spousesN di%%eren$es and misunderstandin# basi$all" revolve around and are limited to their disa#reement re#ardin# the mana#ement o% their business and a mere sho*in# o% irre$on$ilable di%%eren$es and $on%li$tin# personalities in no *ise $onstitutes ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". +astl", marital obli#ation in$ludes not onl" a spouseNs obli#ation to the other spouse but also oneNs obli#ation to*ard their $hildren. In the present $ase, no eviden$e *as presented to sho* that

200 respondent had been remiss in per%ormin# her obli#ations to*ard their $hildren as enumerated in 0rti$le 220 o% the Aamil" 3ode. 145) 2arcos vs. 2arcos G.R. No. 136490, *cto+er 19, 2000 Facts: Petitioner Crenda ,ar$os and respondent Wilson ,ar$os *ere married t*i$e on (eptember H, 19@2 and ,a" @, 19@1. 'ut o% their marria#e, the" be#ot %ive $hildren. 0%ter the do*n%all o% the then President ,ar$os, respondent le%t the militar" servi$e and en#a#ed in di%%erent business ventures6 ho*ever, it did not prosper. .e also %ailed to have #ain%ul emplo"ment. 0s a result thereo%, he o%ten in%li$t ph"si$al harm to his *i%e and their $hildren and in 1992, the spouses lived separatel". 'n '$tober 1H, 199), respondent *ent to their house and the" had a bitter >uarrel. .e a#ain in%li$ted ph"si$al harm on her and therea%ter she and their $hildren le%t the house. 0nother in$ident too/ pla$e *here the respondent ran a%ter them *ith a samurai and beat her driver. (he then %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e *hi$h the R 3 #ranted6 ho*ever, the 30 reversed its de$ision on the #round that the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the respondent *as not established b" the totalit" o% eviden$e presented ss!e: Whether or not, the ps"$holo#i$al evaluation o% the respondent is ne$essar" %or the de$laration o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: Fnder the #uidelines determined b" the 3ourt in Republi$ v. ,olina, ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b" #ravit", Guridi$al ante$eden$e and in$urabilit".! he %ore#oin# #uidelines do not re>uire ph"si$ian examine the person to be de$lared ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. In %a$t, the root $ause ma" be Vmedi$all" or $lini$all" identi%ied.! What is important is the presen$e o% eviden$e that $an ade>uatel" establish the part"Ns ps"$holo#i$al $ondition. Aor indeed, i% the totalit" o% eviden$e presented is enou#h to sustain a %indin# o%

201 ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", then a$tual medi$al examination o% the person $on$erned need not be resorted to. 146) $e vs. $e G.R. No. 161093, Fe+r!ar4 13, 2009 Facts: In Januar" 199H, petioner 7d*ard e and respondent Ro*ena Mu? e met in a #atherin# and a%ter three months, the" eloped and *ent in 3ebu and sta"ed there a month. In 0pril 199H, the" de$ided to return in ,anila. Ro*ena pro$eeded in her un$le-s house *hile 7d*ard *ent to their house. Ro*ena then $onvin$ed 7d*ard to live *ith her in her un$le-s house *hi$h the latter a#reed. 'n 0pril 21, 199H, both parties *ere brou#ht to a $ourt to #et married. Durin# their marria#e, 7d*ard *as treated li/e a prisoner and threatened b" Ro*ena-s un$le. 0%ter a month, he es$aped %rom the house o% Ro*ena-s un$le and sta"ed to his %amil" *ho hid him %rom his *i%e. In June 199H, the spouses *ere able to tal/ *ith ea$h other *hi$h he persist that the" should live *ith his parents6 ho*ever, Ro*ena told him that it *as better %or them to parted *a"s. 0%ter almost %our "ears, 7d*ard %iled %or a petition %or annulment o% marria#e on the basis o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% Ro*ena. he R 3 rendered a de$ision de$larin# their marria#e null and void on the basis o% both parties ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ation. 'pposin#, the 30 reversed the lo*er $ourt-s de$ision on the basis that the petitioner %ailed to prove respondent-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" and it %urther held that the $lini$al ps"$holo#ist did not personall" examine the respondent and relied on the in%ormation #iven b" the petitioner. ss!e: Whether or not, the 3ourt must $onsider as de$isive eviden$e the expert opinion on the ps"$holo#i$al and mental temperaments o% the parties5 R!li"#: C" the ver" nature o% 0rti$le 1H, $ourts, despite havin# the primar" tas/ and burden o% de$ision?ma/in#, must not dis$ount but, instead, must $onsider as de$isive eviden$e the

202 expert opinion on the ps"$holo#i$al and mental temperaments o% the parties. In this $ase, the petitioner, a%%li$ted *ith dependent personalit" disorder, $annot assume the essential marital obli#ations o% livin# to#ether, observin# love, respe$t and %idelit" and renderin# help and support, %or he is unable to ma/e ever"da" de$isions *ithout advi$e %rom others, and allo*s others to ma/e most o% his important de$isions 8su$h as *here to live4. 0s $learl" sho*n in this $ase, petitioner %ollo*ed ever"thin# di$tated to him b" the persons around him. .e is inse$ure, *ea/ and #ullible, has no sense o% his identit" as a person, has no $ohesive sel% to spea/ o%, and has no #oals and $lear dire$tion in li%e. While, the respondent, her bein# a%%li$ted *ith antiso$ial personalit" disorder ma/es her unable to assume the essential marital obli#ations on a$$ount %or her disre#ard in the ri#hts o% others, her abuse, mistreatment and $ontrol o% others *ithout remorse, and her tenden$" to blame others. ,oreover, as sho*n in this $ase, respondent is impulsive and domineerin#6 she had no >ualms in manipulatin# petitioner *ith her threats o% bla$/mail and o% $ommittin# sui$ide. In sum, both parties bein# a%%li$ted *ith #rave, severe and in$urable ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", their pre$ipitous marria#e is de$lared null and void b" the 3ourt. 140) A#ravia%or vs. A#ravia%or G.R. No. 100029, Dece.+er ), 2010 Facts: 'n ,a" 21, 19:1, petitioner 7nri>ue 0#raviador married 7rlinda 0mparo?0#raviador. Durin# their marria#e, the" be#ot %our $hildren. 'n ,ar$h 1, 2001, the petitioner %iled a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith the respondent, under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, as amended. .e alle#ed that the respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to exer$ise the essential obli#ations o% marria#e as she *as $are%ree and irresponsible, and re%used to do household $hores li/e $leanin# and $oo/in#6 sta"ed a*a" %rom their house %or lon# periods o% time6 had an a%%air *ith a lesbian6 did not ta/e $are o% their si$/ $hild6 $onsulted a *it$h do$tor in order to brin# him bad %ate6 and re%used to use the %amil" name 0#raviador in her a$tivities. .e %urther $laimed that his *i%e re%used to have sex *ith him and

203 that she en#a#ed *ith extramarital a%%air *ith their tenant. 0s support to his testimon", he also presented do$umentar" eviden$es, one o% *hi$h *as the ps"$hiatri$ evaluation report o% Dr. Juan 3irilo Pata$. <ivin# $reden$e to petitioner-s eviden$es, the R 3 de$lared their marria#e null and void on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the respondent. 3onse>uentl", the 30 reversed the R 3-s de$ision holdin# that Dr. Pata$-s ps"$hiatri$ report did not established respondent-s personalit" disorder serious, #rave and permanent and it li/e*ise did not mention the root $ause o% her in$apa$it". ss!e: Whether or not, there is su%%i$ient eviden$e to nulli%" petitioner-s marria#e to the respondent on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: he totalit" o% eviden$e %ailed to establish the respondent-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". In the present $ase, the petitioner-s testimon" %ailed to establish that the respondent-s $ondition is a mani%estation o% a disordered personalit" rooted on some in$apa$itatin# or debilitatin# ps"$holo#i$al $ondition that ma/es her $ompletel" unable to dis$har#e the essential marital obli#ations. I% at all, the petitioner merel" sho*ed that the respondent had some personalit" de%e$ts that sho*ed their mani%estation durin# the marria#e6 his testimon" sorel" la$/ed details ne$essar" to establish that the respondent-s de%e$ts existed at the in$eption o% the marria#e. In addition, the petitioner %ailed to dis$uss the #ravit" o% the respondent-s $ondition6 neither did he mention that the respondent-s malad" *as in$urable, or i% it *ere other*ise, the $ure *ould be be"ond the respondent-s means to underta/e. he petitioner-s de$larations that the respondent does not a$$ept her %ault,! does not *ant to $han#e,! and re%used to re%orm! are insu%%i$ient to establish a ps"$holo#i$al or mental de%e$t that is serious, #rave, or in$urable as $ontemplated b" 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. ,oreover, he 3ourt %inds that Dr. Pata$-s Ps"$hiatri$ 7valuation Report %ell short in provin# that the respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm the essential marital duties. We emphasi=e that Dr. Pata$ did not personall" evaluate and examine the respondent6 he, in %a$t,

204 re$ommended at the end o% his Report %or the respondent to under#o the same examination Rthat the petitionerS under*ent.! Dr. Pata$ relied onl" on the in%ormation %ed b" the petitioner, the partiesse$ond $hild, 7mmanuel, and household helper. (arah. +ar#el", the do$tor relied on the in%ormation provided b" the petitioner. hus, *hile his Report $an be used as a %air #au#e to assess the petitioner-s o*n ps"$holo#i$al $ondition 8as he *as, in %a$t, de$lared b" Dr. Pata$ to be ps"$holo#i$all" $apable to %ul%ill the essential obli#ations o% marria#e4, the same statement $annot be made *ith respe$t to the respondent-s $ondition. he methodolo#" emplo"ed simpl" $annot satis%" the re>uired depth and $omprehensiveness o% the examination re>uired to evaluate a part" alle#ed to be su%%erin# %rom a ps"$holo#i$al disorder. 14)) 2ara+le vs. 2ara+le G.R. No. 10)041, 3a"!ar4 10, 2011 Facts: Petitioner Rosalino ,arable and respondent ,"rna ,arable met in 19H:. 'n De$ember 19, 19:0, the" eloped and #ot married in $ivil rites. It *as %ollo*ed b" a $hur$h *eddin# on De$ember 10, 19:0. he spouses *ere blessed *ith %ive $hildren. 0s the "ears *ent b", their marria#e be$ame sour. Berbal and ph"si$al >uarrel o%ten o$$urred and this situation be$ame *orse due to their eldest dau#hter. Due to their marital problems, petitioner had an extramarital a%%air *hi$h the respondent learned and $onse>uentl", petitioner promptl" ended his a%%air. heir >uarrels a##ravated more and be$ause o% this, petitioner le%t their %amil" home. .e #ave up all their properties in %avor o% the respondent and their $hildren. +ater, he $onverted into Islam. 'n '$tober @, 2001, he %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e on the #round o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to per%orm the essential responsibilities o% marital li%e as supported b" a ps"$holo#i$al report o% Dr. 9ed" a"a#. ss!e: Whether or not, the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the petitioner *as $learl" proven b" the ps"$holo#i$al report o% Dr. 9ed" a"a#5

205 R!li"#: 9o. In the instant $ase, petitioner $ompletel" relied on the ps"$holo#i$al examination $ondu$ted b" Dr. a"a# on him to establish his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he result o% the examination and the %indin#s o% Dr. a"a# ho*ever, are insu%%i$ient to establish petitionerNs ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". In $ases o% annulment o% marria#e based on 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, as amended, the ps"$holo#i$al illness and its root $ause must be proven to exist %rom the in$eption o% the marria#e. .ere, the appellate $ourt $orre$tl" ruled that the report o% Dr. a"a# %ailed to explain the root $ause o% petitioner-s alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he evaluation o% Dr. a"a# merel" made a #eneral $on$lusion that petitioner is su%%erin# %rom an 0nti?so$ial Personalit" Disorder but there *as no %a$tual basis stated %or the %indin# that petitioner is a so$iall" deviant person, rebellious, impulsive, sel%?$entered and de$eit%ul. 149) A!relio vs. A!relio G.R. No. 105360, 3!"e 6, 2011 Facts: Petitioner Danilo 0urelio and respondent Bida ,a. 3ora=on 0urelio #ot married on ,ar$h 21, 19@@. he" have t*o sons, namel": Danilo ,i#uel and Danilo <abriel. 'n ,a" 9, 2002, respondent %iled a Petition %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e. In her petition, respondent alle#ed that she and petitioner *ere ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated o% per%ormin# and $ompl"in# *ith their respe$tive essential marital obli#ations. In addition, respondent alle#ed that su$h state o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *as present prior and even durin# the time o% the marria#e $eremon". .en$e, respondent pra"s that her marria#e be de$lared null and void under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. 'n 9ovember @, 2002, petitioner %iled a ,otion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner prin$ipall" ar#ued that the petition %ailed to state a $ause o% a$tion and that it %ailed to meet the standards set b" the 3ourt %or the interpretation and implementation o% 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. he R 3 denied the petition *hi$h the 30 a%%irmed.

206 ss!e: Whether or not, the marria#e shall be de$lared null and void5 R!li"#: Airst, $ontrar" to petitioner-s assertion, this 3ourt %inds that the root $ause o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *as stated and alle#ed in the $omplaint. We a#ree *ith the mani%estation o% respondent that the %amil" ba$/#rounds o% both petitioner and respondent *ere dis$ussed in the $omplaint as the root $auses o% their ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". ,oreover, a $ompetent and expert ps"$holo#ist $lini$all" identi%ied the same as the root $auses. (e$ond, the petition li/e*ise alle#ed that the illness o% both parties *as o% su$h #rave a nature as to brin# about a disabilit" %or them to assume the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. he ps"$holo#ist reported that respondent su%%ers %rom .istrioni$ Personalit" Disorder *ith 9ar$issisti$ Aeatures. Petitioner, on the other hand, alle#edl" su%%ers %rom Passive 0##ressive 89e#ativisti$4 Personalit" Disorder. he in$apa$it" o% both parties to per%orm their marital obli#ations *as alle#ed to be #rave, in$orri#ible and in$urable. +astl", this 3ourt also %inds that the essential marital obli#ations that *ere not $omplied *ith *ere alle#ed in the petition. 0s $an be easil" #leaned %rom the totalit" o% the petition, respondent-s alle#ations %all under 0rti$le H@ o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h states that the husband and the *i%e are obli#ed to live to#ether, observe mutual love, respe$t and %idelit", and render mutual help and support.! 150) Rep!+lic vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 159594, Nove.+er 12, 2012 Facts: 'n, ,ar$h 1H, 19::, 7duardo and 3atalina *ere married. he" *ere not blessed *ith a $hild be$ause 3atalina had a h"stere$tom". 7duardo %iled %or annulment on the #rounds o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" due to 3atalina-s inabilit" to per%orm her marital obli#ation. 3atalina did not interpose but pra"ed to be #iven a share in the $onGu#al house and lot.

200 7duardo testi%ied that 3atalina re%used to #ive in to his sexual needs and #ossiped *ith nei#hbors instead o% per%ormin# her marital obli#ations. .e also $laimed that she abandoned their %amil" home to live *ith her paramour. 9euro?ps"$hiatri$ evaluation *as done and sho*ed that 3atalina has Corderline Personalit" disorder that is not treatable. he R 3 and the 30 #ranted the nullit", ho*ever (tate throu#h the '%%i$e o% (oli$itor <eneral appealed due to the %a$t that 3atalina-s traits are not $onstitutive o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"6 her marital un%aith%ulness is not ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", abandonment is onl" a #round %or le#al separation, #amblin# is not ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" and the test %ailed to establish the $ause o% the in$apa$it". ss!e: Whether or not there *as su%%i$ient eviden$e *arrantin# the de$laration o% nullit" o% 3atalina-s marria#e to 7duardo based on her ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" Fnder 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#: 9o, there has not been su%%i$ient eviden$e *arrantin# the de$laration o% nullit" o% 3atalina-s marria#e to 7duardo. he de$ision o% the R 3 and 30 has been set aside %or the %ollo*in# reasons: he lo*er $ourts did not exa$t a $omplian$e *ith the re>uirement o% su%%i$ientl" explainin# the #ravit", root $ause and in$urabilit" o% 3atalina-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 3atalina-s behavior *as not established. +o*er $ourts have relied heavil" on the results o% neuro? ps"$holo#i$al evaluation, "et the report *as va#ue about the root $ause, #ravit" and in$urabilit" o% 3atalina-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Dr. Re"es had onl" intervie*ed 3atalina and did not personall" see/ out *ith other persons. his is not a thorou#h and in depth assessment o% the parties. here is no proo% o% natal or supervenin# %a$tor that in$apa$itated the spouse %rom per%ormin# the basi$ marital obli#ations6 the onl" %a$t that *as established *as the

20) abandonment o% marital home *hi$h is not a #round %or ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 151) Rep!+lic o- t'e &'ilippi"es vs. ,"cela" G.R. No. 100022, 3a"!ar4 9, 2013 Facts: 'n 0u#ust 25, 19:9, respondent 3esar 7n$elan married +olita and their union bore t*o $hildren. 3esar *as an 'AW and on June 12, 19@H, he learned that his *i%e *ith their $hildren le%t their $onGu#al home to live *ith 0lvin Pere=. (in$e then, the spouses had been separated. 'n June 1H, 1995, 3esar %iled a petition a#ainst +olita %or the de$laration o% the nullit" o% his marria#e based on +olita-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". +olita denied that she had an a%%air *ith 0lvin and insisted that she is not ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. 'n the other hand, 3esar a%%irmed his alle#ations a#ainst his *i%e and presented a ps"$holo#i$al evaluation report *hi$h states that +olita *as not su%%erin# %rom an" %orm o% maGor ps"$hiatri$ illness but had been unable to provide expe$tations expe$ted o% her %or a #ood and lastin# marital relationship. he R 3 de$lared their marria#e void. he 30 ori#inall" reversed the R 3-s de$ision6 ho*ever, *hen 3esar sou#ht %or re$onsideration, the 30 a%%irmed the lo*er $ourt-s de$ision based on +olita-s in%idelit" and abandonment. ss!e: Whether or not, there exists su%%i$ient basis to nulli%" 3esar-s marria#e to +olita on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" $ontemplates do*nri#ht in$apa$it" or inabilit" to ta/e $o#ni=an$e o% and to assume the basi$ marital obli#ations. hus, to $onstitute ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", it must be sho*n that the un%aith%ulness and abandonment are mani%estations o% a disordered personalit" that $ompletel" prevented the errin# spouse %rom dis$har#in# the essential marital obli#ations. In this $ase, no eviden$e *ere presented to support 3esar-s alle#ations that +olita-s in%idelit"

209 and abandonment *ere mani%estations o% an" ps"$holo#i$al illness. ,oreover, the plainti%% bears the burden o% provin# the Guridi$al ante$eden$e, #ravit" and in$urabilit" o% the $ondition o% the errant spouse. he ps"$holo#i$al evaluation presented established that +olita is not su%%erin# %rom an" maGor ps"$hiatri$ illness but onl" interpersonal problems *ith her $o?*or/er. hese %indin#s do not su%%i$e as a $onsideration %or the $on$lusion that she *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated at the time o% their marria#e. 152) 2e"%o/a vs. Rep!+lic G.R. No. 150649, Nove.+er 12, 2012 Facts: Petitioner 0rabelle ,endo=a and Domini$ met in 19@9. he" had been next?door nei#hbors in the appartelle *here the" *ere rentin# *hen the" are still in $olle#e. he" had a relationship *hi$h led to her pre#nan$". 'n June 2), 1991, the" #ot married and lived in her pla$e althou#h the" *ere still under the support o% their parents. When the petitioner delivered their bab", Domini$ had to borro* mone" %or the hospital bills. Durin# their marria#e, petitioner too/ various Gobs to support their %amil" needs. 'n the other hand, Domini$ remained Gobless and dependent until he #raduated %rom $olle#e. .e temporaril" *or/ed as a sellin# a#ent and therea%ter as a salesman o% a $ar dealer $ompan". .e had an illi$it relationship *ith his *or/mate and in 9ovember 1995, he *as %ired %rom his emplo"ment %or ta/in# a*a" a bi# amount o% mone" %rom his emplo"er and he *as there%ore arrested and in$ar$erated. .e *as bailed out b" the petitioner and his mother. he petitioner then learned that he had also s*indled man" $lients *hom some o% them threatened them. 'n '$tober 15, 199:, Domini$ abandoned their $onGu#al home and a month a%ter, he returned %or their re$on$iliation6 ho*ever, petitioner re%used. (he and her %amil" then le%t the house and live in another pla$e $on$ealed %rom him. 'n 0u#ust 5, 199@, she %iled %or a petition o% nullit" o% marria#e based on ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% Domini$. (he presented hersel% as a *itness and the testimon" o% a ps"$hiatrist and a pro%essor. he R 3 #ave

210 $reden$e to their testimonies and #ranted her petition. .o*ever, the 30 reversed its de$ision ar#uin# that there *as no sho*in# that Domini$-s personalit" traits either $onstitutes ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" or *ere o% the nature $ontemplated b" 0rt. 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or not, the testimonies o% petitioner-s *itnesses *ere insu%%i$ient to establish Domini$-s ps"$holo#i$al a%%li$tion to be o% su$h a #rave or serious nature that it *as medi$all" or $lini$all" rooted5 R!li"#: 0s a rule, i% the totalit" o% eviden$e presented is enou#h to sustain a %indin# o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", then the a$tual medi$al examination o% the $on$erned need not be resorted to. hus, expert opinions o% ps"$holo#ist are not $onditions sine >ua non in the #rantin# o% petitions %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. In this $ase, the a$tual medi$al examination o% Domini$ *as to be dispensed *ith onl" i% the totalit" o% eviden$e presented *as enou#h to support a %indin# o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he 3ourt there%ore %ind the totalit" o% the eviden$e addu$ed b" petitioner insu%%i$ient to prove that Domini$ *as ps"$holo#i$all" un%it to dis$har#e the duties expe$ted o% him as a husband, and that he su%%ered %rom su$h ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as o% the date o% the marria#e. 153) Rep!+lic vs. Gala"# G.R. No. 16)335, 3!"e 6, 2011 Facts: 'n ,ar$h 9, 199), the respondent and Juv" $ontra$ted marria#e in Pampan#a. he" resided in the house o% the respondentNs %ather in (an Aran$is$o, ,abala$at, Pampan#a. he respondent *or/ed as an artist?illustrator at the 3lar/ Development 3orporation, earnin# P@,500.00 monthl". Juv", on the other hand, sta"ed at home as a house*i%e. he" have one $hild, 3hristopher. 'n 0u#ust ), 1999, the respondent %iled *ith the R 3 a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith Juv", under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, as amended. he $ase *as do$/eted as 3ivil 3ase 9o. 9)9). .e alle#ed that Juv" *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to exer$ise the essential

211 obli#ations o% marria#e, as she *as a /leptomania$ and a s*indler. .e $laimed that Juv" stole his 0 , $ard and his parentsN mone", and o%ten as/ed mone" %rom their %riends and relatives on the pretext that 3hristopher *as $on%ined in a hospital. 0$$ordin# to the respondent, Juv" su%%ers %rom Imental de%i$ien$", innate immaturit", distorted dis$ernment and total la$/ o% $are, love and a%%e$tion Rto*ards him and theirS $hild.I .e posited that Juv"Ns in$apa$it" *as Iextremel" seriousI and Iappears to be in$urable.I ss!e: Whether or not there is basis to nulli%" the respondentNs marria#e to Juv" on the #round that at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e, Juv" su%%ered %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" that prevented her %rom $ompl"in# *ith her essential marital obli#ations5 R!li"#: he ps"$hiatrist %ailed to su$$ess%ull" prove the elements o% #ravit" and in$urabilit". In these respe$ts, she merel" stated that despite the respondentNs e%%orts to sho* love and a%%e$tion, Juv" *as "esitant to c"ange. Arom this premise, she Gumped to the $on$lusion that Juv" appeared to be incurable or incorrigible, and *ould be very "ard to cure. hese un%ounded $on$lusions $annot be e>uated *ith #ravit" or in$urabilit" that 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode re>uires. o be de$lared $lini$all" or medi$all" in$urable is one thin#6 to re%use or be relu$tant to $han#e is another. o har/ ba$/ to *hat *e earlier dis$ussed, ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" re%ers onl" to the most serious $ases o% personalit" disorders $learl" demonstrative o% an utter insensitivit" or inabilit" to #ive meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to the marria#e. he 3onstitution sets out a poli$" o% prote$tin# and stren#thenin# the %amil" as the basi$ so$ial institution, and marria#e is the %oundation o% the %amil". ,arria#e, as an inviolable institution prote$ted b" the (tate, $annot be dissolved at the *him o% the parties. In petitions %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e, the burden o% proo% to sho* the nullit" o% marria#e lies *ith the plainti%%. Fnless the eviden$e presented $learl" reveals a situation *here the parties, or one o% them, $ould not have validl" entered into a marria#e b" reason o% a #rave and serious ps"$holo#i$al illness existin# at the time it *as

212 $elebrated, *e are $ompelled to uphold the indissolubilit" o% the marital tie. 154) *c'osa vs. Ala"o G.R. No. 160459, 3a"!ar4 26, 2011 Facts= Jose met Cona in 0u#ust 19:1 *hen he *as a "oun# lieutenant in the 0AP *hile the latter *as a seventeen?"ear?old %irst "ear $olle#e drop?out. he" *ere married on 2: '$tober 19:1 be%ore the .onorable Jud#e 3esar (. Prin$ipe in Casilan. heir union produ$ed no o%%sprin#. In 19:H, ho*ever, the" %ound an abandoned and ne#le$ted one?"ear?old bab" #irl *hom the" later re#istered as their dau#hter, namin# her Ramona 3eleste 0lano '$hosa. (ometime in 19@5, Jose *as appointed as the Cattalion 3ommander o% the (e$urit" 7s$ort <roup. .e and Cona, alon# *ith Ramona, *ere #iven livin# >uarters at Aort Coni%a$io, ,a/ati 3it" *here the" resided *ith their militar" aides. In 19@:, Jose *as $har#ed *ith rebellion %or his alle#ed parti$ipation in the %ailed $oup d-etat. .e *as in$ar$erated in 3amp 3rame. 'n one o$$asion, Cona *as $au#ht b" Demetrio CaGet " +ita, a se$urit" aide, havin# sex *ith Jose-s driver, 3orporal <a#arin. Rumors o% Cona-s sexual in%idelit" $ir$ulated in the militar" $ommunit". When Jose $ould no lon#er bear these rumors, he #ot a militar" pass %rom his Gail *arden and $on%ronted Cona. Durin# their $on%rontation, Cona admitted her relationship *ith 3orporal <a#arin *ho also made a similar admission to Jose. Jose drove Cona a*a" %rom their livin# >uarters. Cona le%t *ith Ramona and *ent to Casilan. In 199), Ramona le%t Cona and $ame to live *ith Jose. It is Jose *ho is $urrentl" supportin# the needs o% Ramona. Jose %iled a Petition %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e, do$/eted as 3ivil 3ase 9o. 9:?2901 *ith the R 3 o% ,a/ati 3it", Cran$h 1)0, see/in# to nulli%" his marria#e to Cona on the #round o% the latter-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to %ul%ill the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. ss!e= Whether or not the alle#ed sexual in%idelit" o% Cona is a #round %or de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e base on ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5

213 R!li"#= We are su%%i$ientl" $onvin$ed, a%ter a $are%ul perusal o% the eviden$e presented in this $ase, that Cona had been, on several o$$asions *ith several other men, sexuall" dislo"al to her spouse, Jose. +i/e*ise, *e are persuaded that Cona had indeed abandoned Jose. .o*ever, *e $annot appl" the same $onvi$tion to Jose-s thesis that the totalit" o% Cona-s a$ts $onstituted ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as determined b" 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. here is inade>uate $redible eviden$e that her de%e$ts! *ere alread" present at the in$eption o%, or prior to, the marria#e. In other *ords, her alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" did not satis%" the Gurisprudential re>uisite o% Guridi$al ante$eden$e.! Cona-s alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", i.e., her sexual in%idelit" and abandonment, $an onl" be $onvin$in#l" tra$ed to the period o% time a%ter her marria#e to Jose and not to the in$eption o% the said marria#e. 155) (a.ac'o7Re4es vs. Re4es G.R. No. 1)52)6, A!#!st 1), 2010 Facts= Petitioner ,aria (o$orro 3ama$ho?Re"es met respondent Ramon Re"es at the Fniversit" o% the Philippines 8FP4, Diliman, in 19:2 *hen the" *ere both nineteen 8194 "ears old. he" *ere simpl" $lassmates then in one universit" subGe$t *hen respondent $ross?enrolled %rom the FP +os Ca;os $ampus. 7asil" impressed, petitioner enGo"ed respondent-s st"le o% $ourtship *hi$h in$luded dinin# out, unli/e other $ouples their a#e *ho *ere restri$ted b" a universit" student-s bud#et. 0t that time, respondent held a Gob in the %amil" business, the 0risto$rat Restaurant. Petitioner-s #ood impression o% the respondent *as not diminished b" the latter-s habit o% $uttin# $lasses, not even b" her dis$over" that respondent *as ta/in# mariGuana. 9ot surprisin#l", onl" petitioner %inished universit" studies, obtainin# a de#ree in 0C (o$iolo#" %rom the FP. C" 19:), respondent had dropped out o% s$hool on his third "ear, and Gust $ontinued to *or/ %or the 0risto$rat Restaurant. 'n De$ember 5, 19:H, the "ear %ollo*in# petitioner-s #raduation and her %ather-s death, petitioner and respondent #ot married. 0t that time, petitioner *as alread" %ive 854 months pre#nant and emplo"ed at the Population 3enter Aoundation. herea%ter, the ne*l"*eds lived

214 *ith the respondent-s %amil" in ,andalu"on# 3it". 0ll livin# expenses *ere shouldered b" respondent-s parents, and the $ouple-s respe$tive salaries *ere spent solel" %or their personal needs. Initiall", respondent #ave petitioner a monthl" allo*an$e o% P1,500.00 %rom his salar". In 19@9, due to %inan$ial reverses, respondent-s %ishpond business stopped operations. 0lthou#h *ithout an" means to support his %amil", respondent re%used to #o ba$/ to *or/ %or the %amil" business. Respondent $ame up *ith another business venture, en#a#in# in s$rap paper and $arton tradin#. 0s *ith all o% respondent-s business ventures, this did not su$$eed and added to the trail o% debt *hi$h no* hounded not onl" respondent, but petitioner as *ell. 9ot surprisin#l", the relationship o% the parties deteriorated. (ometime in 199H, petitioner $on%irmed that respondent *as havin# an extramarital a%%air. Petitioner %iled 8be%ore the R 34 a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e *ith the respondent, alle#in# the latter-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to %ul%ill the essential marital obli#ations under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e= Whether the marria#e bet*een the parties is void ab initio on the #round o% both parties- ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", as provided in 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= he 3ourt ruled that the" $annot subs$ribe to the appellate $ourt-s rulin# that the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% respondent *as not su%%i$ientl" established. he (3 disa#rees *ith its de$ision de$larin# the marria#e bet*een the parties as valid and subsistin#. 0$$ordin#l", the $ourt #ranted the petition. 156) $ori"# vs. $ori"# G.R. No. 165321, A!#!st 3, 2010 Facts= Ri$ardo *as introdu$ed to eresita in 19:@ at his aunt-s house in 3ebu. eresita *as then his $ousin-s tea$her in .a*aiian dan$e and *as $ondu$tin# lessons at his aunt-s house. Despite their sli#ht di%%eren$e in a#e 8o% %ive "ears4, the "oun#er Ri$ardo %ound the dan$e tea$her attra$tive and %ell in love *ith her. .e pursued eresita and the" be$ame s*eethearts a%ter three months o% $ourtship. he" eloped soon a%ter, hastened b" the bid

215 o% another #irl%riend, alread" pre#nant, to #et Ri$ardo to marr" her. Ri$ardo and eresita *ere married on (eptember ), 19:@ be%ore .on. Remi#io Eari o% the 3it" 3ourt o% Kue=on 3it". he" be#ot three $hildren: Ri$hardson, Ra$hel 0nne, and Ri$ Ja"son. 'n Aebruar" 1, 1999, more than t*ent" "ears a%ter their *eddin#, Ri$ardo %iled a petition %or annulment be%ore the R 3. .e $laimed that eresita *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e prior to, at the time o%, and subse>uent to the $elebration o% their marria#e. .e as/ed the $ourt to de$lare his marria#e to eresita null and void. ss!e= Whether or not the 30 erred %or disre#ardin# the %a$tual %indin#s o% the trial $ourt, parti$ularl" the expert testimon" o% Dr. 0lbaran, and submits that the trial $ourt & in de$larin# the nullit" o% the marria#e %ull" $omplied *ith ,olina5 R!li"#= Ri$ardo %ailed to dis$har#e the burden o% proo% to sho* that eresita su%%ered %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"6 thus, his petition %or annulment o% marria#e must %ail. Ri$ardo merel" established that eresita had been remiss in her duties as a *i%e %or bein# irresponsible in ta/in# $are o% their %amil"-s %inan$es & a %ault or de%i$ien$" that does not amount to the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" that 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode re>uires. We reiterate that irre$on$ilable di%%eren$es, sexual in%idelit" or perversion, emotional immaturit" and irresponsibilit", and the li/e, do not b" themselves *arrant a %indin# o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", as the same ma" onl" be due to a person-s di%%i$ult", re%usal or ne#le$t to underta/e the obli#ations o% marria#e that is not rooted in some ps"$holo#i$al illness that 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode addresses. 150) Li#eral%e vs. &atali"#'!# G.R. No. 16)096, April 15, 2010 Facts= (ilvino and ,a" #ot married on '$tober 1, 19@). he" *ere blessed *ith %our $hildren. (ilvino $laimed that, durin# their marria#e, he observed that ,a" had several mani%estations o% a ne#ative marital behavior. .e des$ribed her as immature, irresponsible and $are%ree. .er in%idelit", ne#li#en$e and

216 no$turnal a$tivities, he $laimed, $hara$teri=ed their marital relations. ,a" $on%essed that she had no more love %or him. he" then lived separatel". With ,a"-s irresponsible, immature and immoral behavior, (ilvino $ame to believe that she is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. R 3 de$lared the marria#e o% (ilvino and ,a" null and void. Its %indin#s *ere based on the Ps"$holo#i$al 7valuation Report o% Dr. ina 9i$dao?Casilio. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals reversed the R 3 de$ision. ss!e= Whether or not the assailed order o% the 30 is based on $onGe$ture and, there%ore, issued *ithout Gurisdi$tion, in ex$ess o% Gurisdi$tion andLor *ith #rave abuse o% dis$retion amountin# to la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion5 R!li"#= In this $ase at ben$h, the 3ourt %inds no $ommission o% a #rave abuse o% dis$retion in the rendition o% the assailed 30 de$ision dismissin# petitioner-s $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. Fpon $lose s$rutin" o% the re$ords, *e %ind nothin# *himsi$al, arbitrar" or $apri$ious in its %indin#s. 15)) 5!a/o vs. 5!a/o G.R. No. 164493, 2arc' 10, 2010 Facts= Jo$el"n and 0n#elito *ere 1H "ears old *hen the" %irst met in June 19@56 the" *ere residents o% +a#una at that time. 0%ter months o% $ourtship, Jo$el"n *ent to ,anila *ith 0n#elito and some %riends. .avin# been #one %or three da"s, their parents sou#ht Jo$el"n and 0n#elito and a%ter %indin# them, brou#ht them ba$/ to Ci;an, +a#una. (oon therea%ter, Jo$el"n and 0n#elito-s marria#e *as arran#ed and the" *ere married on ,ar$h 1, 19@H in a $eremon" o%%i$iated b" the ,a"or o% Ci;an. Without an" means to support themselves, Jo$el"n and 0n#elito lived *ith 0n#elito-s parents a%ter their marria#e. he" had b" this time stopped s$hoolin#. Jo$el"n too/ odd Gobs and *or/ed %or 0n#elito-s relatives as household help. 0n#elito, on the other hand, re%used to *or/ and *as most o% the time drun/. Jo$el"n ur#ed 0n#elito to %ind *or/ and violent >uarrels o%ten resulted

210 be$ause o% Jo$el"n-s e%%orts. Jo$el"n le%t 0n#elito sometime in Jul" 19@:. 0n#elito therea%ter %ound another *oman *ith *hom he has sin$e lived. he" no* have $hildren. en "ears a%ter their separation, or on '$tober @, 199:, Jo$el"n %iled *ith the R 3 a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, as amended. (he $laimed that 0n#elito *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. hus, the R 3 annulled their marria#e and 30 a%%irmed it. ss!e= Whether there is basis to nulli%" Jo$el"n-s marria#e *ith 0n#elito under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= he 3ourt ruled that the petition devoid o% merit. he 30 $ommitted no reversible error o% la* in settin# aside the R 3 de$ision, as no basis exists to de$lare Jo$el"n-s marria#e *ith 0n#elito a nullit" under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode and its related Gurispruden$e. 159) Aspilla#a vs. Aspilla#a G.R. No. 100925, *cto+er 26, 2009 Facts= Rodol%o 0spilla#a %iled a petition %or annulment o% marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% 0urora 0spilla#a. 0urora alle#ed upon her return to ,anila, she dis$overed that *hile she *as in Japan, Rodol%o brou#ht into their $onGu#al home her $ousin, +e$ita Rose 0. Cesina, as his $on$ubine. 0urora alle#ed that Rodol%o-s $ohabitation *ith her $ousin led to the disinte#ration o% their marria#e and their eventual separation. Durin# trial, expert *itness Dr. 7duardo ,aaba explained that both parties are ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. he R 3 %ound the parties ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to enter into marria#e. he 30 reversed the R 3 de$ision and de$lared the marria#e o% Rodol%o and 0urora 0spilla#a valid. Petitioner %iled a motion %or re$onsideration, but the motion *as also denied. ss!e= Whether or not the marria#e is void on the #round o% the parties- ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5

21)

R!li"#= 9o. 0s earl" as 1995, in (antos v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals 8<.R. 9o. 112019, Januar" ), 19954, it has been $ate#ori$all" ruled that: Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" re>uired b" 0rt. 1H must be $hara$teri=ed b" 8a4 #ravit", 8b4 Guridi$al ante$eden$e, and 8$4 in$urabilit". he in$apa$it" must be #rave or serious su$h that the part" *ould be in$apable o% $arr"in# out the ordinar" duties re>uired in marria#e6 it must be rooted in the histor" o% the part" antedatin# the marria#e, althou#h the overt mani%estations ma" emer#e onl" a%ter the marria#e6 and it must be in$urable or, even i% it *ere other*ise, the $ure *ould be be"ond the means o% the part" involved. In the instant $ase, Dr. ,aaba %ailed to reveal that the ps"$holo#i$al $onditions *ere #rave or serious enou#h to brin# about an in$apa$it" to assume the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. Indeed, Dr. ,aaba *as able to establish the partiespersonalit" disorder6 ho*ever, he %ailed to lin/ the partiesps"$holo#i$al disorders to his $on$lusion that the" are ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm their obli#ations as husband and *i%e. he %a$t that these ps"$holo#i$al $onditions *ill hamper their per%orman$e o% their marital obli#ations does not mean that the" su%%er %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as $ontemplated under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. ,ere di%%i$ult" is not s"non"mous to in$apa$it". It must be stressed that ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be more than Gust di%%i$ult",! re%usal! or ne#le$t! in the per%orman$e o% some marital obli#ations 8Republi$ v. 304. he intention o% the la* is to $on%ine the meanin# o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"! to the most serious $ases o% personalit" disorders $learl" demonstrative o% an utter insensitivit" or inabilit" to #ive meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to the marria#e 8 on#ol v. on#ol, <.R. 9o. 15:H10, '$tober 19, 200:4.Ps"$holo#i$al disorders do not mani%est that both parties are trul" in$apa$itated to per%orm the basi$ marital $ovenants. ,oreover, there is nothin# that sho*s in$urabilit" o% these disorders. In$ompatibilit" and irre$on$ilable di%%eren$es $annot be e>uated *ith ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as understood Guristi$all". 0s to Rodol%o-s alle#ation that 0urora *as a spendthri%t, the same *as li/e*ise *as %ailed to be proven. While disa#reements on mone" matters *ould, no doubt, a%%e$t the other aspe$ts o% one-s marria#e as to ma/e the *edlo$/ unsatis%a$tor", this is not a

219 #round to de$lare a marria#e null and void. In %a$t, the 3ourt ta/es Gudi$ial noti$e o% the %a$t that disa#reements re#ardin# mone" matters are a $ommon, and even normal, o$$urren$e bet*een husbands and *ives. 160) Alca/ar vs. Alca/ar G.R. No. 104451, *cto+er 13, 2009 Facts= Petitioner alle#ed in her 3omplaint that she *as married to respondent. 0%ter their *eddin#, petitioner and respondent lived %or %ive da"s in (an Jose, '$$idental ,indoro, and the hometo*n o% respondentNs parents. herea%ter, the ne*l"*eds *ent ba$/ to ,anila, but respondent did not live *ith petitioner at the latterNs abode at 2H01?3 Jose 0bad (antos 0venue, ondo, ,anila. 'n 21 '$tober 2000, respondent le%t %or Ri"adh, Jin#dom o% (audi 0rabia, *here he *or/ed as an upholsterer in a %urniture shop. While *or/in# in Ri"adh, respondent did not $ommuni$ate *ith petitioner b" phone or b" letter. Petitioner tried to $all respondent %or %ive times but respondent never ans*ered. 0bout a "ear and a hal% a%ter respondent le%t %or Ri"adh, a $o?tea$her in%ormed petitioner that respondent *as about to $ome home to the Philippines. Petitioner *as surprised *h" she *as not advised b" respondent o% his arrival. Petitioner %urther averred in her 3omplaint that *hen respondent arrived in the Philippines, the latter did not #o home to petitioner. Instead, respondent pro$eeded to his parentsN house in (an Jose, '$$idental ,indoro. Petitioner asserted that %rom the time respondent arrived in the Philippines, he never $onta$ted her. hus, petitioner $on$luded that respondent *as ph"si$all" in$apable o% $onsummatin# his marria#e *ith her, providin# su%%i$ient $ause %or annulment o% their marria#e pursuant to para#raph 5, 0rti$le )5 o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines 8Aamil" 3ode4. here *as also no more possibilit" o% re$on$iliation bet*een petitioner and respondent. he trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment den"in# petitioner-s $omplaint and %urther a%%irmed b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeal. ss!e= Whether or not respondent is in$apable o% $onsummatin# the marria#e and the marria#e shall be annulled5

220 R!li"#= 9o, no eviden$e *as presented in the $ase at bar to establish that respondent *as in an" *a" ph"si$all" in$apable to $onsummate his marria#e *ith petitioner. Petitioner even admitted durin# her $ross?examination that she and respondent had sexual inter$ourse a%ter their *eddin# and be%ore respondent le%t %or abroad. here obviousl" bein# no ph"si$al in$apa$it" on respondentNs part, then, there is no #round %or annullin# petitionerNs marria#e to respondent. PetitionerNs 3omplaint *as, there%ore, ri#ht%ull" dismissed. 161) Na8era vs. Na8era G.R. No. 164)10, 3!l4 3, 2009 Facts= 'n Januar" 2:, 199:, petitioner %iled *ith the R 3 a veri%ied Petition %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e *ith 0lternative Pra"er %or +e#al (eparation, *ith 0ppli$ation %or Desi#nation as 0dministrator Pendente +ite o% the 3onGu#al Partnership o% <ains. Petitioner alle#ed that she and respondent are residents o% Cu#allon, Pan#asinan, but respondent is presentl" livin# in the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a 8F.(.04. he" *ere married on Januar" 11, 19@@ b" Rev. Aather Isidro Palinar, Jr. at the (aint 0ndre* the 0postle 3hur$h at Cu#allon, Pan#asinan. he" are $hildless. Petitioner $laimed that at the time o% the $elebration o% marria#e, respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations o% the marria#e, and su$h in$apa$it" be$ame mani%est onl" a%ter marria#e ss!e= Whether or not the totalit" o% petitioners eviden$e *as able to prove that respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e *arrantin# the annulment o% their marria#e under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= In this $ase, the 3ourt a#rees *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals that the totalit" o% the eviden$e submitted b" petitioner %ailed to satis%a$toril" prove that respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. he root $ause o% respondent-s alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *as not su%%i$ientl" proven b" experts or sho*n to be medi$all" or $lini$all" permanent or in$urable. 0s %ound b" the

221 3ourt o% 0ppeals, Ps"$holo#ist 3ristina <ates $on$lusion that respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated *as based on %a$ts rela"ed to her b" petitioner and *as not based on her personal /no*led#e and evaluation o% respondent6 thus, her %indin# is uns$ienti%i$ and unreliable.

162) Lester 1e"8a.i" 5. @alili vs. ('o"a 2. 5a"tos @alili G.R. No. 165424, 3!"e 9, 2009 Facts= Petitioner +ester CenGamin (. .alili %iled a petition to de$lare his marria#e to respondent 3hona ,. (antos?.alili null and void on the basis o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to per%orm the essential obli#ations o% marria#e in the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34, Pasi# 3it", Cran$h 15@. .e alle#ed that he *ed respondent in $ivil rites thin/in# that it *as a Go/e.! 0%ter the $eremonies, the" never lived to#ether as husband and *i%e, but maintained the relationship. .o*ever, the" started %i#htin# $onstantl" a "ear later, at *hi$h point petitioner de$ided to stop seein# respondent and started datin# other *omen. Immediatel" therea%ter, he re$eived pran/ $alls tellin# him to stop datin# other *omen as he *as alread" a married man. It *as onl" upon ma/in# an in>uir" that he %ound out that the marria#e *as not %a/e.! 7ventuall", the R 3 %ound petitioner to be su%%erin# %rom a mixed personalit" disorder, parti$ularl" dependent and sel%? de%eatin# personalit" disorder, as dia#nosed b" his expert *itness, Dr. 9atividad Da"an. he $ourt a >uo held that petitioner-s personalit" disorder *as serious and in$urable and dire$tl" a%%e$ted his $apa$it" to $ompl" *ith his essential marital obli#ations to respondent. It thus de$lared the marria#e null and void. 'n appeal, the 30 reversed and set aside the de$ision o% the trial $ourt on the #round that the totalit" o% the eviden$e presented %ailed to establish petitioner-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Petitioner moved %or re$onsideration. It *as denied.

222 he $ase *as elevated to the (upreme 3ourt via a petition %or revie* under Rule )5. he 3ourt a%%irmed the 30-s de$ision and resolution upholdin# the validit" o% the marria#e. Petitioner then %iled this motion %or re$onsideration reiteratin# his ar#ument that his marria#e to respondent ou#ht to be de$lared null and void on the basis o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". .e stressed that the eviden$e he presented, espe$iall" the testimon" o% his expert *itness, *as more than enou#h to sustain the %indin#s and $on$lusions o% the trial $ourt that he *as and still is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apable o% $ompl"in# *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. he (upreme 3ourt #ranted the motion %or re$onsideration. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated5 R!li"#: In Dr. Da"an ps"$holo#i$al report, it stated that petitioner-s dependent personalit" disorder *as evident in the %a$t that petitioner *as ver" mu$h atta$hed to his parents and depended on them %or de$isions. Petitioner-s mother even had to be the one to tell him to see/ le#al help *hen he %elt $on%used on *hat a$tion to ta/e upon learnin# that his marria#e to respondent *as %or real. Dr. Da"an %urther observed that, as expe$ted o% persons su%%erin# %rom a dependent personalit" disorder, petitioner t"pi$all" a$ted in a sel%?deni#ratin# manner and displa"ed a sel%?de%eatin# attitude. his submissive attitude en$oura#ed other people to ta/e advanta#e o% him. his $ould be seen in the *a" petitioner allo*ed himsel% to be dominated, %irst, b" his %ather *ho treated his %amil" li/e robots and, later, b" respondent *ho *as as domineerin# as his %ather. When petitioner $ould no lon#er ta/e respondent-s domineerin# *a"s, he pre%erred to hide %rom her rather than $on%ront her and tell her outri#ht that he *anted to end their marria#e. Dr. Da"an tra$ed petitioner-s personalit" disorder to his d"s%un$tional %amil" li%e It has been su%%i$ientl" established that petitioner had a ps"$holo#i$al $ondition that *as #rave and in$urable and had a deepl" rooted $ause. his 3ourt, in the same e $ase, re$o#ni=ed that individuals *ith dia#nosable personalit" disorders usuall" have lon#?term $on$erns, and thus therap" ma" be lon#?term. Parti$ularl", personalit" disorders are lon#?standin#, in%lexible

223 *a"s o% behavin# that are not so mu$h severe mental disorders as d"s%un$tional st"les o% livin#. hese disorders a%%e$t all areas o% %un$tionin# and, be#innin# in $hildhood or adoles$en$e, $reate problems %or those *ho displa" them and %or others.! hus, it has been sho*n that petitioner is indeed su%%erin# %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" that e%%e$tivel" renders him unable to per%orm the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. 0$$ordin#l", the marria#e bet*een petitioner and respondent is de$lared null and void. 163) Rosa 9ap &aras vs. 3!sto 3. &aras G.R. No. 140)24, A!#!st 2, 2000 Facts: 'n ,a" 21, 19H), petitioner Rosa Map married respondent Justo J. Paras in Cindo", 9e#ros 'riental. he" be#ot ) $hildren, namel": Raoul, 3ind" Rose, Dahlia, and Reuel. 29 "ears therea%ter, Rosa %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34, Cran$h 11, Duma#uete 3it", a $omplaint %or annulment o% her marria#e *ith Justo, under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. (he alle#ed that Justo is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to exer$ise the essential obli#ations o% marria#e as sho*n b" the %ollo*in# $ir$umstan$es: 8a4 he dissipated her business assets and %or#ed her si#nature in one mort#a#e transa$tion6 8b4 he lived *ith a $on$ubine and sired a $hild *ith her6 8$4 he did not #ive %inan$ial support to his $hildren6 and 8d4 he has been remiss in his duties both as a husband and as a %ather. o substantiate her $har#es, Rosa o%%ered do$umentar" and testimonial eviden$e.(he met Justo in 19H1 in Cindo". (he *as then a student o% (an 3arlos Fniversit", 3ebu 3it". .e $ourted her, %re>uentl" spendin# time at her ICoti$a.I 7ventuall", in 19H), $onvin$ed that he loved her, she a#reed to marr" him. 0%ter the *eddin#, she and Justo spent 1 *ee/ in Davao %or their hone"moon. Fpon returnin# to Cindo", the" resided at her parents- house. It *as their residen$e %or 1 "ears until the" *ere able to build a house o% their o*n. Aor the %irst 5 "ears o% their marria#e, Justo did not support her and their $hildren be$ause he shouldered his sister-s s$hoolin#. 3onse>uentl", she *as the one *ho spent %or all their %amil" needs, usin# the in$ome %rom her

224 ICoti$aI and store. Justo lived the li%e o% a ba$helor. .is usual routine *as to spend time *ith his Ibar/adasI until the *ee hours o% the mornin#. '%tentimes, he *ould s$old her *hen she sent %or him durin# lun$htime. .e also %ailed to provide %or their $hildren-s *ell?bein#. (ometime in 19:5, their dau#hter 3ind" Rose *as a%%li$ted *ith leu/emia. It *as her %amil" *ho paid %or her medi$ation. 0lso, in 19@), their son Raoul *as ele$tro$uted *hile Justo *as in their rest house *ith his Ibar/adas.I .e did not heed her earlier advi$e to brin# Raoul in the rest house as the latter has the habit o% $limbin# the roo%top. o $ope *ith the death o% the $hildren, the entire %amil" *ent to the Fnited (tates. .er sisters supported them throu#hout their 2 "ear sta" there. 0a%ter 1 months, Justo abandoned them and le%t %or the Philippines. Fpon her return to the Philippines, she *as sho$/ed to %ind her ICoti$aI and other businesses heav" in debt. (he then reali=ed Justo *as a pro%li#ate. 0t one time, he disposed *ithout her $onsent a $onGu#al pie$e o% land. 0t other times, he permitted the muni$ipal #overnment to ta/e #asoline %rom their #as station %ree o% $har#e. (he endured all o% Justo-s short$omin#s, but his a$t o% maintainin# a mistress and sirin# an ille#itimate $hild *as the last stra* that prompted her to %ile the present $ase. (he %ound that a%ter leavin# their $onGu#al house in 19@@, Justo lived *ith Jo$el"n 3hin#. heir $ohabitation resulted in the birth o% a bab" #irl, 3"ndee Rose, obviousl" named a%ter Rosa and JustoVs de$eased dau#hter 3ind" Rose Paras. Justo has a di%%erent version o% the stor". .e met Rosa in Cindo" a%ter ta/in# the bar examinations in ,anila. .e %re>uentl" spent time in her store. Celievin# he loved her, he $ourted her and later on, the" be$ame s*eethearts. In 19H1, the" de$ided to #et married. .o*ever, it *as postponed be$ause her %amil" demanded a do*r". heir marria#e too/ pla$e in 19H) upon his mother-s si#nin# a deed o% $onve"an$e involvin# 2@ he$tares o% $o$onut land in %avor o% Rosa. .e blamed the subse>uent dissipation o% their assets %rom the slump o% the pri$e o% su#ar and not to his alle#ed pro%li#a$". Due to his business ventures, he and Rosa *ere able to a$>uire a 10?room %amil" house, expand their store, establish their #asoline station, and pur$hase several properties. .e also denied %or#in# her si#nature in one mort#a#e

225 transa$tion. .e maintained that he did not dispose o% a $onGu#al propert" and that he and Rosa personall" si#ned the rene*al o% a su#ar $rop loan be%ore the ban/-s authori=ed emplo"ee. 0s to their marital relationship, he noti$ed the $han#e in Rosa-s attitude a%ter her return %rom the Fnited (tates. (he be$ame deta$hed, $old, un$arin#, and overl" %o$used on the %amil"-s businesses. .e tried to rea$h her but Rosa *as stead%ast in her Ine* attitudinal outloo/.I Ce%ore other people, he merel" pretended that their relationship *as bliss%ul. .e did not abandon his %amil" in the Fnited (tates. It happened that the" onl" had tourist visas. When the" *ere there, their $hildren-s tourist visas *ere $onverted into stud" visas, permittin# them to sta" lon#er. Aor his part, he *as #ranted onl" 1 months leave as muni$ipal ma"or o% Cindo", thus, he immediatel" returned to the Philippines. .e spent %or his $hildren-s edu$ation. 0t %irst, he resented supportin# them be$ause he *as Gust startin# his la* pra$ti$e and besides, their $onGu#al assets *ere more than enou#h to provide %or their needs. .e admitted thou#h that there *ere times he %ailed to #ive them %inan$ial support be$ause o% his la$/ o% in$ome. What $aused the inevitable %amil" brea/?out *as Rosa-s a$t o% embarrassin# him durin# his birthda" $elebration in 19@:. (he did not prepare %ood %or the #uests. (he retorted that she has nothin# to do *ith his birthda". his $onvin$ed him o% her la$/ o% $on$ern. his *as %urther a##ravated *hen she denied his re>uest %or en#ine oil *hen his vehi$le bro/e do*n in a mountainous and 9P0?in%ested area. .e also alle#ed that Jo$el"n 3hin# is not his mistress, but her se$retar" in his +a* '%%i$e. (he *as impre#nated b" her bo"%riend, a $ertain <relle +e$$ioness. 3"ndee Rose 3hin# +e$$ioness is not his dau#hter. 0%ter trial the R 3 rendered a De$ision upholdin# the validit" o% the marria#e. It %ound that: 8a4 Justo did not abandon the $onGu#al home as he *as %or$ed to leave a%ter Rosa posted #uards at the #ates o% their house68b4 the $onGu#al assets *ere su%%i$ient to support the %amil" needs, thus, there *as no need %or Justo to shell out his limited salar"6 and 8$4 the $har#e o% in%idelit" is unsubstantiated. he R 3 observed that the relationship bet*een the parties started *ell, ne#atin# the existen$e o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on either part" at the time o% the

226 $elebration o% their marria#e. 0nd lastl", it ruled that there appeared to be a $ollusion bet*een them as both sou#ht the de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e. Justo interposed an appeal to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. Rosa also %iled *ith the (upreme 3ourt a petition %or disbarment a#ainst Justo, premised on the same $har#es alle#ed in her $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. (ubse>uentl" the (upreme 3ourt rendered its De$ision %indin# him #uilt" o% %alsi%"in# Rosa-s si#nature in ban/ do$uments, immoralit", and abandonment o% his %amil". .e *as suspended %rom the pra$ti$e o% la*. 0%ter the (upreme 3ourt promul#ated the De$ision, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed the R 3 De$ision in the present $ase, holdin# that Ithe eviden$e o% the Rosa %alls short o% the standards re>uired b" la* to de$ree a nullit" o% marria#e.I It ruled that Justo-s alle#ed de%e$ts or idios"n$ra$ies I*ere su%%i$ientl" explained b" the eviden$e,I Rosa %iled a motion %or re$onsideration but it *as denied. .en$e, the instant petition %or revie* on $ertiorari. ss!e: Whether or not the eviden$e in ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% Justo5 the $ase sho*s

R!li"#: he %ore#oin# <uidelines in$orporate the basi$ re>uirements mandated b" the 3ourt in (antos to reiterate: ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b" 8a4 #ravit"6 8b4 Guridi$al ante$eden$e6 and 8$4 in$urabilit". he 3ourt is $onvin$ed that the $har#es a#ainst Justo su$h as sexual in%idelit", %alsi%i$ation o% her si#nature, abandonment and inade>uate support o% $hildren, are true, nonetheless, there is nothin# in the re$ords sho*in# that the" *ere $aused b" a ps"$holo#i$al disorder on his part. In other *ords, the totalit" o% the eviden$e is not su%%i$ient to sho* that Justo is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations. he re$ords indi$ate that the marria#e bet*een the parties had a #ood start, resultin# in the birth o% their ) $hildren. he earl" da"s o% their $ohabitation *ere bliss%ul and harmonious. Justo *as deepl" in love *ith Rosa, even persuadin# his mother to #ive her a do*r". he" *ere able to build a 10?room %amil" home and a$>uire several properties, thus, provin# themselves to be responsible $ouple. 7ven Rosa admitted that Justo too/ $are o% their $hildren *hen the" *ere "oun#. Fn%ortunatel", the passa#e o% time

220 appeared to have ta/en its toll on their relationship. he a$ts $ommitted b" Justo appeared to have been the result o% irre$on$ilable di%%eren$es bet*een them $aused b" the death o% their 2 $hildren and %inan$ial di%%i$ulties due to his %ailure to *in the ma"oralt" ele$tion and to sustain his la* pra$ti$e. he superior business a$umen o% Rosa, as *ell as the insolent attitude o% her %amil" to*ards Justo, busted his e#o and lo*ered his sel%? esteem. here is no eviden$e that Justo-s Ide%e$tsI *ere present at the in$eption o% the marria#e. .is Ide%e$tsI sur%a$ed onl" in the latter "ears *hen these events too/ pla$e6 their t*o $hildren died6 he lost in the ele$tion6 he %ailed in his business ventures and la* pra$ti$e6 and %elt the disdain o% his *i%e and her %amil". (urel", these $ir$umstan$es explain *h" Rosa %iled the present $ase onl" a%ter almost 10 "ears o% their marria#e. 7>uall" important is that re$ords %ail to indi$ate that Justo-s Ide%e$tsI are in$urable or #rave.

164) 1er"ar%i"o 5. Ja.ora vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 141910, Fe+r!ar4 0, 2000 Facts: Petitioner Cernardino Eamora and private respondent 9orma ,er$ado Eamora *ere married on June ), 19:0 in 3ebu 3it". 0%ter their marria#e, the" lived to#ether at <orordo 0venue, 3ebu 3it". he union did not produ$e an" $hild. In 19:2, private respondent le%t %or the Fnited (tates to *or/ as a nurse. (he returned to the Philippines %or a %e* months, then le%t a#ain in 19:). (he made periodi$ visits to 3ebu 3it" until 19@9, *hen she *as alread" a F.(. $iti=en. Petitioner %iled a $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e an$hored on the alle#ed Ips"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"I o% private respondent, as provided %or under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. o support his position, he alle#ed that his *i%e *as Ihorri%iedI b" the mere thou#ht o% havin# $hildren as eviden$ed b" the %a$t that she had not borne petitioner a $hild. .e also alle#ed that private respondent abandoned him b" livin# in the Fnited (tates and had in %a$t be$ome an 0meri$an $iti=en6 and that throu#hout their marria#e the" lived to#ether %or not more than three "ears.

22) 9orma denied that she re%used to have a $hild. (he portra"ed hersel% as one *ho loves $hildren as she is a nurse and that she *ould borro* her husband-s nie$e and nephe*s to $are %or them. (he %aulted her husband %or the brea/up o% their marria#e, alle#in# that he had been un%aith%ul to her. .e alle#edl" had t*o a%%airs *ith di%%erent *omen, and he be#ot at least three $hildren *ith them. he trial $ourt rendered its de$ision that Cernardino $onsented to 9orma-s trip to the Fnited (tates. (he *anted to earn mone" there be$ause she *anted to help her husband build a bi# house at the Ceverl" .ills, 3ebu 3it". De%endant-s testimon" *as $orroborated b" Paulina ,artine=, a %ormer househelp o% the Eamoras. (he al*a"s *anted to live in the Philippines be%ore her husband $ommitted in%idelit". 'ne reason *h" de%endant seldom sa* her husband *hile she *as in the Philippines *as be$ause o% the in%idelit" $ommitted b" her husband. 9o less than plainti%% himsel% admitted that he has a $hild *ith someone. he $ourt is also $onvin$ed that he has t*o other $hildren. he in%idelit" on the part o% the Cernardino *as one o% the $ontributin# %a$tors *hi$h led to the estran#ed relationship bet*een him and 9orma. 9othin# in the eviden$e o% plainti%% sho*s that the 9orma su%%ered %rom an" ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" or that she %ailed to $ompl" *ith her essential marital obli#ations. 9either has it been sho*n that there *as an in$urable de%e$t on the part o% de%endant. he R 3 dismissed the $omplaint and petitioner appealed to the 30 *hi$h a%%irmed the rulin# o% the trial $ourt. .en$e this petition ss!e: Whether or not there $an be a de$laration o% nullit" o% the marria#e bet*een petitioner and private respondent on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that it is true that the $ase o% (antos v. 30 did not spe$i%i$all" mention that the presentation o% expert opinion is a vital and mandator" re>uirement in %ilin# a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e #rounded on ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" re%erred to under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. 7ven in the ,olina $ase, *herein the 3ourt laid do*n the #uidelines in the interpretation and appli$ation o% the a%orementioned arti$le, examination o% the person b" a ph"si$ian

229 in order %or the %ormer to be de$lared ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated *as li/e*ise not $onsidered a re>uirement. What is important, ho*ever, as stated in ,ar$os v. ,ar$os, is the presen$e o% eviden$e that $an ade>uatel" establish the part"-s ps"$holo#i$al $ondition. I% the totalit" o% eviden$e presented is enou#h to sustain a %indin# o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", then a$tual medi$al examination o% the person $on$erned need not be resorted to. In (e$tion 28d4 o% 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10?(3 or the Rule on De$laration o% 0bsolute 9ullit" o% Boid ,arria#es and 0nnulment o% Boidable ,arria#es, the $omplete %a$ts should alle#e the ph"si$al mani%estations, i% an", as are indi$ative o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e but expert opinion need not be alle#ed. he rule is that the %a$ts alle#ed in the petition and the eviden$e presented, $onsidered in totalit", should be su%%i$ient to $onvin$e the $ourt o% the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the part" $on$erned. Petitioner %ailed to substantiate his alle#ation that private respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. .is alle#ations relatin# to her re%usal to $ohabit *ith him and to bear a $hild *as stron#l" disputed, as the re$ords undeniabl" bear out. 0lso, he a$ts and behavior o% private respondent that petitioner $ited o$$urred durin# the marria#e, and there is no proo% that the %ormer exhibited a similar predile$tion even be%ore or at the in$eption o% the marria#e. Petition is denied.

165) 2a. Ar.i%a &ere/7Ferraris vs. 1ri; Ferraris G.R. No. 16236), 3!l4 10, 2006 Facts: Petitioner ,a. 0rmida Pere=?Aerraris and respondent Crix Arerraris relationship be%ore the marria#e and even durin# their brie% union %or about a "ear, *as not all bad. Durin# that short period o% time, petitioner *as happ" and $ontented *ith her li%e in the $ompan" o% respondent. Petitioner also re$/oned that respondent *as a responsible and lovin# husband. heir problems be#an *hen petitioner started doubtin# respondentNs %idelit". It *as onl" *hen the" started %i#htin# about the $alls %rom *omen

230 that respondent be#an to *ithdra* into his shell and $orner, and %ailed to per%orm his so?$alled marital obli#ations. Respondent $ould not understand petitionerNs la$/ o% trust in him and her $onstant na##in#s. .e thou#ht her suspi$ions are irrational. Respondent $ould not relate to her an#er, temper and Gealous". he petitioner then %iled in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Pasi# 3it" %or de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e *hi$h *as subse>uentl" denied. he trial $ourt noted that su%%erin# %rom epileps" does not amount to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" under 0rti$le 1H o% the 3ivil 3ode and the eviden$e on re$ord *ere insu%%i$ient to prove in%idelit". PetitionerNs motion %or re$onsideration *as eventuall" denied. Petitioner appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *hi$h a%%irmed the Gud#ment o% the trial $ourt. It held that the eviden$e on re$ord did not $onvin$in#l" establish that respondent *as su%%erin# %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" or that his Ide%e$tsI *ere in$urable and alread" present at the in$eption o% the marria#e. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals also %ound that Dr. Da"anNs testimon" %ailed to establish the substan$e o% respondentNs ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"6 she %ailed to explain ho* she arrived at the $on$lusion that the respondent has a mixed personalit" disorder $alled Is$hi=oid,I and *h" he is the dependent and avoidant t"pe6 that she %ailed to $learl" demonstrate that there *as a natal or supervenin# disablin# %a$tor or an adverse inte#ral element in respondentNs $hara$ter that e%%e$tivel" in$apa$itated him %rom a$$eptin# and $ompl"in# *ith the essential marital obli#ations. PetitionerNs motion %or re$onsideration *as denied %or la$/ o% merit. (he then %iled a petition %or revie* on $ertiorari *ith the (upreme 3ourt *hi$h *as also denied.. Petitioner then %iled the instant motion %or re$onsideration. he 3ourt re>uired respondent Crix Aerraris to %ile $omment but %ailed to $ompl"6 thus, he is deemed to have *aived the opportunit" to %ile $omment. Aurther, the 3ourt dire$ted the '%%i$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral 8'(<4 to $omment on petitionerNs motion %or re$onsideration. 0%ter $onsiderin# the ar#uments o% both the petitioner and the '(<, the 3ourt denied petitionerNs motion %or re$onsideration. ss!e: Whether or not ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" exists5

231 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt upheld the de$ision o% the lo*er $ourts. he alle#ed mixed personalit" disorder, the leavin#?the? house! attitude *henever the" >uarreled, the violent tenden$ies durin# epilepti$ atta$/s, the sexual in%idelit", the abandonment and la$/ o% support, and his pre%eren$e to spend more time *ith his band mates than his %amil", are not rooted on some debilitatin# ps"$holo#i$al $ondition but a mere re%usal or un*illin#ness to assume the essential obli#ations o% marria#e and these do not $onstitute Ps"$holo#i$al In$apa$it". Aurther, the expert *as not able to prove her %indin#s. 9otabl", *hen as/ed as to the root $ause o% respondent-s alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", Dr. Da"an-s ans*er *as va#ue, evasive and in$on$lusive. (he replied that su$h disorder $an be part o% his %amil" upbrin#in#! (he stated that there *as a histor" o% Crix-s parents havin# di%%i$ulties in their relationship. this is o% $ourse in$on$lusive %or su$h has no dire$t bearin# to the $ase at bar.

166) Leo"ilo A"to"io vs. 2arie vo""e F. Re4es G.R. No. 155)00, 2arc' 10, 2006 Facts: Petitioner +eonilo 0ntonio, 2H "ears o% a#e and respondent ,arie Ivonne Re"es, 1H "ears o% a#e *hen the" met in 19@9. Carel" a "ear a%ter their %irst meetin#, the" #ot married be%ore a minister o% the <ospel at the ,anila 3it" .all, and throu#h a subse>uent $hur$h *eddin# at the (ta. Rosa de +ima Parish, Ca#on# Ilo#, Pasi#, ,etro ,anila on H De$ember 1990. 'ut o% their union, a $hild *as born on *ho died %ive months later. Petitioner %iled a petition to have his marria#e to respondent de$lared null and void. .e an$hored his petition alle#in# that respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. .e asserted that respondent-s in$apa$it" existed at the time their marria#e *as $elebrated and still subsists up to the present. Petitioner $laimed that respondent persistentl" lied about hersel%, the people around her, her o$$upation, in$ome, edu$ational attainment and other events or thin#s. (he even $on$ealed the %a$t that she previousl" #ave birth to an ille#itimate son, and instead introdu$ed the bo" to

232 petitioner as the adopted $hild o% her %amil". (he onl" $on%essed the truth about the bo"-s parenta#e *hen petitioner learned about it %rom other sour$es a%ter their marria#e. In support o% his petition, petitioner presented Dr. 0b$ede, a ps"$hiatrist, and Dr. +ope=, a $lini$al ps"$holo#ist, *ho stated, based on the tests the" $ondu$ted, that petitioner *as essentiall" a normal, introspe$tive, sh" and $onservative t"pe o% person. 'n the other hand, the" observed that respondent-s persistent and $onstant l"in# to petitioner *as abnormal or patholo#i$al. It undermined the basi$ relationship that should be based on love, trust and respe$t. he" %urther asserted that respondent-s extreme Gealous" *as also patholo#i$al. rea$hed the point o% paranoia sin$e there *as no a$tual basis %or her to suspe$t that petitioner *as havin# an a%%air *ith another *oman. he" $on$luded based on the %ore#oin# that respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm her essential marital obli#ations. In opposin# the petition, respondent $laimed that she per%ormed her marital obli#ations b" attendin# to all the needs o% her husband. (he asserted that there *as no truth to the alle#ation that she %abri$ated stories, told lies and invented personalities. (he presented her version and she onl" $on$ealed her $hild be$ause she *as a%raid o% losin# her husband. In addition, respondent presented Dr. Re"es, a ps"$hiatrist, to re%ute the alle#ations o% her ps"$holo#i$al $ondition. Dr. Re"es testi%ied that respondent *as not ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm the essential marital obli#ations. .e postulated that re#ressive behavior, #ross neuroti$ism, ps"$hoti$ tenden$ies, and poor $ontrol o% impulses, *hi$h are si#ns that mi#ht point to the presen$e o% disablin# trends, *ere not eli$ited %rom respondent. In rebuttal, Dr. +ope= asseverated that there *ere %la*s in the evaluation $ondu$ted b" Dr. Re"es as he *as not the one *ho administered and interpreted respondent-s ps"$holo#i$al evaluation, and he made use o% onl" one instrument $alled 3PR( *hi$h *as not reliable be$ause a #ood liar $an %a/e the results o% su$h test.

233 0%ter trial, the lo*er $ourt #ave $reden$e to petitioner-s eviden$e and held that respondent-s propensit" to l"in# about almost an"thin#]her o$$upation, state o% health, sin#in# abilities and her in$ome, amon# others]had been dul" established. 0$$ordin# to the trial $ourt, respondent-s %antasti$ abilit" to invent and %abri$ate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a *orld o% ma/e?believe. his made her ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated as it rendered her in$apable o% #ivin# meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to her marria#e. he trial $ourt thus de$lared the marria#e bet*een petitioner and respondent null and void. (ubse>uentl"re the ,etropolitan ribunal o% the 0r$hdio$ese o% ,anila annulled the 3atholi$ marria#e on the #round o% la$/ o% due dis$retion on the part o% the parties. Durin# the penden$" o% the appeal be%ore the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, the ,etropolitan ribunal-s rulin# *as a%%irmed *ith modi%i$ation b" both the 9ational 0ppellate ,atrimonial ribunal, *hi$h held instead that onl" respondent *as impaired b" a la$/ o% due dis$retion. (ubse>uentl", the de$ision o% the 9ational 0ppellate ,atrimonial ribunal *as upheld b" the Roman Rota o% the Bati$an. Petitioner dul" alerted the 3ourt o% 0ppeals o% these rulin#s b" the 3atholi$ tribunals. (till, the appellate $ourt reversed the R 3-s Gud#ment. While $on$edin# that respondent ma" not have been $ompletel" honest *ith petitioner, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals nevertheless held that the totalit" o% the eviden$e presented *as insu%%i$ient to establish respondent-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". It de$lared that the re>uirements in the $ase o% Republi$ v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals #overnin# the appli$ation and interpretation o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" had not been satis%ied. .en$e, this petition. ss!e: Whether or not 0ntonio $an impose ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as basis %or de$larin# the marria#e null and void5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held in the a%%irmative. Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" pertains to the inabilit" to understand the obli#ations o% marria#e as opposed to a mere inabilit" to $ompl" *ith them. o the mind o% the 3ourt, all o% the above are indi$ations that respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. It has been sho*n $learl" %rom

234 her a$tuations that respondent has that propensit" %or tellin# lies about almost an"thin#, be it her o$$upation, her state o% health, her sin#in# abilities, her in$ome, et$. (he has this %antasti$ abilit" to invent and %abri$ate stories and personalities. (he pra$ti$all" lived in a *orld o% ma/e believe ma/in# her there%ore not in a position to #ive meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to her marria#e to petitioner. In persistentl" and $onstantl" l"in# to petitioner, respondent undermined the basi$ tenets o% relationship bet*een spouses that is based on love, trust and respe$t. 0s $on$luded b" the ps"$hiatrist presented b" petitioner, su$h repeated l"in# is abnormal and patholo#i$al and amounts to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he root $auses o% Re"es- ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" have been medi$all" or $lini$all" identi%ied that *as su%%i$ientl" proven b" experts. he #ravit" o% respondent-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *as $onsidered so #rave that a restri$tive $lause *as appended to the senten$e o% nullit" prohibited b" the 9ational 0ppellate ,atrimonial ribunal %rom $ontra$tin# marria#e *ithout their $onsent. It *ould be di%%i$ult %or an inveterate patholo#i$al liar to $ommit the basi$ tenets o% relationship bet*een spouses based on love, trust and respe$t. Aurthermore, respondent Re"es- $ase is in$urable $onsiderin# that petitioner tried to re$on$ile *ith her but her behavior remain un$han#ed.

160) 3!a"ita (arati"#75ia4"#co vs. 2a"!el 5ia4"#co G.R. No. 15))96, *cto+er 20, 2004 Facts: Petitioner Juanita 3aratin#?(ia"n#$o and respondent ,anuel *ere married at $ivil rites and be%ore the 3atholi$ 3hur$h. 0%ter dis$overin# that the" $ould not have a $hild o% their o*n, the $ouple de$ided to adopt a bab" bo" in 19::, *ho the" named Jerem". 0%ter 2) "ears o% their marria#e, respondent ,anuel %iled %or the de$laration o% its nullit" on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% petitioner Juanita. .e alle#ed that all throu#hout their marria#e, his *i%e exhibited an over domineerin# and sel%ish attitude to*ards him *hi$h *as exa$erbated b" her extremel" volatile and belli$ose nature6 that she in$essantl" $omplained about almost ever"thin#

235 and an"one $onne$ted *ith him li/e his elderl" parents, the sta%% in his o%%i$e and an"thin# not o% her li/in# and *ith other trivial matters6 that she sho*ed no respe$t or re#ard at all %or the presti#e and hi#h position o% his o%%i$e as Gud#e o% the ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt6 that she *ould "ell and s$ream at him and thro* obGe$ts around the house *ithin the hearin# o% their nei#hbors6 and that she $ared even less about his pro%essional advan$ement as she did not even #ive him moral support and en$oura#ement. ,anuel also alle#ed that Juanita-s ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" arose be%ore marria#e, rooted in her deep?seated resentment and vindi$tiveness %or *hat she per$eived as la$/ o% love and appre$iation %rom her o*n parents sin$e $hildhood and that su$h in$apa$it" is permanent and in$urable and, even i% treatment $ould be attempted, it *ill involve time and expense be"ond the emotional and ph"si$al $apa$it" o% the parties6 and that he endured and su%%ered throu#h his turbulent and loveless marria#e to her %or 22 "ears. In petitioner-s 0ns*er, she alle#ed that respondent ,anuel is still livin# *ith her at their $onGu#al home in ,alolos, Cula$an6 that he invented mali$ious stories a#ainst her so that he $ould be %ree to marr" his paramour6 that she is a lovin# *i%e and mother6 that it *as respondent ,anuel *ho *as remiss in his marital and %amil" obli#ations6 that she supported respondent ,anuel in all his endeavors despite his philanderin#6 that she *as raised in a real happ" %amil" and had a happ" $hildhood $ontrar" to *hat *as stated in the $omplaint. (ubse>uentl" he Aamil" 3ourt denied ,anuel-s petition o% de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e to Juanita. 'n appeal, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals reversed the lo*er $ourt-s de$ision and #ranted ,anuel-s petition. .en$e this petition. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith marital obli#ations5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that respondent ,anuel %ailed to prove that his *i%e-s la$/ o% respe$t %or him, her Gealousies and obsession *ith $leanliness, her outbursts and her $ontrollin# nature 8espe$iall" *ith respe$t to his salar"4, and her inabilit" to endear hersel% to his parents are #rave ps"$holo#i$al maladies

236 that paral"=e her %rom $ompl"in# *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. 9either is there an" sho*in# that these Ide%e$tsI *ere alread" present at the in$eption o% the marria#e or that the" are in$urable. In %a$t, Dr. ,aaba, *hose expertise as a ps"$hiatrist *as admitted b" respondent ,anuel, reported that petitioner *as ps"$holo#i$all" $apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the basi$ and essential obli#ations o% marria#e. he ps"$holo#i$al report o% respondent ,anuel-s *itness, Dr. <ar$ia, on the other hand, also does not help his $ase. 9othin# supports the do$tor-s $on$lusion that petitioner Juanita is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. 'n the $ontrar", the report $learl" sho*s that the root $ause o% petitioner Juanita-s behavior is tra$eable not %rom the in$eption o% their marria#e as re>uired b" la* but %rom her experien$es durin# the marria#e li/e her in?la*s disapproval o% her as the" *anted their son to enter the priesthood, her husband-s philanderin# and her inabilit" to $on$eive. Dr. <ar$ia-s report paints a stor" o% a husband and *i%e *ho #re* pro%essionall" durin# the marria#e, *ho pursued their individual dreams to the hilt, be$omin# busier and busier, ultimatel" sa$ri%i$in# intima$" and to#etherness as a $ouple. his *as $on%irmed b" respondent ,anuel himsel% durin# his dire$t examination. hus, %rom the totalit" o% the eviden$e addu$ed b" both parties, the 3ourt allo*ed a *indo* into the (ia"n#$os-s li%e and has per$eived there%rom a simple $ase o% a married $ouple dri%tin# apart, be$omin# stran#ers to ea$h other, *ith the husband $onse>uentl" %allin# out o% love and *antin# a *a" out.0n unsatis%a$tor" marria#e, ho*ever, is not a null and void marria#e. ,ere sho*in# o% Iirre$on$ilable di%%eren$esI and I$on%li$tin# personalitiesI in no *ise $onstitutes ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as stated in ,ar$os v. ,ar$os.

16)) <illalo" vs. <illalo" G.R. No. 160206, Nove.+er 1), 2005 Facts: Petitioner Jaime A. Billalon %iled a petition %or the annulment o% his marria#e to respondent ,a. 3ora=on 9. Billalon

230 be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Pasi# 3it", on the #round o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". 0$$ordin# to petitioner, the mani%estations o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *erehis $hroni$ re%usal to maintain harmonious %amil" relations and his la$/ o% interest in havin# a normal married li%e6 his immaturit" and irresponsibilit" in re%usin# to a$$ept the essential obli#ations o% marria#e as husband to his *i%e6 his desire %or other *omen and a li%e un$hained %rom an" spousal obli#ation6 and his %alse assumption o% the %undamental obli#ations o% $ompanionship and $onsortium to*ards respondent. Respondent %iled an ans*er den"in# petitioner-s alle#ations. (he asserted that her 1@?"ear marria#e to petitioner has been %ruit%ul and $hara$teri=ed b" Go", $ontentment and hopes %or more #ro*th in their relationship! and that their marital s>uabbles *ere normal based on $ommunit" standards. Petitioner-s su$$ess in his pro%essional li%e aided him in per%ormin# his role as husband, %ather, and provider. he trial $ourt then dire$ted the prose$utor to $ondu$t an investi#ation on *hether there *as $ollusion bet*een the parties. he report submitted stated that there *as no su$h $ollusion. he '%%i$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral 8'(<4 subse>uentl" entered its appearan$e in behal% o% the Republi$ o% the Philippines and submitted an opposition to the petition. 'n trial, Petitioner testi%ied that he met respondent sometime in the earl" seventies *hen he applied %or a Gob at ,etroban/, *here respondent *as emplo"ed as a %orei#n ex$han#e trader. he" be#an datin# in 19:5 and a%ter #oin# stead" %or about 2 "ears the parties *ere married at the (an Pan$ra$io 3hapel in Pa$o, ,anila. In the middle o% 1991, petitioner de$ided to separate %rom respondent. 0$$ordin# to him there *as no lon#er an" $ommuni$ation bet*een them and their relationship be$ame devoid o% love, a%%e$tion, support and respe$t due to his $onstant ur#e to see other *omen. ,oreover, their relationship tended to be one?sided! sin$e respondent *as unresponsive and hardl" ever sho*ed her love, needs, *ants and emotions.Petitioner also admitted that on $ertain o$$asions be%ore his marria#e, he had

23) t*o #irl%riends at the same time. .e also sa* other *omen even *hen he be$ame en#a#ed and married to respondent. Respondent learned o% his a%%airs but rea$ted in a subdued manner. Petitioner said that it *as respondent-s nature to be silent and *ithdra*n. Dr. 9atividad Da"an, a $lini$al ps"$holo#ist, *as presented b" petitioner to testi%" on his alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al disorder o% 9ar$issisti$ .istrioni$ Personalit" Disorder! *ith 3asanova 3omplex!. he said disorder *as des$ribed as a pervasive maladaptation in terms o% interpersonal and o$$upational %un$tionin#! *ith main s"mptoms o% #rand ideation about onesel%, sel%?$enteredness, thin/in# he is uni>ue and *antin# to al*a"s be the one %ollo*ed, the I personalit".! 0 person a%%li$ted *ith this disorder believes that he is entitled to #rati%" his emotional and sexual %eelin#s and thus en#a#es in serial in%idelities. +i/e*ise, a person *ith 3asanova 3omplex! exhibits habitual adulterous behavior and #oes %rom one relationship to another. Respondent testi%ied that she dis$overed that petitioner *as havin# an a%%air *ith one o% her %riends *ho *or/ed as a trader in her husband-s $ompan". he a%%air *as $ut short *hen the *oman le%t %or the Fnited (tates to *or/. 7ventuall", she and petitioner *ere able to rebuild their relationship.(he also stated that she did not /no* *hether her husband-s a$ts $ould be deemed *omani=in#! sin$e there *ere onl" t*o instan$es o% in%idelit" *hi$h o$$urred 11 "ears apart. (he also theori=ed that petitioner *anted to have their marria#e annulled so he $ould marr" her old %riend. Dr. 3e$ilia Bille#as, a ps"$hiatrist *as $alled upon b" respondent to testi%" that Dr. Da"an-s %indin#s *ere in$omplete be$ause a team approa$h! *as ne$essar" in evaluatin# an individual-s personalit". he evaluation o% su$h ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" re>uires the expertise o% a ps"$hiatrist and so$ial *or/er. he trial $ourt then rendered Gud#ment de$larin# the marria#e null and void ab initio on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Respondent and the '(< %iled an appeal %rom the

239 de$ision. he 3ourt o% 0ppeals rendered a de$ision *hi$h reversed and set aside the prior Gud#ment. Petitioner %iled a motion %or re$onsideration o% the appellate $ourt-s de$ision *hi$h *as eventuall" denied. .en$e,this petition. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner has ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the eviden$e in this $ase does not support the %indin# that petitioner is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to %ul%ill his marital obli#ations. 'n the $ontrar", petitioner *as a #ood husband to respondent %or a substantial period o% time prior to their separation, a lovin# %ather to their $hildren and a #ood provider o% the %amil". 0lthou#h he en#a#ed in marital in%idelit" in at least t*o o$$asions, the same does not appear to be s"mptomati$ o% a #rave ps"$holo#i$al disorder *hi$h rendered him in$apable o% per%ormin# his spousal obli#ations. he same appears as the result o% a #eneral dissatis%a$tion *ith his marria#e rather than a ps"$holo#i$al disorder rooted in petitioner-s personal histor".0lthou#h Dr. Da"an testi%ied that petitioner su%%ered %rom 9ar$issisti$ .istrioni$ Personalit" Disorder *ith 3asanova 3omplex even be%ore the marria#e and thus had the tenden$" to $heat on his *i%e, su$h $on$lusion *as not su%%i$ientl" ba$/ed b" $on$rete eviden$e sho*in# that petitioner indeed had several a%%airs and %inds it di%%i$ult to be %aith%ul Petitioner also %ailed to establish the in$urabilit" and #ravit" o% his alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al disorder. While Dr. Da"an des$ribed the s"mptoms o% one a%%li$ted *ith 9ar$issisti$ .istrioni$ Personalit" Disorder as sel%?$entered!, $hara$teri=ed b" #randiose ideation! and la$/ o% empath" in relatin# to others!, and one *ith 3asanova 3omplex as a serial adulterer!, the eviden$e on re$ord betra"s the presen$e o% an" o% these s"mptoms. 169) 1!e"ave"t!ra vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No 12035), 2arc' 31, 2005 Facts: Petitioner 9oel Cuenaventura %iled a petition %or nullit" o% marria#e on the #round o% the alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% his *i%e. respondent, Isabel (in#h Cuenaventura. 0%ter respondent

240 %iled her ans*er, petitioner, *ith leave o% $ourt, amended his petition b" statin# that both he and his *i%e *ere ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. Respondent %iled an amended ans*er den"in# the alle#ation that she *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. he Re#ional rial 3ourt promul#ated a De$ision de$larin# and de$reein# the marria#e entered into bet*een the parties null and void ab initio and orderin# the plainti%% to pa" de%endant moral dama#es, exemplar" dama#es, and liti#ation expenses. he $ourt also ordered the li>uidation o% the assets o% the $onGu#al partnership propert" and ordered petitioner to #ive a re#ular support in %avor o% his son Jav" (in#h. he $ustod" o% their son *ill be a*arded to de%endant and the latter is authori=ed to revert ba$/ to her maiden name. Petitioner appealed the above de$ision to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. While the $ase *as pendin# in the appellate $ourt, respondent %iled a motion to in$rease the P15,000 monthl" support o% their son Jav" (in#h Cuenaventura. Petitioner %iled an opposition, pra"in# that it be denied or that su$h in$ident be set %or oral ar#ument. 7ventuall" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals issued a Resolution in$reasin# the support pendente lite to P20,000. Petitioner %iled a motion %or re$onsideration >uestionin# the said Resolution. he appellate $ourt dismissed petitioner-s appeal %or la$/ o% merit and a%%irmin# in toto the trial $ourt-s de$ision. Petitioner %iled a motion %or re$onsideration *hi$h *as later on denied. .en$e, this petition. ss!e: Whether or not moral and exemplar" dama#es should be a*arded b" reason o% the non?per%orman$e o% marital obli#ations5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held in the ne#ative. It $ited the de$isions o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals and the trial $ourt *hi$h $onsidered that the a$ts o% the petitioner a%ter the marria#e is proo% o% his ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", and there%ore a produ$t o% his in$apa$it" or inabilit" to $ompl" *ith the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. It is $ontradi$tor" to $hara$teri=e a$ts as a produ$t o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", and hen$e be"ond the $ontrol o% the part" be$ause o%

241 an innate inabilit", *hile at the same time $onsiderin# the same set o% a$ts as *ill%ul. C" de$larin# the petitioner as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated, the possibilit" o% a*ardin# moral dama#es on the same set o% %a$ts *as ne#ated. he a*ard o% moral dama#es should be predi$ated, not on the mere a$t o% enterin# into the marria#e, but on spe$i%i$ eviden$e that it *as done deliberatel" and *ith mali$e b" a part" *ho had /no*led#e o% his or her disabilit" and "et *ill%ull" $on$ealed the same. 9o su$h eviden$e appears to have been addu$ed in this $ase. Aor the same reason, sin$e ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" means that one is trul" in$o#nitive o% the basi$ marital $ovenants that one must assume and dis$har#e as a $onse>uen$e o% marria#e, it removes the basis %or the $ontention that the petitioner purposel" de$eived the private respondent. I% the private respondent *as de$eived, it *as not due to a *ill%ul a$t on the part o% the petitioner. here%ore, the a*ard o% moral dama#es *as *ithout basis in la* and in %a$t. (in$e the #rant o% moral dama#es *as not proper, it %ollo*s that the #rant o% exemplar" dama#es $annot stand sin$e the 3ivil 3ode provides that exemplar" dama#es are imposed in addition to moral, temperate, li>uidated or $ompensator" dama#es. 100) Rep!+lic vs. I!i"tero7@a.a"o G.R. No. 14949), 2a4 20, 2004 Facts: Respondent +olita Kuintero?.amano %iled a $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e to her husband oshio .amano, a Japanese national, on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Respondent alle#ed that she and oshio started a $ommon?la* relationship in Japan. he" later lived in the Philippines %or a month. herea%ter, oshio *ent ba$/ to Japan and sta"ed there %or hal% o% 19@:. 'n 9ovember 1H, 19@:, she #ave birth to their $hild. 'n Januar" 1), 19@@, she and oshio *ere married b" Jud#e Isauro ,. Calderia o% the ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt o% Ca$oor, 3avite. Fn/no*n to respondent, oshio *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to assume his marital responsibilities, *hi$h in$apa$it" be$ame

242 mani%est onl" a%ter the marria#e. 'ne month a%ter their marria#e, oshio returned to Japan and promised to return b" 3hristmas to $elebrate the holida"s *ith his %amil". 0%ter sendin# mone" to respondent %or t*o months, oshio stopped #ivin# %inan$ial support. (he *rote him several times but he never responded. (ometime in 1991, respondent learned %rom her %riends that oshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to see her and their $hild. ss!e: Whether or not abandonment b" one spouse tantamount to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: he $ourt %ind that the totalit" o% eviden$e presented %ell short o% provin# that oshio *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to assume his marital responsibilities. oshio-s a$t o% abandonment *as doubtlessl" irresponsible but it *as never alle#ed nor proven to be due to some /ind o% ps"$holo#i$al illness. 0%ter respondent testi%ied on ho* oshio abandoned his %amil", no other eviden$e *as presented sho*in# that his behavior *as $aused b" a ps"$holo#i$al disorder. 0bandonment is also a #round %or le#al separation. here *as no sho*in# that the $ase at bar *as not Gust an instan$e o% abandonment in the $ontext o% le#al separation. It $annot presume ps"$holo#i$al de%e$t %rom the mere %a$t that oshio abandoned his %amil" immediatel" a%ter the $elebration o% the marria#e. It is not enou#h to prove that a spouse %ailed to meet his responsibilit" and dut" as a married person6 it is essential that he must be sho*n to be in$apable o% doin# so due to some ps"$holo#i$al, not ph"si$al, illness. here *as no proo% o% a natal or supervenin# disablin# %a$tor in the person, an adverse inte#ral element in the personalit" stru$ture that e%%e$tivel" in$apa$itates a person %rom a$$eptin# and $ompl"in# *ith the obli#ations essential to marria#e. In provin# ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", the $ourt %inds no distin$tion bet*een an alien spouse and a Ailipino spouse. It $annot be lenient in the appli$ation o% the rules merel" be$ause the spouse alle#ed to be ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated happens to be a %orei#n national. he medi$al and $lini$al rules to determine ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *ere %ormulated on the basis o% studies

243 o% human behavior in #eneral. .en$e, the norms used %or determinin# ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" should appl" to an" person re#ardless o% nationalit".

101) De%el vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 151)60, 3a"!ar4 29,2004 Facts: In 19HH, David and (haron married ea$h other. he"-ve had %our $hildren sin$e then. David then %ound out that (haron is irresponsible as a *i%e and as a mother be$ause durin# the marria#e (haron had extra?marital a%%airs *ith various other #u"s parti$ularl" *ith one ,usta%a Ibrahim, a Jordanian, *ith *hom she had 2 $hildren. (he even married Ibrahim. David averred that (haron is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated and David submitted the %indin#s o% Dr. Da"an *hi$h sho*s that (haron is indeed ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. Dr. Da"an de$lared that (haron *as su%%erin# %rom 0nti?(o$ial Personalit" Disorder exhibited b" her blatant displa" o% in%idelit"6 that she $ommitted several indis$retions and had no $apa$it" %or remorse, even brin#in# *ith her the t*o $hildren o% ,usta%a Ibrahim to live *ith petitioner. (u$h immaturit" and irresponsibilit" in handlin# the marria#e li/e her repeated a$ts o% in%idelit" and abandonment o% her %amil" are indi$ations o% 0nti?(o$ial Personalit" Disorder amountin# to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" to per%orm the essential obli#ations o% marria#e. ss!e: Whether or not ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" has been proven5 R!li"#: Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" is not proven in $ourt in this $ase. he eviden$e is not su%%i$ient. PI is intended to the most serious $ases o% personalit" disorders *hi$h ma/e one be in$apable o% per%ormin# the essential marital obli#ations. (haron-s sexual in%idelit" does not $onstitute PI nor does it $onstitute the other %orms o% ps"$hoses *hi$h i% existin# at the

244 in$eption o% marria#e, li/e the state o% a part" bein# o% unsound mind or $on$ealment o% dru# addi$tion, habitual al$oholism, homosexualit" or lesbianism, merel" renders the marria#e $ontra$t voidable pursuant to 0rti$le )H, Aamil" 3ode. I% dru# addi$tion, habitual al$oholism, lesbianism or homosexualit" should o$$ur onl" durin# the marria#e, the" be$ome mere #rounds %or le#al separation under 0rti$le 55 o% the Aamil" 3ode. hese provisions, ho*ever, do not ne$essaril" pre$lude the possibilit" o% these various $ir$umstan$es bein# themselves, dependin# on the de#ree and severit" o% the disorder, indi$ia o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". (exual in%idelit" is not one o% those $ontemplated in la*. Fntil %urther statutor" or Gurisprudential parameters are set or established, (I $annot be appre$iated in %avor o% the dissolution o% marria#e.

102) Rep!+lic vs. Da#%a# G.R. No. 109905, Fe+r!ar4 9, 2001 Facts: 'n (eptember :, 19:5, 7rlinda ,atias, 1H "ears old, married 0velino Paran#an Da#da#, 20 "ears old, at the I#lesia Ailipina Independent 3hur$h in 3u"apo, 9ueva 7$iGa. he marria#e $erti%i$ate *as issued b" the '%%i$e o% the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% the ,uni$ipalit" o% on '$tober 20, 19@@. 7rlinda and 0velino be#ot t*o $hildren. he birth $erti%i$ates *ere issued b" the '%%i$e o% the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% the ,uni$ipalit" o% 3u"apo, 9ueva 7$iGa also on '$tober 20, 19@@. 0 *ee/ a%ter the *eddin#, 0velino started leavin# his %amil" *ithout explanation. .e *ould disappear %or months, suddenl" re?appear %or a %e* months, and then disappear a#ain. Durin# the times *hen he *as *ith his %amil", he indul#ed in drin/in# sprees *ith %riends and *ould return home drun/. .e *ould %or$e his *i%e to submit to sexual inter$ourse and i% she re%used, he *ould in%li$t ph"si$al inGuries to her. In '$tober 1991, he le%t his %amil" a#ain and that *as the last that the" heard %rom him. 7rlinda learned that 0velino *as imprisoned %or some $rime, and that he es$aped %rom Gail and remains at lar#e to?date. In Jul" 1990, 7rlinda %iled *ith the R 3 o%

245 'lon#apo 3it" a petition %or Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". (in$e 0velino $ould not be lo$ated, summons *as served b" publi$ation in the 'lon#apo 9e*s, a ne*spaper o% #eneral $ir$ulation. 'n the date set %or presentation o% eviden$e, onl" 7rlinda and her $ounsel appeared. 7rlinda testi%ied and presented her sister?in?la* as her onl" *itness. he trial $ourt issued an 'rder #ivin# the investi#atin# prose$utor until Januar" 2, 1991 to mani%est in *ritin# *hether or not he *ould present $ontrovertin# eviden$e, and statin# that should he %ail to %ile said mani%estation, the $ase *ould be deemed submitted %or de$ision. he Investi#atin# Prose$utor $ondu$ted an investi#ation and %ound that there *as no $ollusion bet*een the parties. .o*ever, he intended to intervene in the $ase to avoid %abri$ation o% eviden$e. Without *aitin# %or the investi#atin# prose$utor-s mani%estation, the trial $ourt de$lared the marria#e o% 7rlinda and 0velino void under 0rti$le 1H. he investi#atin# prose$utor %iled a ,otion to (et 0side Jud#ment on the #round that the de$ision *as prematurel" rendered sin$e he *as #iven until Januar" 2, 1991 to mani%est *hether he *as presentin# $ontrovertin# eviden$e. he '%%i$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral li/e*ise %iled a ,otion %or Re$onsideration o% the de$ision on the #round that the same is not in a$$ordan$e *ith the eviden$e and the la*. (in$e the trial $ourt denied the ,otion %or Re$onsideration, the (oli$itor <eneral appealed to the 30. he 30 a%%irmed the de$ision o% the trial $ourt holdin# that 0velino Da#da# is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated not onl" be$ause he %ailed to per%orm the duties and obli#ations o% a married person but be$ause he is emotionall" immature and irresponsible, an al$oholi$, and a $riminal.! ss!e: Did the 30 $orre$tl" de$lare the marria#e as null and void under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, on the #round that the husband su%%ers %rom ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", as he is emotionall" immature and irrespnsible, a habitual al$ohli$, and a %u#itive %rom Gusti$e5

246 R!li"#: Whether or not ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" exists in a #iven $ase $allin# %or annulment o% a marria#e, depends $ru$iall", more than in an" %ield o% la*, on the %a$ts o% the $ase. 7a$h $ase must be Gud#ed, not on the basis o% a priori assumptions, predile$tions or #enerali=ations but a$$ordin# to its o*n %a$ts. In re#ard to ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" as a #round %or annulment o% marria#e, it is trite to sa" that no $ase is on all %ours! *ith another $ase. he trial Gud#e must ta/e pains in examinin# the %a$tual milieu and the appellate $ourt must, as mu$h as possible6 avoid substitutin# its o*n Gud#ment %or that o% the trial $ourt. In R7PFC+I3 B(. ,'+I90 82H@ (3R0 19@4, the 3ourt laid do*n the <FID7+I97( in the interpretation o% 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. a/in# into $onsideration these #uidelines, it is evident that 7rlinda %ailed to $ompl" *ith the above?mentioned evidentiar" re>uirements. 7rlinda %ailed to $ompl" *ith #uideline number 2 *hi$h re>uires that the root $ause o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be medi$all" or $lini$all" proven b" experts, sin$e no ps"$hiatrist or medi$al do$tor testi%ied as to the alle#ed ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% her husband. Aurther, the alle#ation that the husband is a %u#itive %rom Gusti$e *as not su%%i$ientl" proven. In %a$t, the $rime %or *hi$h he *as arrested *as not even alle#ed. he investi#atin# prose$utor *as li/e*ise not #iven an opportunit" to present $ontrovertin# eviden$e sin$e the trial $ourt-s de$ision *as prematurel" rendered.

103) &esca vs. &esca G.R. No. 136921, April 10, 2001 Facts: he $ase at bar is a petition %or $ertiorari o% the De$ision o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. Petitioner and private respondent married in 19:5, a union that be#ot %our $hildren. (he $ontends that respondent surprisin#l" sho*ed si#ns o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"! to per%orm his marital obli#ations startin# 19@@. .is true $olor! o% bein# an emotionall" immature and irresponsible husband be$ame apparent. .e *as $ruel and violent. .e *as a

240 habitual drin/er, sta"in# *ith %riends dail" %rom ):00 o-$lo$/ in the a%ternoon until 1:00 o-$lo$/ in the mornin#. When $autioned to stop or, to at least, minimi=e his drin/in#, respondent *ould beat, slap and /i$/ her. 0t one time, he $hased petitioner *ith a loaded shot#un and threatened to /ill her in the presen$e o% the $hildren. he $hildren themselves *ere not spared %rom ph"si$al violen$e. Petitioner and her $hildren le%t the $onGu#al abode to live in the house o% her sister in Kue=on 3it" as the" $ould no lon#er bear his violent *a"s. *o months later, she returned home to #ive him a $han$e to $han#e. Cut, to her disma", thin#s did not so turn out as expe$ted. 'n the mornin# o% 22 ,ar$h 199), respondent assaulted petitioner %or about hal% an hour in the presen$e o% the $hildren. (he *as battered bla$/ and blue. .e *as imprisoned %or 11 da"s %or sli#ht ph"si$al inGuries. Petitioner sued respondent be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e invo/in# ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he trial $ourt de$lared their marria#e to be null and void ab initio on the basis o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% respondent and ordered the li>uidation o% the $onGu#al partnership. Respondent appealed the de$ision o% the trial $ourt to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, *hi$h in turn reversed the de$ision o% the trial $ourt. hus, the marria#e o% respondent and petitioner still subsists.

ss!es: 14 Whether or not the appellate $ourt erred in reversin# the de$ision o% the trial $ourt5 24 Whether or not the #uidelines in the $ase o% Republi$ vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals and ,olina should be ta/en to be merel" advisor" and not mandator" in nature5 R!li"#: he appellate $ourt did not err in its assailed de$ision %or there *as absolutel" no eviden$e sho*ed and proved b" petitioner the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% respondent. 0rti$le 1H o% the 3ode has not been meant to $omprehend all su$h possible $ases o% ps"$hoses as extremel" lo* intelli#en$e,

24) immaturit", and li/e $ir$umstan$es. Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", as laid do*n in the $ase o% (antos vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals and %urther explained in Republi$ vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals and ,olina, re%er to no less than a mental 8not ph"si$al4 in$apa$it" that $auses a part" to be trul" in$o#nitive o% the basi$ marital $ovenants that $on$omitantl" must be assumed and dis$har#ed b" the parties to the marria#e *hi$h, as so expressed b" 0rti$le H@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, in$lude their mutual obli#ations to live to#ether, observe love, respe$t and %idelit" and render help and support. he do$trine o% stare de$isis,! ordained in 0rti$le @ o% the 3ivil 3ode, expresses that Gudi$ial de$isions appl"in# or interpretin# the la* shall %orm part o% the le#al s"stem o% the Philippines. he rule %ollo*s the settled le#al maxim & le#is interpretado le#is vim obtinet! & that the interpretation pla$ed upon the *ritten la* b" a $ompetent $ourt has the %or$e o% la*. he interpretation or $onstru$tion pla$ed b" the $ourts establishes the $ontemporaneous le#islative intent o% the la*. he latter as so interpreted and $onstrued *ould thus $onstitute a part o% that la* as o% the date the statute is ena$ted. It is onl" *hen a prior rulin# o% this 3ourt %inds itsel% later overruled, and a di%%erent vie* is adopted, that the ne* do$trine ma" have to be applied prospe$tivel" in %avor o% parties *ho have relied on the old do$trine and have a$ted in #ood %aith in a$$ordan$e there*ith under the %amiliar rule o% lex prospi$it, non respi$it.! hus the term ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it", borro*ed %rom the 3anon +a*, *as #iven le#al li%e b" the 3ourt in the $ase o% (antos6 in the $ase o% ,olina, additional pro$edural #uidelines to assist the $ourts and the parties in tr"in# $ases %or annulment o% marria#es #rounded on ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" *as added. Coth Gudi$ial de$isions in (antos and ,olina have the %or$e and e%%e$t o% la*. hus, the #uidelines in the $ase o% ,olina are mandator" in nature. he petition *as denied.

104) 2allio" vs. Alca"tara G.R. No. 14152), *cto+er 31, 2006

249 Facts: 's$ar ,allion %iled a petition *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt see/in# ade$larationo% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith 7ditha0l$antara due tops"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". he R 3 denied the petition %or %ailure to addu$e preponderan$e o% eviden$e.0s the de$ision attained %inalit", ,allion %iled another petition %or a de$larationo% nullit" o% marria#e, this time alle#in# that his marria#e *as null and voiddue tothe %a$t that it *as $elebrated *ithout a valid marria#e li$ense. It *as laterdismissed b" the petition %iled b" the respondent on the #round o% res Gudi$ataand %orum shoppin#. .en$e, this appeal. ss!e: Does a previous %inal Gud#ment den"in# a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" onthe#round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" bar a subse>uent petition %orde$laration o% nullit" on the #round o% la$/ o% marria#e li$ense5 R!li"#: Mes. Petition is denied. Res Gudi$ataapplies.De$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e on the #round o% la$/ o% marria#e li$ense is barred b" earlier de$ision on ps"$holo#i$al $apa$it".,allion is simpl" invo/in# di%%erent #rounds %or the same $ause o% a$tion, *hi$his the nullit" o% marria#e. When the se$ond $ase *as %iled based onanother#round, there is a splittin# o% a $ause o% a$tion, *hi$h is prohibited. .eisestopped %rom assertin# that the marria#e had no marria#e li$ensebe$ause heimpliedl" admitted the same *hen he did not>uestion the absen$e o% a marria#eli$ense in the %irst $ase

105) Leo"or vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 112590, April 2, 1996 Facts: Petitioner Bir#inia 0. +eonor *as married to private respondent ,auri$io D. +eonor, Jr., ,auri$io be$ame un%aith%ul and lived *ith a $ertain +"nda Pondabroad. his indu$ed petitioner to institute a $ivil a$tion in <eneva, (*it=erland %or separation and alimon". Private respondent $ounter?sued %or divor$e. he lo*er 3antonal 3ivil 3ourt o% (*it=erland pronoun$ed the divor$e o% the spouses +eonor but reserved the li>uidation o% the matrimonial partnership. he said (*iss3ourt denied alimon" to petitioner. ,ean*hile, Bir#inia learned that the solemni=in#

250 o%%i$er in the Philippines, Justi$e o% the Pea$e ,abini Jatalbas, %ailed to senda $op" o% their marria#e $ontra$t to the 3ivil Re#istrar o% (an 3arlos 3it" %or re#istration. .en$e, on Jul" 11, 1991, Bir#inia applied %or the late re#istration o% her marria#e. he 3ivil Re#istrar, %indin# said appli$ation in order, #ranted the same. 'n ,a" 22, 1992, ,auri$io, represented b" his brother eodoro +eonor, %iled apetition %or the $an$ellation o% the late re#istration o% marria#e in the $ivil re#istr" o% (an 3arlos 3it" *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt, Cran$h 59, (an 3arlos 3it"8(pe$ial Pro$eedin# 9o. R 3? 1))4. <iven as #rounds %or the $an$ellation *ere the tardiness o% the re#istration and the nullit" o% his marria#e *ith Bir#inia due tothe non?observan$e o% the le#al re>uirements %or a valid marria#e.! ,auri$io-s petition *as %iled pursuant to Rule 10@ o% the Rules o% 3ourt. 3 rendered Gud#ment5 de$larin# said marria#e null and void %or bein# sham and %i$titious. ss!es: 14 Is a Gud#ment voidin# a marria#e and rendered b" the re#ional trial $ourt under Rule 10@ 8(ummar" Jud#ment4 o% the Rules o% 3ourt valid and proper5 24 ,a" its validit" be $hallen#ed b" the *i%e in a petition %or $ertiorari a#ainst the husband *ho abandoned her and *ho is no* livin# abroad *ith a %orei#n*oman5 R!li"#: he onl" errors that $an be $an$elled or $orre$ted under Rule 10@ o% the Rules o% 3ourt are t"po#raphi$al or $leri$al errors, not material or substantial onesli/e the validit" or nullit" o% a marria#e. 0 $leri$al error is one *hi$h is visible to the e"es or obvious to the understandin#6 error made b" a $ler/ or a trans$riber6 amista/e in $op"in# or *ritin# 8Cla$/ vs. Republi$, +? 10@H9, 9ov. 2@, 195@46 or some harmless and inno$uous $han#e su$h as a $orre$tion o% name that is $learl"misspelled or o% a mis? statement o% the o$$upation o% the parent. Where the e%%e$t o% a $orre$tion in a $ivil re#istr" *ill $han#e the $ivil status o% petitioner and her $hildren %rom le#itimate to ille#itimate, the same $annot be #ranted ex$ept onl" in an adversarial pro$eedin#. he summar" pro$edure under Rule 10@, and %or that matter under 0rt. )12 o% the 3ivil 3ode, $annot be used b"

251 ,auri$io to $han#e his and Bir#inia-s $ivil status%rom married to sin#le and o% their three $hildren %rom le#itimate to ille#itimate. 9either does the trial $ourt, under said Rule, have an" Gurisdi$tion to de$lare their marria#e null and void and as a result thereo%, to order the lo$al $ivil re#istrar to $an$el the marria#e entr" in the $ivil re#istr". Aurther, the respondent trial Gud#e#ravel" and seriousl" abused his dis$retion in un$eremoniousl" expandin# his ver" limited Gurisdi$tion under su$h rule to hear eviden$e on su$h a $ontroversialmatter as nullit" o% a marria#e under the 3ivil 3ode andLor Aamil" 3ode, a pro$ess that is proper onl" in ordinar" adversarial pro$eedin#s under the Rules.0 void Gud#ment %or *ant o% Gurisdi$tion is no Gud#ment at all. It $annot be the sour$e o% an" ri#ht nor the $reator o% an" obli#ation. 0ll a$ts per%ormed pursuant to itand all $laims emanatin# %rom it have no le#al e%%e$t. .en$e, it $an never be$ome %inal and an" *rit o% exe$ution based on it is void6 x x x it ma" be said to be ala*less thin# *hi$h $an be treated as an outla* and slain at si#ht, or i#nored *herever and *henever it exhibits its head.! Can$o 7spa;ol? Ailipino vs. Palan$a, 1:Phil. 921, 9)9 8191@4. PR'03 IB7 R'+7 'A (FPR7,7 3'FR . ? he (upreme 3ourt is not Gust a toothless promoter o% pro$edural ni$eties *hi$h are understood and appre$iated onl" b" la*"ersand Gurists. It $annot shrin/ %rom its >uintessential role as the %ountain o% speed", ade>uate and substantial Gusti$e. I% the 3ourt, as the head and #uardian o% the Gudi$ial bran$h, must $ontinuousl" merit the%or$e o% publi$ trust and $on%iden$e ? *hi$h ultimatel" is the real sour$e o% its soverei#n po*er, possessin# neither the purse nor the s*ord ? and i% it must de$isivel" dis$har#e its sa$red dut" as the last san$tuar" o% the oppressed and the *ea/, it must, in appropriate $ases li/e the one be%ore us, pro?a$tivel" provide *ear" liti#ants *ith immediate le#al and e>uitable relie%, %ree %rom the dela"s and le#alisti$ $ontortions that o%tentimes result %rom appl"in# purel" %ormal and pro$edural approa$hes to Gudi$ial dispensations. Pursuant to the %ore#oin# prin$iple and $onsiderin# the pe$uliar $ir$umstan$eso% the present $ase *hi$h are patent on the basis o% the admitted %a$ts, as *ell as the undisputed $opies o% the pleadin#s presented b" the parties, and espe$iall" the veri%ied $op" o% the trial $ourt-sde$ision *hi$h loudl" spea/s %or itsel%, the 3ourt there%ore resolved to ma/e an ex$eption to

252 the normal pro$edures and to delve deeper into the substantive issue o% the validit"Lnullit" o% the trial $ourt-s pro$eedin#s and Gud#ment. .appil", both parties had expressed a desire to have this $ase resolved soonest. Fpon the other hand, remandin# the $ase ba$/ to the trial $ourt %or the per%e$tion o% theappeal and re>uirin# the parties to re?liti#ate in the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *ith the use o% probabl" the same do$uments and ar#uments ventilated in the /ilometri$ pleadin#s %iled here *ould Gust unne$essaril" $lo# the $ourt-s do$/ets-6 besides, in all li/elihood the parties *ould eventuall" $ome be%ore this 3ourt an"*a"

106) 3!lia8vo7Llave vs. Rep!+lic G.R. No. 169066, 2arc' 30, 2011 Facts: 0round 11 months be%ore his death, (en. amanomarried 7strellita t*i$e & initiall" under the Islami$ la*s and tradition on ,a" 2:, 1991 in 3otabato 3it" and, subse>uentl", under a $ivil $eremon" o%%i$iated b" an R 3 Jud#e at ,alaban#, +anao del (ur on June 2, 1991. In their marria#e $ontra$ts, (en. amano s $ivil status *as indi$ated as divor$ed!. (in$e then, 7strellita has been representin# hersel% to the *hole *orld as (en. amano s *i%e, and upon his death, his *ido*. 'n 9ovember 21, 199), private respondents .aGa Putri Eora"da 0. amano 8Eora"da4 and her son 0dib 0hmad 0. amano 80dib4, in their o*n behal% and in behal% o% the rest o% (en. amano s le#itimate $hildren *ith Eora"da, %iled a $omplaint *ith the R 3 o% Kue=on 3it" %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e bet*een 7strellita and (en. amano %or bein# bi#amous. he $omplaint alle#ed that (en. amano married Eora"da on ,a" 11, 195@ under $ivil rites, and that this marria#e remained subsistin# *hen he married 7strellita in 1991. ss!e: Whether the marria#e bet*een 7strellita and the late (en. amano *as bi#amous5 R!li"#: Mes. he $ivil $ode #overns the marria#e o% Eora"daand late (en. amano6 their marria#e *as never invalidated b" PD

253 10@1. (en. initio. amano s subse>uent marria#e to 7strellita is void ab

he marria#e bet*een the late (en. amano and Eora"da *as $elebrated in 195@, solemni=ed under $ivil and ,uslim rites. he onl" la* in %or$e #overnin# marria#e relationships bet*een ,uslims and non?,uslims ali/e *as the 3ivil 3ode o% 1950, under the provisions o% *hi$h onl" one marria#e $an exist at an" #iven time. Fnder the marria#e provisions o% the 3ivil 3ode, divor$e is not re$o#ni=ed ex$ept durin# the e%%e$tivit" o% Republi$ 0$t 9o. 19) *hi$h *as not availed o% durin# its e%%e$tivit". 0s %ar as 7strellita is $on$erned, (en. amano s prior marria#e to Eora"da has been severed b" *a" o% divor$e under PD 10@1, the la* that $odi%ied ,uslim personal la*s. .o*ever, PD 10@1 $annot bene%it 7strellita. Airstl", 0rti$le 11814 thereo% provides that the la* applies to marria#e and divor$e *herein both parties are ,uslims, or *herein onl" the male part" is a ,uslim and the marria#e is solemni=ed in a$$ordan$e *ith ,uslim la* or this 3ode in an" part o% the Philippines.! Cut 0rti$le 11 o% PD 10@1 does not provide %or a situation *here the parties *ere married both in $ivil and ,uslim rites.!

100) ,"rico vs. @eirs o- 2e%i"aceli G.R. No. 103614, 5epte.+er 2), 2000 Facts: 7ulo#io and rinidad ,edina$eli *as married on June 1), 19H2 durin# their marria#e the" be#ot : $hildren,herein respondents, 7d*ard, 7vel"n, Bilma, ,ar" Jane, .ai=el, ,i$helle and Joseph +lo"d.Durin# his marria#e *ith rinidad, 7ulo#io lived, openl" and publi$l", to#ether *ith one +olita 7nri$o 8petitioner4and their union be#ot 2 $hildren .'n ,a" 1, 200) rinidad died. (ubse>uentl" 7ulo#io married +olita on 0u#ust ), 200). 7ulo#io died on Aebruar"10, 2005. In impu#nin# petitioner-s marria#e to 7ulo#io, respondents averred that the same *as entered into *ithout the re>uisitemarria#e li$ense. Respondents posited %urther that petitioner-s marria#e *ith their %ather does not %all under emarria#es that are exempt o% the li$ense re>uirement. . o %urther their $ause, respondents

254 raised the additional #round o% la$/ o% marria#e $eremon" due to 7ulo#io-s serious illness *hi$h made its per%orman$e impossible. 0s an a%%irmative de%ense, she sou#ht the dismissal o% the a$ tion on the #roud that it is onl" the $ontra$tin#parties *hile livin# *ho $an %ile an a$tion %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e.'n 11 '$tober 2005, the R 3 issued #rantin# the dismissal o% the 3omplaint %or la$/ o% $ause o% a$tion based on 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10? (3 in (e$tion 2, par.8a4. 'n ,otion %or Re$onsideration o% Respondent, R 3 reversed its de$ision andreinstated the $omplaint on the ratio$ination that the assailed 'rder i#nored the rulin# in 9i;al v. Ca"ado#. Petitioner %iled%or ,otion %or Re$onsideration but *as denied b" the R 3.Petioner %ile a Petiton %or 3ertiorari in the (upreme 3ourt. ss!e: Whi$h rule in 0ssailin# 9ullit" , Boidin# and 0nnulment o% ,arria#e applies in the $ase at bar5 R!li"#: We #rant the Petition. In reinstatin# respondents3omplaint %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e, the R 3 a$ted *ith #rave abuse o% dis$retion.We $annot appl" the de$ision in the $ase o% 9i;al %or the reason that the impu#ned marria#e therein *assolemni=ed prior to the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode. he 3ourt in 9i;al re$o#ni=ed that the appli$able la* to determinethe validit" o% the t*o marria#es involved therein is the 3ivil 3ode. While 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10?(3 extend to those marria#esentered into durin# the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h too/ e%%e$t on 1 0u#ust 19@@. here is no need to re$on$ile the provisions o% 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10?(3 *ith the rulin# in 9i;al, be$ause the" var"in s$ope and appli$ation.While 0.,. 9o. 02?11? 10?(3 de$lares that a petition %or de$laration o% absolute nullit" o% void marria#e ma" be%iled solel" b" the husband or the *i%e, it does not mean that the $ompulsor" or intestate heirs are alread" *ithout an"re$ourse under the la*. he" $an still prote$t their su$$essional ri#ht, %or, $ompulsor" or intestate heirs $an still >uestionthe validit" o% the marria#e o% the spouses, not in a pro$eedin# %or de$laration o% nullit", but upon the death o% a spouse ina pro$eedin# %or the settlement o% the estate o% the de$eased spouse %iled in the re#ular $ourts. W.7R7A'R7, the Petition is <R09 7D.

255 3ivil 3ase 9o. II?)05: %iled be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% 0parri,3a#a"an, Cran$h H, is 'RD7R7D DI(,I((7D*ithout preGudi$e to $hallen#in# the validit" o% the marria#e o% +olita D.7nri$o to 7ulo#io C. ,edina$eli in a pro$eedin# %or the settlement o% the estate o% the latter. 9o $osts.

10)) (atala" vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 160109, Fe+r!ar4 6, 2000 Facts: Petitioner Aeli$itas 0mor?3atalan married respondent 'rlando on June ), 1950 in ,abini, Pan#asinan. herea%ter, the" mi#rated to the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a and alle#edl" be$ame naturali=ed $iti=ens thereo%. 0%ter 1@ "ears o% marria#e, Aeli$itas and 'rlando divor$ed in 0pril 19@@. 'n June 1H, 19@@, 'rlando married respondent ,erope in 3alasiao, Pan#asinan. Petitioner $ontends that said marria#e *as bi#amous sin$e ,erope had a prior subsistin# marria#e *ith 7usebio Cristol. (he %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e *ith dama#es in the R 3 o% Da#upan 3it" a#ainst 'rlando and ,erope. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner has the personalit" to %ile a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% the respondents on the #round o% bi#am"5 R!li"#: 0 petition to de$lare the nullit" o% marria#e, li/e an" other a$tions, must be prose$uted or de%ended in the name o% the real part" in interest and must be based on a $ause o% a$tion. 0 petition %or de$laration o% absolute nullit" o% void marria#e ma" be %iled solel" b" the husband or the *i%e. Petitioner-s personalit" to %ile the petition to de$lare the nullit" o% marria#e $annot be as$ertained be$ause o% the absen$e o% the divor$e de$ree and the %orei#n la* allo*in# it. 0%ter all, she ma" have the personalit" to %ile the petition i% the divor$e de$ree obtained *as a limited divor$e or a mensa et thoro6 or the %orei#n la* ma" restri$t remarria#e even a%ter the divor$e de$ree be$omes absolute. We note that it *as the petitioner *ho alle#ed in her $omplaint that the" a$>uired 0meri$an $iti=enship and that respondent 'rlando obtained a Gudi$ial divor$e de$ree. It is settled rule that one *ho

256 alle#es a %a$t has the burden o% provin# it and mere alle#ation is not eviden$e .en$e, a remand o% the $ase to the trial $ourt %or re$eption o% additional eviden$e is ne$essar" to determine *hether respondent 'rlando *as #ranted a divor$e de$ree and *hether the %orei#n la* *hi$h #ranted the same allo*s or restri$ts remarria#e. I% it is proved that a valid divor$e de$ree *as obtained and the same did not allo* respondent 'rlando-s remarria#e, then the trial $ourt should de$lare respondentsmarria#e as bi#amous and void ab initio. 109) NiKal vs. 1a4a%o# G.R No. 13300), 2arc' 14, 2000 Facts: Pepito 9i;al married eodul%a Cellones on (eptember 2), 19:). 'ut o% the marria#e *ere born ) $hildren. eodul%a *as shot b" Pepito that resultin# in her death on 0pril 2), 19@5. 'n De$ember 11, 19@H, Pepito married 9orma Ca"ado# *ithout a marria#e li$ense. In lieu thereo%, the" exe$uted an a%%idavit statin# therein that the" have been livin# %or 5 "ears and thus the" *ere exempted %rom se$urin# su$h. (ubse>uentl", Pepito died %rom a 3ar a$$ident. Petitioner represented the minor $hildren o% Pepito %rom his %irst marria#e, %iled a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% Pepito and 9orma alle#in# that it *as void %or la$/ o% marria#e li$ense. he $ase *as %iled under the assumption that the validit" or invalidit" o% the se$ond marria#e *ould a%%e$t the su$$essional ri#hts o% the $hildren. 9orma then %iled a motion to dismiss $ontendin# that petitioners have no $ause o% a$tion sin$e the" are not amon# the persons *ho $ould %ile the annulment o% marria#e under 0rti$le ): o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or 9ot the petitioners $an be $onsider as ri#ht parties in %ilin# the annulment suit5 R!li"#: 0rti$le ): pertains to the #rounds, periods and persons *ho $an %ile an annulment suit, not a suit %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. .o*ever, the 3ode is silent as to *ho $an %ile a petition to de$lare the nullit" o% a marria#e. Boidable and void

250 marria#es are not identi$al. 0 marria#e that is annulable is valid until other*ise de$lared b" the $ourt6 *hereas a marria#e that is void ab initio is $onsidered as havin# never to have ta/en pla$e and $annot be the sour$e o% ri#hts. 0 voidable marria#e $annot be assailed $ollaterall" ex$ept in a dire$t pro$eedin# *hile a void marria#e $an be atta$/ed $ollaterall". 3onse>uentl", void marria#es $an be >uestioned even a%ter the death o% either part" but voidable marria#es $an be assailed onl" durin# the li%etime o% the parties and not a%ter death o% either, in *hi$h $ase the parties and their o%%sprin# *ill be le%t as i% the marria#e had been per%e$tl" valid. 'nl" the parties to a voidable marria#e $an assail it but an" proper interested part" ma" atta$/ a void marria#e. 1)0) (arlos vs. 5a"%oval G.R. No. 109922, Dece.+er 16, 200) Facts: (pouses Aelix 3arlos and Aelipa 7lemia died intestate. he" le%t H par$els o% land to eo%ilo 3arlos and Juan de Dios 3arlos. 1 par$els o% land *ere named to eo%ilo and par$el ) to Juan. (ubse>uentl", eo%ilo died intestate. .e *as survived b" his spouse Aeli$idad and son eo%ilo 3arlos II *ho have in their name par$el 5 and H. 0#reement *as then entered into b" parties to share in the estate o% eo%ilo. .o*ever, Juan $ommen$ed an a$tion %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% eo%ilo and Aeli$idad %or la$/ o% marria#e li$ense, status o% the $hild as eo%ilo is neither the natural nor adoptive %ather o% eo%ilo 3arlos II, and the avoidan$e o% $ontra$t entered into b" Aeli$idad *ith respe$t to the subGe$t real properties. Aeli$idad pra"ed to dismiss $omplaint %or #round o% la$/ o% a$tion. he trial $ourt rendered de$ision in %avor o% Juan 3arlos, upon appeal the de$ision *as reversed. ss!e: Whether or not the petitioner is a real part" in interest to %ile the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% eo%ilo and Aeli$idad5 R!li"# he re$ord sho*s that eo%ilo died intestate thereb" his survivin# $ompulsor" heirs are Aeli$idad and eo%ilo II. Fnder the la* o% su$$ession, su$$essional are transmitted %rom the moment o% death to the $ompulsor" heirs throu#h operation o% la*. 'nl"

25) *hen there are no des$endants, as$endants, ille#itimate $hildren, or a survivin# spouse that a $ollateral relatives shall su$$eed. he le#al personalit" o% petitioner to %ile %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e is $ontin#ent upon the %inal de$laration o% status o% eo%ilo II, but i% the latter *as proven to be a le#itimate, ille#itimate or le#all" adopted son o% eo%ilo, then petitioner has no le#al personalit" to as/ %or the nullit" o% marria#e o% his de$eased brother and Aeli$idad. It is based on the #round that petitioner has no su$$esional ri#ht to be prote$ted, hen$e, does not have proper interest. 1)1) A+la/a vs. Rep!+lic o- t'e &'ilippi"es G.R. No. 15)29), A!#!st 11, 2010 Facts: 'n '$tober 1:, 2000, the petitioner %iled a petition %or the de$laration o% the absolute nullit" o% the marria#e $ontra$ted on De$ember 2H, 19)9 b" his late brother 3resen$iano 0bla=a and +eonila .onato. he petitioner alle#ed that the marria#e o% 3resen$iano and +eonila had been $elebrated *ithout a marria#e li$ense, havin# said that su$h li$ense *as issued onl" on Januar" 9, 1950, thereb" renderin# the marria#e void ab initio. he petitioner insisted that his bein# the onl" brother o% $resen$iano *ho died *ithout an" issue, entitled him one?hal% o% the estate o% the de$eased, thus, ma/in# him a real?part"?in interest. he trial $ourt dismissed petition on the #round that petitioner is not part" to the marria#e. he 3ourt o% appeals a%%irmed the de$ision. ss!e: Whether or not petitioner is a real part" in interest in the a$tion to see/ the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% his de$eased brother5 R!li"#: 3onsiderin# that the marria#e o% 3resen$iano and +eonila *as $ontra$ted on De$ember 2H, 19)9, thus it #overns b" the 3ivil 3ode. he validit" o% the marria#e is tedted a$$ordin# to the la* in %or$e at the time the marria#e is $ontra$ted. 0s a #eneral rule, the nature o% the marria#e alread" $elebrated $annot be $han#ed b" a subse>uent amendment o% the #overnin# la*. 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10?(3 too/ e%%e$t on ,ar$h 15, 20016 se$tion 2 provides the limitation that a petition %or the de$laration o% nullit"

259 o% marria#e ma"be %iled solel" b" the husband or *i%e. .en$e, the rule on the ex$lusivit" to the parties to the marria#e as havin# the ri#ht to initiate the a$tion %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e under 0.,. 9o. 02?11?10?(3 had absolutel" no appli$ation to the petitioner. 1)2) 2aB!ila" vs. 2aB!ila" G.R. No. 155409, 3!"e ), 2000 Facts: Petitioner Bir#ilio and respondent Dita are spouses *ho on$e had a bliss%ul marria#e, until Bir#ilio %ound out that Dita *as havin# an illi$it relationship *ith her paramour. Dita and her paramour *ere $onvi$ted *ith the $rime o% adulter". (ubse>uentl", respondent then %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. While the petition *as pendin#, petitioner and respondent entered into a $ompromise a#reement to settle their $onGu#al properties. .o*ever, petitioner %iled an omnibus motion %or repudiation o% the $ompromise a#reement $ontendin# that he *as not apprised o% the $onse>uential e%%e$ts o% the a#reement. he petitioner ar#ues that the $ompromise a#reement should have not been #iven Gudi$ial imprimatur sin$e it is a#ainst la* and publi$ poli$"6 that the pro$eedin#s *here it *as approved is null and void, there bein# no appearan$e and parti$ipation o% the (oli$itor <eneral or the Provin$ial Prose$utor, that it *as timel" repudiated6 and that the respondent, havin# been $onvi$ted o% adulter", is there%ore dis>uali%ied %rom sharin# in $onGu#al propert". ss!e: Whether or not the $ompromise a#reement is null and void %or the reason that there is no parti$ipation o% the state5 R!li"#: 0rti$le )@ provides that in all $ases o% annulment or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e the 3ourt shall order the prose$utin# attorne" or %is$al assi#ned to it to appear on behal% o% the (tate to ta/e steps to prevent $ollusion bet*een the parties and to ta/e $are that the eviden$e is not %abri$ated or suppressed.

260 he purpose and a$tive parti$ipation o% prose$utor or soli$itor #eneral is to ensure that the interest o% the state is represented and prote$ted in pro$eedin#s %or the a$tion. 0nd also to ensure that there is no $ollusion or %abri$ation o% eviden$e bet*een parties %or %ilin# a de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. .o*ever, in the $ase there is no exi#en$" %or the presen$e o% Prose$utor or (oli$itor <eneral sin$e the merits o% $ompromise a#reement has no bearin# on the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e, also the a#reement pertains to the separation o% $onGu#al properties that has no preGudi$e to the out$ome o% pendin# de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e.

1)3) Rep!+lic vs. (!iso"72el#ar G.R. No. 139606, 2arc' 31, 2006 Facts: 'n ,ar$h 2:, 19H5, 9orma and 7ulo#io #ot married. he" be#ot %ive $hildren. 'n 0u#ust 19, 199H, 9orma %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% 7ulo#io. (ummon and $omplaint *as delivered to 7ulo#io but he %ailed to ans*er or enter his appearan$e. he trial $ourt then ordered the prose$utor to $ondu$t an investi#ation to determine *hether or not $ollusion exist bet*een parties, the prose$utor submitted mani%estation that $ollusion is inexistent. he trial $ourt then rendered de$ision de$larin# the marria#e void. he '%%i$e o% the (oli$itor <eneral 8'(<4 then %iled an appeal $ontendin# that eviden$es presented are not su%%i$ient to de$lare the nullit" o% the marria#e, ho*ever, the de$ision o% trial $ourt *as upheld. ss!e: Whether or not the role o% the state *as properl" observed in renderin# the de$ision5 R!li"#: When the trial $ourt rendered the de$ision, it *as based on stipulation o% %a$ts. 0s enshrined in arti$le )@ o% the Aamil" 3ode that in $ases involvin# annulment or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e, the $ourt shall emphasi=ed the role o% Prose$utor and '(< as $ounsel %or the state. In the $ase, the state did not

261 a$tivel" parti$ipate in the prose$ution, other than the prose$utor-s mani%estation, no pleadin#, motion or position paper *as %iled b" the prose$utor or the '(<. 'nl" the a$tive parti$ipation o% state *ill ensure that the interest o% state is represented and prote$ted. hus, no de$ision shall be handed do*n unless the (ol<en issues a $erti%i$ation statin# the reason %or his a#reement or opposition to the petition. 1)4) 2alca.po75i" vs. 5i" G.R. No. 130590, 2arc' 26, 2001 Facts: 'n Januar" ), 19@:, Aloren$e married Philipp, a Portu#uese $iti=en, in (an ,i#uel, ,anila. .o*ever, on (eptember 20, 199), Aloren$e %iled a $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e a#ainst Philipp on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". When parties presented their do$umentar" and testimonial eviden$es, the trial $ourt rendered de$ision dismissin# the petition. Fpon appeal, de$ision *as a%%irmed. ss!e: Whether or not the state a$tivel" parti$ipated in the prose$ution5 R!li"#: he %amil" 3ode mandates that in all $ases involvin# annulment and de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e, the $ourt shall order the a$tive parti$ipation o% the state. In the $ase, thou#h a mani%estation o% a %is$al *as %iled that $ollusion *as inexistent bet*een parties, no other a$tion *as ta/en b" him6 neither an en$oura#ement o% Gud#e to the %is$al to $ontribute to the pro$eedin#s proved %utile. he tas/ o% prote$tin# the marria#e as inviolable institution re>uires a$tive parti$ipation o% the state. he re$ords bere%t an" eviden$e o% parti$ipation o% the state in the prose$ution in the trial $ourt and $ourt o% appeals, the $ase *as then remanded to the trial $ourt %or proper trial. 1)5) $!aso" vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 116600, April 10, 1996 Facts: 7milio and ,aria *ere married on June 1, 19:2, the" be#ot t*o $hildren out o% the union. .o*ever, she alle#ed that at the

262 time o% the marria#e, 7milio *as alread" ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the marital obli#ations and that it be$ame mani%est onl" a%ter the $elebration o% the marria#e. hus on 19@2, ,aria %iled a petition on de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. 7milio ans*ered den"in# the imputations a#ainst him. he trial $ourt then s$heduled the presentation o% eviden$e o% 7milio, but t*o da"s be%ore the s$heduled hearin#, $ounsel %or 7milio %iled a motion %or postponement on reason that the prin$ipal $ounsel *as out o% the $ountr". It *as #ranted and the hearin# *as reset on June @, 1990. 'n the s$heduled date, 7milio %ailed to appear the $ourt then de$lare that 7milio *aived his ri#ht to present eviden$e and deemed the $ase submitted %or de$ision. he trial $ourt rendered de$ision de$larin# the marria#e null and void ab initio. 9o appeal *as ta/en %rom the de$ision. hen, ,aria %iled a motion %or dissolution o% $onGu#al partnership o% #ains and adGudi$ation, 7milio also %iled petition %or relie% but *as denied. .e $ontend that he *as denied due pro$ess *hen %ailed to appear on the #round that he *as $on%ined in a rehabilitation $enter and that his %ormer $ounsel %ailed to in%orm the $ourt. 7milio then $ites the arti$le )@ o% the %amil" $ode that *hen he %ailed to appear, the $ourt should have ordered a prose$utin# o%%i$er to intervene %or the state. ss!e: Whether or not there *as parti$ipation o% the (tate throu#h the (oli$itor & <eneral5 R!li"#: he role o% the prose$utin# attorne" or %is$al in annulment o% marria#e and le#al separation pro$eedin#s is to determine *hether $ollusion exists bet*een the parties and to ta/e $are that the eviden$e is not suppressed or %abri$ated. here is no alle#ation b" the petitioner that eviden$e *as suppressed or %abri$ated b" an" o% the parties. Fnder these $ir$umstan$es, the $ourt *as $onvin$ed that the non?intervention o% a prose$utin# attorne" to assure la$/ o% $ollusion bet*een the $ontendin# parties is not %atal to the validit" o% the pro$eedin#s in the trial $ourt. hus, the $ase at bar do not $all %or the stri$t appli$ation o% 0rti$les )@ o% the Aamil" 3ode. Aor one, petitioner *as not de$lared in de%ault b" the trial $ourt %or %ailure to ans*er. Petitioner %iled his ans*er to the $omplaint and $ontested the

263 $ause o% a$tion alle#ed b" private respondent. .e a$tivel" parti$ipated in the pro$eedin#s belo* b" %ilin# several pleadin#s and $ross?examinin# the *itnesses o% private respondent. It is there%ore $lear that ever" sta#e o% the liti#ation *as $hara$teri=ed b" a no?holds barred $ontest and not b" $ollusion. 1)6) (orp!s vs. 3!%#e *tc'otore"a A.2 No. R$370471)61, 3!l4 30, 2004 Facts: 'n Aebruar" H, 2001, a $omplaint *as %iled b" ,ariano Joa>uin (. ,a$ias then in$umbent Gud#e o% R 3 11 +ilo", Eamboan#a Del 9orte a#ainst ,ar#ie ,a$ias %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. (ummons *as not served to ,ar#ie sin$e her *hereabouts *as un/no*n. It *as throu#h publi$ation that petitioner $ame to /no* about the $omplaint6 she then %iled a motion to dismiss *hi$h *as set on 0pril 20, 2001. Respondent Jud#e denied the motion to dismiss and de$lare the $ase submitted %or de$ision. Fpon appeal, the appellate $ourt stated that even i% ,ar#ie %ailed to %ile his ans*er to the $omplaint a%ter the period had elapsed, the respondent Gud#e *as not authori=e to $ondu$t the hearin# o% the $ase base on merits. (in$e rules o% $ourt prohibits de%ault pro$eedin#s in $ases involvin# de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e. ss!e: Whether or not parti$ipation o% state is ne$essar" *hen a part" %ailed to ans*er the $omplaint5 R!li"#: (e$tion 1, Rule 9 o% 199: Rules o% 3ivil Pro$edure states that *hen the de%endin# part" in de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e %ails to ans*er, the $ourt shall order a prose$utor o%%i$er to investi#ate *hether or not $ollusion exist bet*een parties. In the $ase, respondent Gud#e i#nored the pro$edure. hou#h the prose$utin# o%%i$er submit a $erti%i$ation, it does not su%%i$e to $ompl" *ith the mandator" re>uirement that the $ourt should order the investi#atin# prose$utor *hether $ollusion exist bet*een parties. (u$h dire$tive must be made b" the $ourt be%ore trial $ould pro$eed, and not a%ter the trial on the merits o% the $ase had alread" been made.

264 1)0) &acete vs. (arria#a G.R. No. L753))0, 2arc' 10, 1994 Facts: 3on$ep$ion 0lanis married 7nri$o Pa$ete on 0pril 10, 191@ and their union be#ot one $hild. (ubse>uentl", Pa$ete $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e to 3larita dela 3on$ep$ion. When Pa$ete a$>uired vast estate properties, he %raudulentl" pla$ed the properties in his name or to 3larita and their 3hildren. 'n '$tober 29, 19:9, 0lanis %iled a petition %or de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e o% Pa$ete and 3larita, and +e#al separation bet*een them, as *ell as a$$ountin# and separation o% propert". he $ourt served summons, the de%endants t*i$e %iled a motion %or extension to ans*er in *hi$h the $ourt #ranted. he third motion %or extension *as ho*ever denied, and the $ourt de$lares the de%endants in de%ault. he $ourt ho*ever rendered de$ision based on stipulation o% %a$ts presented b" 0lanis. ss!e: Whether or not the non appearan$e o% petitioner in the pro$eedin#s re>uired the appearan$e and parti$ipation o% state5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 101 o% the $ivil $ode states that no de$ree o% le#al separation shall be promul#ated upon stipulation o% %a$ts, and in $ase o% non?appearan$e o% the de%endant, the $ourt shall order a prose$utin# o%%i$er to intervene %or the state and to ensure that there is no $ollusion or %abri$ated eviden$e bet*een parties. he spe$ial pres$riptions on a$tions that $an put the inte#rit" o% marria#e to possible Geopard" are impelled b" no less than the (tateNs interest in the marria#e relation and its avo*ed intention not to leave the matter *ithin the ex$lusive domain and the va#aries o% the parties to alone di$tate. hus the parti$ipation o% state in the pro$eedin#s is to emphasi=e that marria#e is more than a mere $ontra$t, rather it is so$ial institution in *hi$h the state is vitall" interested, and that interruption $annot be made to depend upon parties themselves.

1))) .el%a 2ar+ella71o+is vs. sa#a"i D. 1o+is G.R. No. 13)509, 3!l4 31, 2000

265

Facts: Isa#ani *as married to the Imelda on Januar" 25, 199H. Fn/no*n to the petitioner, Isa#ani $ontra$ted his %irst marria#e *ith a ,aria Dul$e C. Javier on '$tober 21, 19@5 and has not been nulli%ied. Isa#ani on$e a#ain entered into marria#e *ith a $ertain Julia (all" .ernande=. 0 $ase o% bi#am" *as %iled a#ainst him, $onse>uentl" he initiated a $ivil a$tion %or the Gudi$ial de$laration o% his %irst marria#e on the #round that it *as $elebrated *ithout a li$ense. ss!e: Whether or not there is a need %or de$laration o% nullit" o% the previous marria#e be%ore he $ould have $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that in the li#ht o% 0rti$le )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode, respondent, *ithout %irst havin# obtained the Gudi$ial de$laration o% nullit" o% the %irst marria#e, $an not be said to have validl" entered into the se$ond marria#e. Per $urrent Gurispruden$e, a marria#e thou#h void still needs a Gudi$ial de$laration o% su$h %a$t be%ore an" part" $an marr" a#ain6 other*ise the se$ond marria#e *ill also be void.R19S he reason is that, *ithout a Gudi$ial de$laration o% its nullit", the %irst marria#e is presumed to be subsistin#. In the $ase at bar, respondent *as %or all le#al intents and purposes re#arded as a married man at the time he $ontra$ted his se$ond marria#e *ith petitioner. 1)9) $4 vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 120406, Nove.+er 20, 2000 Facts: In,ar$h 29, 19::, 7d#ardo ,. Re"es married 0nna ,aria Billanueva in a $ivil $eremon". he" had a $hur$h *eddin# in the same "ear as *ell. In 19@0, the Juvenile and Domesti$ Relations 3ourt o% K3 8JDR34 de$lared their marria#e as null and void6 the $ivil one %or la$/ o% marria#e li$ense and the subse>uent $hur$h *eddin# due to the la$/ o% $onsent o% the parties. In 19:9, prior to the JDR3 de$ision, Re"es married '%elia '%elia P. ". hen in 1991, Re"es %iled %or an a$tion %or de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith '%elia. .e averred that the" la$/ a marria#e li$ense at the time o% the $elebration and that there *as no Gudi$ial

266 de$laration "et as to the nullit" o% his previous marria#e *ith 0nna. '%elia presented eviden$e provin# the existen$e o% a valid marria#e li$ense in$ludin# the spe$i%i$ li$ense number desi#nated. he lo*er $ourt ho*ever ruled that '%elia-s marria#e *ith Re"es is null and void. he same *as a%%irmed b" the 30 appl"in# the provisions o% the 0rt )0 o% the A3. ss!e: Whether or not the absolute nullit" o% the previous o% marria#e o% Re"es $an be invo/ed in the $ase at bar5 R!li"#: 0rt. )0 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that, he absolute nullit" o% a previous marria#e ma" be invo/ed %or purposes o% remarria#e on the basis solel" o% a %inal Gud#ment de$larin# su$h previous marria#e void.! his means that be%ore one $an enter into a se$ond marria#e he must %irst a$>uire a Gudi$ial de$laration o% the nullit" o% the previous marria#e and su$h de$laration ma" be invo/ed on the basis solel" o% a %inal Gud#ment de$larin# the previous marria#e as void. Aor purposes other than remarria#e, other eviden$es ma" be presented and the de$laration $an be passed upon b" the $ourts. In the $ase at bar, the lo*er $ourt and the 30 $annot appl" the provision o% the A3. Coth marria#es entered b" Re"es *ere solemni=ed prior to the A3. he old 33 did not have an" provision that states that there must be su$h a de$laration be%ore remarria#e $an be done hen$e '%elia-s marria#e *ith Re"es is valid. he provisions o% the A3 $annot be applied retroa$tivel" espe$iall" be$ause the" *ould impair the vested ri#hts o% '%elia under the 33 *hi$h *as operational durin# her marria#e *ith Re"es. 190) <al%e/ vs. R$( G.R. No. 122049, 3!l4 31, 1996 Facts: 0ntonio Balde= and 3onsuelo <ome= *ere married Januar" 5, 19:1. Ce#otten durin# the marria#e *ere %ive $hildren. In a petition, dated June 22, 1992, Balde= sou#ht the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e pursuant to 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. he trial $ourt #ranted the petition, thereb" de$larin# their marria#e null and void on the #round o% mutual ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Part o% the de$ision stated: he petitioner and the respondent

260 are dire$ted to start pro$eedin#s on the li>uidation o% their $ommon properties as de%ined b" 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode, and to $ompl" *ith the provisions o% 0rti$les 50, 51, and 52 o% the same $ode, *ithin thirt" 8104 da"s %rom noti$e o% this de$ision.! 3onsuelo <ome= sou#ht a $lari%i$ation o% that portion o% the de$ision dire$tin# $omplian$e *ith 0rti$les 50, 51 and 52 o% the Aamil" 3ode. (he asserted that the Aamil" 3ode $ontained no provisions on the pro$edure %or the li>uidation o% $ommon propert" in Iunions *ithout marria#e.I ss!e: Whether or not 0rti$les 50, 51 and 52 o% the Aamil" 3ode should be held $ontrollin# over disposition o% the %amil" d*ellin# in $ases *here a marria#e is de$lared void ab initio, in$ludin# a marria#e de$lared void b" reason o% the ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" o% the spouses5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the %irst para#raph o% 0rti$les 50 o% the Aamil" 3ode, appl"in# para#raphs 824, 814, 8)4 and 954 o% 0rti$le )1, 11 relates onl", b" its expli$it terms, to voidable marria#es and, ex$eptionall", to void marria#es under 0rti$le )0 1) o% the 3ode, i.e., the de$laration o% nullit" o% a subse>uent marria#e $ontra$ted b" a spouse o% a prior void marria#e be%ore the latter is Gudi$iall" de$lared void. he latter is a spe$ial rule that someho* re$o#ni=es the philosoph" and an old do$trine that void marria#es are inexistent %rom the ver" be#innin# and no Gudi$ial de$ree is ne$essar" to establish their nullit". In no* re>uirin# %or purposes o% remarria#e, the de$laration o% nullit" b" %inal Gud#ment o% the previousl" $ontra$ted void marria#e, the present la* aims to do a*a" *ith an" $ontinuin# un$ertaint" on the status o% the se$ond marria#e. 191) D L* vs. D L* G.R. No. 10)044, 3a"!ar4 19, 2011 Facts: 0lain ,. Di;o and ,a. 3aridad +. Di;o *ere married be%ore ,a"or Ber#el 0#uilar o% +as Pi;as 3it" on 1) Januar" 199@. 'n 10 ,a" 2001, petitioner %iled an a$tion %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e a#ainst respondent, $itin# ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. he trial $ourt #ranted the

26) petition on the #round that respondent *as ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the essential marital obli#ations at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e and de$lared their marria#e void ab initio. It ordered that a de$ree o% absolute nullit" o% marria#e shall onl" be issued upon $omplian$e *ith 0rti$les 50 and 51 o% the Aamil" 3ode. rial $ourt, upon motion %or partial re$onsideration o% petitioner, modi%ied its de$ision holdin# that a de$ree o% absolute nullit" o% marria#e shall be issued a%terli>uidation, partition and distribution o% the partiesproperties under 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or not 0rti$les 50 and 51 o% the Aamil" 3ode should appl" to the $ase5 R!li"#: It is $lear %rom 0rti$le 50 o% the Aamil" 3ode that (e$tion 19814 o% the Rule applies onl" to marria#es *hi$h are de$lared void ab initio or annulled b" %inal Gud#ment under 0rti$les )0 and )5 o% the Aamil" 3ode. In short, 0rti$le 50 o% the Aamil" 3ode does not appl" to marria#es *hi$h are de$lared void ab initio under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h should be de$lared void *ithout *aitin# %or the li>uidation o% the properties o% the parties. In this $ase, petitioner-s marria#e to respondent *as de$lared void under 0rti$le 1H15 o% the Aamil" 3ode and not under 0rti$le )0 or )5. hus, *hat #overns the li>uidation o% properties o*ned in $ommon b" petitioner and respondent are the rules on $o? o*nership. 192) < LLANA,<A vs. (*AR$ *F A&&,AL5 G.R. No. 132955, *cto+er 20, 2006 Facts: In 0pril 19@@, 'rl" married +ilia be%ore a trial $ourt Gud#e in Puerto Prin$esa. In 9ovember 1992, 'rl" %iled to annul the marria#e. .e $laimed that threats o% violen$e and duress %or$ed him to marr" +ilia. +ilia *as alread" pre#nant6 but he did not #et her pre#nant prior to the marria#e6 that he never $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e6 and that he later learned that private respondentNs $hild died durin# deliver" on 0u#ust 29, 19@@ .e said that he had been re$eivin# phone $alls threatenin# him and

269 that +ilia even hired the servi$e o% a $ertain Ja3elso, a member o% the 9P0, to threaten him. 'rl" also said he *as de%rauded b" +ilia b" $laimin# that she *as pre#nant hen$e he married her but he no* raises that he never impre#nated +ilia prior to the marria#e. +ilia on the other hand denied 'rl"-s alle#ations and she said that 'rl" %reel" $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e and she sho*ed 1) letters that sho*s 'rl"-s a%%e$tion and $are to*ards her. ss!e: Whether or not %raud is present in the $ase5 R!li"#: Araud $annot be raised as a #round as *ell. .is alle#ation that he never had an ere$tion durin# their sexual inter$ourse is in$redible. 0ppellant-s ex$use that he $ould not have impre#nated the appellee be$ause he did not have an ere$tion durin# their tr"st is %lims" at best and an outri#ht lie at *orst. he $omplaint is bere%t o% an" re%eren$e to his inabilit" to $opulate *ith the appellee. .is $ounsel also $on$eded be%ore the lo*er $ourt that his $lient had a sexual relationship *ith the appellee. 0lso, there is a prolon#ed ina$tion on the part o% 'rl" to atta$/ the marria#e. It too/ him ) and a hal% "ears to %ile an a$tion *hi$h brin#s merit to +ilia-s $ontention that 'rl" %reel" $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e. 193) ANA9A vs. &ALAR*AN G.R. No. L720930, Nove.+er 26, 1900 Facts: 0urora 0na"a and Aernando Palaroan *ere married on De$ember ), 1951. Aernando %iled an a$tion %or annulment o% the marria#e on Januar" :, 195) on the #round that his $onsent *as obtained throu#h %or$e and intimidation. he 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila rendered de$ision on (eptember 21, 1959 dismissin# the $omplaint o% Aernando, and upholdin# the validit" o% the marria#e. Aernando had divul#ed to 0urora that several months prior to their marria#e he had pre?marital relationship *ith a $lose relative o% his6 and that Ithe non?divul#ement to her o% the a%orementioned pre?marital se$ret on the part o% de%endant that de%initel" *re$/ed their marria#e, *hi$h apparentl" doomed to %ail even be%ore it had hardl" $ommen$ed ... %ran/ dis$losure o% *hi$h, $ertitude pre$isel" pre$luded her, the plainti%% herein %rom

200 #oin# thru the marria#e that *as solemni=ed bet*een them $onstituted NAR0FDN. ss!e: Whether or not the %raud dis$ussed in the $ase $onstitute to a #round %or annulment o% marria#e5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that non?dis$losure o% a husbandNs pre? marital relationship *ith another *oman is not one o% the enumerated $ir$umstan$es that *ould $onstitute a #round %or annulment. 'n the merits o% the se$ond %raud $har#e, it is enou#h to point out that an" se$ret intention on the husbandNs part not to per%orm his marital duties must have been dis$overed b" the *i%e soon a%ter the marria#e: hen$e her a$tion %or annulment based on that %raud should have been brou#ht *ithin %our "ears a%ter the marria#e. (in$e appellantNs *eddin# *as $elebrated in De$ember o% 1951, and this #round *as onl" pleaded in 19HH, it must be de$lared alread" barred. 194) 1A((A$ vs. 1A((A$72ANG*N*N G.R. No. 40101, April 25, 1941 Facts: <odo%redo Cu$$at and +uida ,an#onon de Cu$$at met in ,ar$h 191@, be$ame en#a#ed in (eptember, and #ot married in 9ov 2H on a 3atholi$ 3athedral in Ca#uio 3it". 'n Aeb 21, 1919, @9 da"s a%ter #ettin# married, +uida, *ho *as 9 months pre#nant, #ave birth to a son. 0%ter /no*in# this, <odo%redo le%t +uida and never returned to the marital li%e *ith her. 'n ,ar$h 21, 1919, he %iled %or an annulment o% their marria#e on the #rounds that *hen he a#reed to married +uida, she assured him that she *as a vir#in. he +o*er $ourt de$ided in %avor o% +uida. ss!e: Whether or not the $on$ealment o% her pre#nan$" be%ore the marria#e $an annul their marria#e5 R!li"#: he 3ourt does not see an" reason to va$ate the Gud#ment appealed. Indeed, it is improbable %or <odo%redo to have not even suspe$ted the #ravid state o% the +uida bein# this, as has been proven, hi#hl" advan$ed in pre#nant $ondition. here%ore it is not ne$essar" to estimate the %raud the appellant

201 $laims. 3lear and authenti$ proo% is needed in order to nulli%" a marria#e, a sa$red institution in *hi$h the (tate is interested and *here so$iet" rests. In this $ase, the $ourt did not %ind an" proo% that there *as $on$ealment o% pre#nan$" $onstitutin# %raud as a #round %or annulment. It *as unli/el" that <odo%redo, a %irst?"ear la* student, did not suspe$t an"thin# about +uida-s $ondition $onsiderin# that she *as in an advan$ed sta#e o% pre#nan$" 8hi#hl" developed ph"si$al mani%estation, ie. enlar#ed stoma$h 4 *hen the" #ot married. 195) < LLANA,<A vs. (*AR$ *F A&&,AL5 G.R. No. 132955, *cto+er 20, 2006 Facts: In 0pril 19@@, 'rl" married +ilia be%ore a trial $ourt Gud#e in Puerto Prin$esa. In 9ovember 1992, 'rl" %iled to annul the marria#e. .e $laimed that threats o% violen$e and duress %or$ed him to marr" +ilia. +ilia *as alread" pre#nant6 but he did not #et her pre#nant prior to the marria#e6 that he never $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e6 and that he later learned that private respondentNs $hild died durin# deliver" on 0u#ust 29, 19@@ .e said that he had been re$eivin# phone $alls threatenin# him and that +ilia even hired the servi$e o% a $ertain Ja3elso, a member o% the 9P0, to threaten him. 'rl" also said he *as de%rauded b" +ilia b" $laimin# that she *as pre#nant hen$e he married her but he no* raises that he never impre#nated +ilia prior to the marria#e. +ilia on the other hand denied 'rl"-s alle#ations and she said that 'rl" %reel" $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e and she sho*ed 1) letters that sho*s 'rl"-s a%%e$tion and $are to*ards her. ss!e: Whether or not %raud, intimidation, undue in%luen$e are attendant in the $ase5 R!li"#: 'n the merits o% the $ase, 'rl"-s alle#ation o% %ear *as not $on$retel" established. .e *as not able to prove that there *as a reasonable and *ell?#rounded reason %or %ear to be $reated in his mind b" the alle#ed intimidation bein# done a#ainst him b" +ilia and her part". he 3ourt is not $onvin$ed that appellant-s apprehension o% dan#er to his person is so over*helmin# as to deprive him o% the *ill to enter voluntaril" to a $ontra$t o%

202 marria#e. It is not disputed that at the time he *as alle#edl" bein# harassed, appellant *or/ed as a se$urit" #uard in a ban/. <iven his emplo"ment at that time, it is reasonable to assume that appellant /ne* the rudiments o% sel%?de%ense, or, at the ver" least, the proper *a" to /eep himsel% out o% harm-s *a". 196) 2A(ARRA1* vs. 2A(ARRA1* A.(. No. 614), Fe+r!ar4 20, 2004 Facts: In 19@2, 7dmundo,a$arrubo married .elen 7spar=a. In 19@H, he be#an his $areer as a la*"er. .o*ever in 1991, ,a$arrubo married Aloren$e eves *hile his marria#e *ith 7spar=a *as subsistin#. In June 2000, eves %iled a $omplaint %or disbarment a#ainst ,a$arrubo. eves alle#ed that 7dmundo made her believe that his marria#e *ith 7spar=a *as void6 that ,a$arubbo lived *ith her as her husband but later on le%t her and then 7dmundo subse>uentl" married another *oman named Josephine 3onstantino *hom he subse>uentl" abandoned. eves presented as eviden$e do$uments provin# 7dmundo-s marria#es as *ell as photos o% him and his *i%e as a %amil". 7dmundo $laims that his marria#e bet*een the $omplainant *as indeed a sham and ma/e believe! one, vitiated b" %raud, de$eit, %or$e and intimidation, and %urther exa$erbated b" the existen$e o% a le#al impediment! and *ant o% a valid marria#e li$ense. ss!e: Whether or not there *as %raud5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that in both his marria#es to his %irst *i%e and to $omplainant, respondent $laimed that he *as made to enter into the marital union a#ainst his *ill. hat $laim is an a%%ront to the intelli#en$e o% the members o% this 3ourt to distin#uish %a$t %rom %i$tion, realit" %rom %antas". It is not eas" to believe that a la*"er li/e respondent $ould easil" be $o*ered to enter into an" marria#e. 'ne in$ident o% a shot#un marria#e! is believable, but t*o su$h in su$$ession *ould tax one-s $redulit". 0nd then, there is a third marria#e to Josephine . 3onstantino *hi$h is a#ain the subGe$t o% another annulment $ase. It *ould not $ome as a surprise i% in that pendin# $ase, he *ould a#ain put blame on his third *i%e in order to send the marria#e to oblivion.

203

190) R,9,5 vs. JA1ALL,R* G.R. No. L73561, 2a4 23, 1951 Facts: 0 loan o% PH,500 *ith interest at 10 per $ent per annum pa"able in advan$e, *as made b" Dr. 3esar Re"es, to the Eaballeros on '$tober 1, 19)2. he Eaballeros se$ured the pa"ment *ith a %irst mort#a#e on 10 par$els o% land, situated in the muni$ipalit" o% +u$ena, Kue=on Provin$e, more parti$ularl" des$ribed in the Deed o% ,ort#a#e. he installments due %or 19)2 and 19)1, totallin# the sum o% P1,100 plus interest *ere paid in Japanese ,ilitar" ($rip and the pa"ments *ere unreservedl" a$$epted. 7xe>uielEaballero o%%ered to pa" the third installments and its interest *hi$h %ell due in '$tober o% the same "ear6 but plainti%%?appellee re%used to a$$ept on the #round that it *as immoral and unGust that the pa"ment be made in Japanese militar" notes *hi$h had $onsiderabl" devaluated, and that he had an option a$$ordin# to the $ontra$t to have the pa"ment made in Philippines or Fnited (tates $urren$".7xe>uielEaballero announ$ed that the next da", De$ember 1, 19)) he *ould tender the *hole balan$e o% P5,@126 *hi$h he did b" *a" o% $omplete satis%a$tion o% the entire indebtedness. Re"es a$tin# upon advi$e #iven b" his attorne"s re$eived the mone" and exe$uted on De$ember 1, 19)), the notarial deed o% release o% the real estate mort#a#e 'n the same da", De$ember 1, 19)), that he re$eived pa"ment, the mort#a#ee, he exe$uted an a%%idavit in se$ret, *ithout de%endantsN /no*led#e, be%ore 9otar" Publi$ 0l%redo Conus 8*ho also rati%ied the deed o% release4 statin# that he had a$$epted under protest and Iobli#adoporlas$ir$unstan$iasa$tualesI, the pa"ment o% P5,200 plus interest in the sum o% PH12, and that he had deposited the *hole paid b" the debtors in the Philippine 9ational Can/ in +u$ena, as trustee %or the said amount. It is un$ontroverted that the deposit *as made in a spe$ial a$$ount *hi$h remains untou$hed to this da". ss!e: Whether or not there *ere threat and duress in the a$$eptan$e o% the pa"ment5

204 R!li"#: here is no proo% that the plainti%% $reditor *as threatened into a$$eptin# the pa"ment. he testimon" o% the 9otar" %ails to sho* that an" threat had been made to se$ure the assent o% the appellee. hat duress *as re>uired is indeed >uestionable, sin$e the debtor $ould have Gudi$iall" $onsi#ned the mone" i% the $reditor persisted in re%usin# it. In other *ords, the appellee de$ided to a$$ept the pa"ment relu$tantl" but voluntaril", in the expe$tation that he $ould adopt nulli%"in# measures that *ould preserve his ri#hts and not be$ause o% an" undue in%luen$e exer$ised b" another person. he appellate $ourt de$lared, in short, that 3esar Re"es re$eived the mone" on De$ember 1, 19)) *ithout an" duress, *ithout an" protest, albeit relu$tantl", exe$uted the notarial do$ument o% release o% the mort#a#e and immediatel" therea%ter: 8a4 s*ore to an a%%idavit, in se$ret, *ithout the debtorsN /no*led#e, de$larin# that I$ompelled b" the present $ir$umstan$esI he had a$$epted the pa"ment under protest, and 8b4 deposited the amount in the Philippine 9ational Can/ in a spe$ial a$$ount, as trustee. 19)) AL(AJAR vs. AL(AJAR G.R. No. 104451, *cto+er 13, 2009 Facts: Beroni$a 0l$a=ar, herein petitioner, *as married to respondent in 2000. 0%ter their *eddin#, petitioner and respondent lived %or %ive da"s in (an Jose, '$$idental ,indoro, and the hometo*n o% respondent-s parents. herea%ter, the ne*l"*eds *ent ba$/ to ,anila, but respondent did not live *ith petitioner. 'n 21 '$tober 2000, respondent le%t %or Ri"adh, Jin#dom o% (audi 0rabia, *here he *or/ed as an upholsterer in a %urniture shop. While *or/in# in Ri"adh, respondent did not $ommuni$ate *ith petitioner b" phone or b" letter. Petitioner tried to $all respondent %or %ive times but respondent never ans*ered. 0bout a "ear and a hal% a%ter respondent le%t %or Ri"adh, a $o?tea$her in%ormed petitioner that respondent *as about to $ome home to the Philippines. Petitioner *as surprised *h" she *as not advised b" respondent o% his arrival. Petitioner asserted that %rom the time respondent arrived in the Philippines, he never $onta$ted her. hus, petitioner $on$luded that respondent *as ph"si$all" in$apable o%

205 $onsummatin# his marria#e *ith her, providin# su%%i$ient $ause %or annulment o% their marria#e pursuant to para#raph 5, 0rti$le )5 o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines 8Aamil" 3ode4. here *as also no more possibilit" o% re$on$iliation bet*een petitioner and respondent. ss!e: Whether or not, respondent is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to per%orm the essential marital obli#ations5 R!li"#: 0rti$le )5854 o% the Aamil" 3ode re%ers to la$/ o% po*er to $opulate. In$apa$it" to $onsummate denotes the permanent inabilit" on the part o% the spouses to per%orm the $omplete a$t o% sexual inter$ourse. 9on?$onsummation o% a marria#e ma" be on the part o% the husband or o% the *i%e and ma" be $aused b" a ph"si$al or stru$tural de%e$t in the anatom" o% one o% the parties or it ma" be due to $hroni$ illness and inhibitions or %ears arisin# in *hole or in part %rom ps"$hoph"si$al $onditions. It ma" be $aused b" ps"$ho#eni$ $auses, *here su$h mental blo$/ or disturban$e has the result o% ma/in# the spouse ph"si$all" in$apable o% per%ormin# the marria#e a$t 9o eviden$e *as presented in the $ase at bar to establish that respondent *as in an" *a" ph"si$all" in$apable to $onsummate his marria#e *ith petitioner. Petitioner even admitted durin# her $ross?examination that she and respondent had sexual inter$ourse a%ter their *eddin# and be%ore respondent le%t %or abroad. here obviousl" bein# no ph"si$al in$apa$it" on respondent-s part, then, there is no #round %or annullin# petitioner-s marria#e to respondent. Petitioner-s 3omplaint *as, there%ore, ri#ht%ull" dismissed. 199) < LLANA,<A vs. (A G.R. No. 132955, *cto+er 20, 2006 Facts: Petitioner 'rlando Billanueva and private respondent +ilia 3analita?Billanueva #ot married on 0pril 11, 19@@ in Puerto Prin$esa, Pala*an. 'n 9ovember 1:, 1992, 'rlando %iled *ith the trial $ourt a petition %or annulment o% his marria#e alle#in# that threats o% violen$e and duress %or$ed him into marr"in# +ilia, *ho *as alread" pre#nant6 that he did not #et her pre#nant prior to

206 the marria#e6 that he never $ohabited *ith her a%ter the marria#e6 and that he later learned that private respondentNs $hild died durin# deliver" on 0u#ust 29, 19@@. In her ans*er *ith $ompulsor" $ounter$laim, +ilia pra"ed %or the dismissal o% the petition, ar#uin# that petitioner %reel" and voluntaril" married her6 that petitioner sta"ed *ith her in Pala*an %or almost a month a%ter their marria#e6 that petitioner *rote letters to her a%ter he returned to ,anila, durin# *hi$h private respondent visited him personall"6 and that petitioner /ne* about the pro#ress o% her pre#nan$", *hi$h ended in their son bein# born prematurel". Private respondent also pra"ed %or the pa"ment o% moral and exemplar" dama#es, attorne"-s %ees and $osts. ss!e: Whether or not, his marria#e should be annulled due to the absen$e o% $ohabitation bet*een him and his *i%e5 R!li"#: 0ppellant $annot $laim that his marria#e should be annulled due to the absen$e o% $ohabitation bet*een him and his *i%e. +a$/ o% $ohabitation is, per se, not a #round to annul a marria#e. 'ther*ise, the validit" o% a marria#e *ill depend upon the *ill o% the spouses *ho $an terminate the marital union b" re%usin# to $ohabitate. he %ailure to $ohabit be$omes relevant onl" i% it arises as a result o% the perpetration o% an" o% the #rounds %or annullin# the marria#e, su$h as la$/ o% parental $onsent, insanit", %raud, intimidation, or undue in%luen$e. (in$e the appellant %ailed to Gusti%" his %ailure to $ohabit *ith the appellee on an" o% those #rounds, the validit" o% his marria#e must be upheld. 200) 3 2,N,J vs. (AN JAR,5 G.R. No. L712090, A!#!st 31, 1960 Facts: In 1955, Joel Jimene= pra"s %or a de$ree annullin# his marria#e to the de%endant Remedios3a;i=ares $ontra$ted on 1 0u#ust 1950, upon the #round that the o%%i$e o% her #enitals or va#ina *as to small to allo* the penetration o% a male or#an or penis %or $opulation6 that the $ondition o% her #enitals as des$ribed above existed at the time o% marria#e and $ontinues to

200 exist6 and that %or that reason he le%t the $onGu#al home t*o ni#hts and one da" a%ter the" had been married. he *i%e *as summoned and served a $op" o% the $omplaint. (he did not %ile an ans*er. In 195H the 3ourt entered an order re>uirin# the de%endant to submit to a ph"si$al examination b" a $ompetent lad" ph"si$ian to determine her ph"si$al $apa$it" %or $opulation and to submit, *ithin ten da"s %rom re$eipt o% the order, a medi$al $erti%i$ate on the result thereo% *ith *arnin# that her %ailure to under#o medi$al examination and submit the re>uired do$torNs $erti%i$ate *ould be deemed la$/ o% interest on her part in the $ase and that Gud#ment upon the eviden$e presented b" her husband *ould be rendered. ss!e: Whether or not, the marria#e ma" be annulled on the stren#th onl" o% the lone testimon" o% the husband *ho $laimed and testi%ied that his *i%e *as and is impotent5 R!li"#: In the $ase at bar, the annulment o% the marria#e in >uestion *as de$reed upon the sole testimon" o% the husband *ho *as expe$ted to #ive testimon" tendin# or aimin# at se$urin# the annulment o% his marria#e he sou#ht and see/s. Whether the *i%e is reall" impotent $annot be deemed to have been satis%a$toril" established, be$ause %rom the $ommen$ement o% the pro$eedin#s until the entr" o% the de$ree she had abstained %rom ta/in# part therein. 0lthou#h her re%usal to be examined or %ailure to appear in $ourt sho* indi%%eren$e on her part, "et %rom su$h attitude the presumption arisin# out o% the suppression o% eviden$e $ould not arise or be in%erred be$ause *omen o% this $ountr" are b" nature $o", bash%ul and sh" and *ould not submit to a ph"si$al examination unless $ompelled to b" $ompetent authorit". his the 3ourt ma" do *ithout doin# violen$e to and in%rin#in# in this $ase is not sel%?in$rimination. (he is not $har#ed *ith an" o%%ense. (he is not bein# $ompelled to be a *itness a#ainst hersel%.IImpoten$" bein# an abnormal $ondition should not be presumed. he presumption is in %avor o% poten$".I he lone testimon" o% the husband that his *i%e is ph"si$all" in$apable o% sexual inter$ourse is insu%%i$ient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them to#ether as husband and *i%e.

20) 201) *NG ,NG : A2 vs. *NG G.R. No. 15320, *cto+er 23, 2006 Facts: 'n# 7n# Jiam, and +u$ita <. 'n# *ere married in 19:5 at the (an 0#ustin 3hur$h in ,anila. he" have three $hildren: Jin#ston, 3harleston, and Prin$eton *ho are no* all o% the a#e o% maGorit". 'n ,ar$h 21, 199H, +u$ita %iled a 3omplaint %or +e#al (eparation under 0rti$le 55 par. 814 o% the Aamil" 3ode be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34 o% Da#upan 3it", Cran$h )1 alle#in# that her li%e *ith William *as mar/ed b" ph"si$al violen$e, threats, intimidation and #rossl" abusive $ondu$t. +u$ita $laimed that: soon a%ter three "ears o% marria#e, she and William >uarreled almost ever" da", *ith ph"si$al violen$e bein# in%li$ted upon her6 the $auses o% these %i#hts *ere pett" thin#s re#ardin# their $hildren or their business6 William *ould also s$old and beat the $hildren at di%%erent parts o% their bodies usin# the bu$/le o% his belt6 *henever she tried to stop William %rom hittin# the $hildren, he *ould turn his ire on her and box her6 on De$ember 9, 1995, a%ter she protested *ith William-s de$ision to allo* their eldest son Jin#ston to #o to Ca$olod, William slapped her and said, Iit is none o% "our businessI6 on De$ember 1), 1995, she as/ed William to brin# Jin#ston ba$/ %rom Ca$olod6 a violent >uarrel ensued and William hit her on her head, le%t $hee/, e"e, stoma$h, and arms6 *hen William hit her on the stoma$h and she bent do*n be$ause o% the pain, he hit her on the head then pointed a #un at her and as/ed her to leave the house6 she then *ent to her sister-s house in Cinondo *here she *as %et$hed b" her other siblin#s and brou#ht to their parents house in Da#upan6 the %ollo*in# da", she *ent to her parent-s do$tor, Dr. Bi$ente 7lin=ano %or treatment o% her inGuries. ss!e: Whether or not, +u$ita-s a$t o% abandonin# the %amil" *ill bar a de$ree o% le#al separation5 R!li"#: 0rt. 5H, par. 8)4 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that le#al separation shall be denied *hen both parties have #iven #round %or le#al separation. he abandonment re%erred to b" the Aamil" 3ode is abandonment *ithout Gusti%iable $ause %or more than one "ear. 0s it *as established that +u$ita le%t William due to his

209 abusive $ondu$t, su$h does not $onstitute abandonment $ontemplated b" the said provision. 'ur 3onstitution is $ommitted to the poli$" o% stren#thenin# the %amil" as a basi$ so$ial institution. he 3onstitution itsel% ho*ever does not establish the parameters o% state prote$tion to marria#e and the %amil", as it remains the provin$e o% the le#islature to de%ine all le#al aspe$ts o% marria#e and pres$ribe the strate#" and the modalities to prote$t it and put into operation the $onstitutional provisions that prote$t the same. With the ena$tment o% the Aamil" 3ode, this has been a$$omplished as it de%ines marria#e and the %amil", spells out the $orrespondin# le#al e%%e$ts, imposes the limitations that a%%e$t married and %amil" li%e, as *ell as pres$ribes the #rounds %or de$laration o% nullit" and those %or le#al separation. 0s +u$ita has ade>uatel" proven the presen$e o% a #round %or le#al separation, the 3ourt has no reason but to a%%irm the %indin#s o% the R 3 and the 30, and #rant her the relie% she is entitled to under the la*. 202) GAAD *N(* vs. &,NARANDA G.R. No. 092)4, Nove.+er 20, 19)0 Facts: 'n 29 ,a" 19@H, eresita <adion$o, the le#al *i%e o% the petitioner, %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,isamis 'riental, 10th Judi$ial Distri$t, Cran$h 1@, in 3a#a"an de 'ro 3it", presided over b" respondent Jud#e, a $omplaint a#ainst petitioner %or le#al separation, on the #round o% $on$ubina#e, *ith a petition %or support and pa"ment o% dama#es. his $ase *as do$/eted as 3ivil 3ase 9o. 10H1H. 'n 11 '$tober 19@H, private respondent also %iled *ith the ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt, <eneral (antos 3it", a $omplaint a#ainst petitioner %or $on$ubina#e, *hi$h *as do$/eted on 21 '$tober 19@H as 3riminal 3ase 9o. 15)1:111. 'n 1) 9ovember 19@H, appli$ation %or the provisional remed" o% support pendente lite, pendin# a de$ision in the a$tion %or le#al separation, *as %iled b" private respondent in the $ivil $ase %or le#al separation. he respondent Gud#e, as alread" stated, on 10 De$ember 19@H, ordered the pa"ment o% support pendente lite.

2)0 ss!e: Whether or not, petitioner-s $onvi$tion %or $on$ubina#e *ill have to be %irst se$ured be%ore the a$tion %or le#al separation $an prosper or su$$eed5 R!li"#: 0 de$ree o% le#al separation, on the #round o% $on$ubina#e, ma" be issued upon proo% b" preponderan$e o% eviden$e in the a$tion %or le#al separation. 9o $riminal pro$eedin# or $onvi$tion is ne$essar". o this end, the do$trine in $rancisco vs. %ayao has been modi%ied, as that $ase *as de$ided under 0$t. 9o. 2:10, *hen absolute divor$e *as then allo*ed and had %or its #rounds the same #rounds %or le#al separation under the 9e* 3ivil 3ode, *ith the re>uirement, under su$h %ormer la*, that the #uilt o% de%endant spouses had to be established b" %inal Gud#ment in a $riminal a$tion. hat re>uirement has not been reprodu$ed or adopted b" the %ramers o% the present 3ivil 3ode, and the omission has been uni%orml" a$$epted as a modi%i$ation o% the strin#ent rule in $rancisco v. %ayao. 203) &R 2A &AR$*5A73* vs. (A G.R. No. )2606, Dece.+er 1), 1992 Facts: he herein private respondent, Jose Jo, admits to havin# $ohabited *ith three *omen and %athered %i%teen $hildren. he %irst o% these *omen, the herein petitioner, $laims to be his le#al *i%e *hom he be#ot a dau#hter, ,onina Jo. In 19@0, the petitioner %iled a $omplaint a#ainst Jo %or Gudi$ial separation o% $onGu#al propert", in addition to an earlier a$tion %or support, in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% 9e#ros 'riental, Cran$h 15. he t*o $ases *ere $onsolidated and tried Gointl". 'n 9ovember 29, 19@1, Jud#e <erman <. +ee, Jr. rendered an extensive de$ision *hi$h states that Prima Partosa *as le#all" married to Jose Jo alias .o .an#, alias 3onsin#, and, there%ore, is entitled to support as the la*%ull" *edded *i%e. ss!e: Whether or not, the #round o% separation o% the herein parties *ere due to their a#reement and not be$ause o% abandonment5

2)1 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 12@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, the a##rieved spouse ma" petition %or Gudi$ial separation on either o% these #rounds: 1. 0bondonment b" a spouse o% the other *ithout Gust $ause6 and 2. Aailure o% one spouse to $ompl" *ith his or her obli#ations to the %amil" *ithout Gust $ause, even i% she said spouse does not leave the other spouse. 0bandonment implies a departure b" one spouse *ith the avo*ed intent never to return, %ollo*ed b" prolon#ed absen$e *ithout Gust $ause, and *ithout in the meantime providin# in the least %or oneNs %amil" althou#h able to do so. here must be absolute $essation o% marital relations, duties and ri#hts, *ith the intention o% perpetual separation. he re$ord sho*s that as earl" as 19)2, the private respondent had alread" reGe$ted the petitioner, *hom he denied admission to their $onGu#al home in Duma#uete 3it" *hen she returned %rom Eamboan#uita. he %a$t that she *as not a$$epted b" Jo demonstrates all too $learl" that he had no intention o% resumin# their $onGu#al relationship. ,oreover, be#innin# 19H@ to 19@@, the private respondent re%used to #ive %inan$ial support to the petitioner. he ph"si$al separation o% the parties, $oupled *ith the re%usal b" the private respondent to #ive support to the petitioner, su%%i$ed to $onstitute abandonment as a #round %or the Gudi$ial separation o% their $onGu#al propert". In addition, the petitioner ma" also invo/e the se$ond #round allo*ed b" 0rti$le 12@, %or the %a$t is that he has %ailed *ithout Gust $ause to $ompl" *ith his obli#ations to the %amil" as husband or parent. 0lso, the separation %alls under 0rti$le 115 o% the Aamil" 3ode, stated as, that at the time o% the petition, the spouse have been separated in %a$t %or at least one "ear and re$on$iliation is hi#hl" improbable.! 204) ARR*9* vs. (A G.R. No. 96602, Nove.+er 19, 1991 Facts: Dr. Jor#e C. 9eri %iled a $riminal $omplaint %or adulter" be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34, Cran$h ), o% Cen#uet a#ainst his *i%e, Rub" Bera 9eri, and 7duardo 0rro"o in the 3it" o%

2)2 Ca#uio. Coth de%endants pleaded not #uilt" and a%ter trial, the R 3 $onvi$ted petitioner and ,rs. Rub" Bera 9eri o% adulter" as de%ined under 0rti$le 111 o% the Revised Penal 3ode. Petitioner 0rro"o %iled a ,otion %or Re$onsideration o% the 3ourt o% 0ppealsN De$ision. Petitioner Rub" Bera 9eri also moved %or re$onsideration or a ne* trial, $ontendin# that a pardon had been extended b" her husband, private $omplain ant Dr. Jor#e C. 9eri, and that her husband had later $ontra$ted marria#e *ith another *oman *ith *hom he is presentl" $o?habitin#. Coth motions *ere denied b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. 'n 2H 0u#ust 1991, Dr. 9eri %iled a mani%estation, dated 1) ,a" 1991, pra"in# that the $ase a#ainst petitioners be dismissed as he had Ita$itl" $onsentedI to his *i%eNs in%idelit". Petitioners then %iled their respe$tive motions pra"in# %or the dismissal or %or the #rantin# o% ne* trial o% the $ase $laimin# a basis %or their motions Dr. 9eriNs mani%estation. he (oli$itor <eneral *as then as/ed to $omment on the mani%estation. ss!e: Whether or not, Dr. 9eriNs a%%idavit o% desistan$e and the $ompromise a#reement operate as a pardon meritin# a ne* trial5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that 0rti$le 1)) o% the Revised Penal 3odeto be inappli$able in the present $ase. While there is a $on$eptual di%%eren$e bet*een $onsent and pardon in the sense that $onsent is #ranted prior to the adulterous a$t *hile pardon is #iven a%ter the illi$it a%%air, nevertheless, %or either $onsent or pardon to bene%it the a$$used, it must be #iven prior to t"e filing of a criminal complaint. 2 In the present $ase, the a%%idavit o% desistan$e *as exe$uted onl" on 21 9ovember 19@@ *hile the $ompromise a#reement *as exe$uted onl" on 1H Aebruar" 19@9, after t"e trial court "ad already rendered its decision dated &' (ecember &)*' finding petitioners guilty be"ond reasonable doubt. It should also be noted that *hile 0rti$le 1)) o% the Revise Penal 3ode provides that the $rime o% adulter" $annot be prose$uted *ithout the o%%ended spouseNs $omplaint, on$e the $omplaint has been %iled, the $ontrol o% the $ase passes to the publi$ prose$utor. 7n%or$ement o% our la* on adulter" is not ex$lusivel", nor even prin$ipall", a matter o% vindi$ation o% the private honor o% the o%%ended spouse6 mu$h less is it a matter

2)3 merel" o% personal or so$ial h"po$ris". (u$h en%or$ement relates, more importantl", to prote$tion o% the basi$ so$ial institutions o% marria#e and the %amil" in the preservation o% *hi$h the (tate has the stron#est interest6 the publi$ poli$" here involved is o% the most %undamental /ind. 205) G N,J vs. 1AGA9*NG G.R. No. L710033, Dece.+er 2), 1956 Facts: CenGamin Cu#a"on#, *as married to de%endant +eonila <ine=. Immediatel" a%ter their marria#e, the $ouple lived *ith their sisters *ho later moved to (ampalo$, ,anila. 0%ter some time, or about Jul", 1951, +eonila <ine= le%t the d*ellin# o% her sister?in?la* and in%ormed her husband b" letter that she had #one to reside *ith her mother in 0sin#an, Pan#asinan, %rom *hi$h pla$e she later moved to Da#upan 3it" to stud" in a lo$al $olle#e there. 0s earl" as Jul", 1951, CenGamin Cu#a"on# be#an re$eivin# letters %rom Baleriana Polan#$o 8plainti%%Ns sister?in?la*4 and some %rom anon"mous *riters8*hi$h *ere not produ$ed at the hearin#4 in%ormin# him o% alle#ed a$ts o% in%idelit" o% his *i%e *hi$h he did not even $are to mention. 'n $ross?examination, plainti%% admitted that his *i%e also in%ormed him b" letter, *hi$h she $laims to have destro"ed, that a $ertain I7lion#I /issed her. 0ll these $ommuni$ations prompted him in '$tober, 1951 to see/ the advi$e o% the 9av" 3haplain as to the propriet" o% a le#al separation bet*een him and his *i%e on a$$ount o% the latterNs alle#ed a$ts o% in%idelit", and he *as dire$ted to $onsult instead the nav" le#al department. In 0u#ust, 1952, plainti%% *ent to 0sin#an, Pan#asinan, and sou#ht %or his *i%e *hom he met in the house o% one ,rs. ,alalan#, de%endantNs #odmother. (he $ame alon# *ith him and both pro$eeded to the house o% Pedro Cu#a"on#, a $ousin o% the plainti%%?husband, *here the" sta"ed and lived %or 2 ni#hts and 1 da" as husband and *i%e. hen the" repaired to the plainti%%Ns house and a#ain passed the ni#ht therein as husband and *i%e. 'n the se$ond da", CenGamin Cu#a"on# tried to veri%" %rom his *i%e the truth o% the in%ormation he re$eived that she had $ommitted adulter" but +eonila, instead o% ans*erin# his >uer", merel" pa$/ed up and le%t, *hi$h he too/ as a $on%irmation o% the a$ts o% in%idelit" imputed on her. 0%ter

2)4 that and despite su$h belie%, plainti%% exerted e%%orts to lo$ate her and %ailin# to %ind her, he *ent to Ca$arra, Ilo$os 9orte, Ito soothe his *ounded %eelin#sI. ss!e: Whether or not, there *as $ondonation on the part o% plainti%%?appellant5 R!li"#: 3ondonation is the %or#iveness o% a marital o%%ense $onstitutin# a #round %or le#al separation or the I$onditional %or#iveness or remission, b" a husband or *i%e o% a matrimonial o%%ense +"ic" t"e latter "as committed I. It is to be noted, ho*ever, that in de%endantNs ans*er she vehementl" and vi#orousl" denies havin# $ommitted an" a$t o% in%idelit" a#ainst her husband, and even i% We *ere to #ive %ull *ei#ht to the testimon" o% the plainti%%, *ho *as the onl" one that had the $han$e o% testi%"in# in 3ourt and lin/ su$h eviden$e *ith the averments o% the $omplaint, We *ould have to $on$lude that the %a$ts appearin# on the re$ord are %ar %rom su%%i$ient to establish the $har#e o% adulter", or, as the $omplaint states, o% Ia$ts o% ran/ in%idelit" amountin# to adulter"I pre%erred a#ainst the de%endant. 3ertainl", the letter that plainti%% $laims to have re$eived %rom his sister?in?la* Baleriana Polan#$o, *hi$h must have been too va#ue and inde%inite as to de%endantNs in%idelit" to deserve its produ$tion in eviden$e6 nor the anon"mous letters *hi$h plainti%% also %ailed to present6 nor the alle#ed letter that, a$$ordin# to plainti%%, his *i%e addressed to him admitting that she had been /issed b" one 7lion#, *hose identit" *as not established and *hi$h admission de%endant had no opportunit" to den" be$ause the motion to dismiss *as %iled soon a%ter plainti%% %inished his testimon" in 3ourt, do not amount to an"thin# that $an be relied upon. 0lthou#h no a$ts o% in%idelit" mi#ht have been $ommitted b" the *i%e, this $ourt a#ree *ith the trial Gud#e that the $ondu$t o% the plainti%%?husband despite his belie% that his *i%e *as un%aith%ul, deprives him, as alle#ed the o%%ended spouse, o% an" a$tion %or le#al separation a#ainst the o%%endin# *i%e, be$ause his said $ondu$t $omes *ithin the restri$tion o% 0rti$le 100 o% the 3ivil 3ode.

2)5 206) &,*&L, vs. JA&A$A G.R. No. L73040, 2a4 16, 1951 Facts= 0ndres Condo$ %iled a#ainst <uadalupe Eapata, his *i%e, and Dalma$ioCondo$, her paramour, %or $ohabitin# and havin# repeated sexual inter$ourse durin# the period %rom the "ear 19)H to ,ar$h 1), 19):. he de%endant?*i%e entered a plea o% #uilt" and *as senten$ed to su%%er %our months o% arresto ma"or *hi$h penalt" she served. In the same $ourt, on (eptember 1:, 19)@, the o%%ended husband %iled another $omplaint %or adulterous a$ts $ommitted b" his *i%e and her paramour %rom ,ar$h 15, 19): to (eptember 1:, 19)@. 'n Aebruar" 21, 19)9, ea$h o% the de%endants %iled a motion to >uash the $omplaint on the #round that the" *ould be t*i$e put in Geopard" o% punishment %or the same o%%ense. he trial $ourt upheld the $ontention o% the de%endants and >uashed the se$ond $omplaint. ss!e= Whether or not the $omplaint should be >uashed on the #round o% double Geopard" $onsiderin# that the 2nd $omplaint re%ers to a di%%erent a$t o% adulter"5 R!li"#= here is no double Geopard" in the present $ase. 0dulter" is a $rime o% result and not o% tenden$"6 it is an instantaneous $rime *hi$h is $onsummated and exhausted or $ompleted at the moment o% the $arnal union. In the instant $ase the last unit" does not exist, be$ause as alread" stated the $ulprits perpetrate the $rime in ever" sexual inter$ourse and the" need not to another or other adulterous a$ts to $onsummate it. 0%ter the last a$ts o% adulter" had been $ommitted as $har#ed in the %irst $omplaint, the de%endants a#ain $ommitted adulterous a$ts not in$luded in the %irst $omplaint and %or *hi$h the se$ond $omplaint *as %iled. 0nother reason *h" a se$ond $omplaint $har#in# the $ommission o% adulterous a$ts not in$luded in the %irst $omplaint does not $onstitute a violation o% the double Geopard" $lause o% the $onstitution is that, i% the se$ond pla$es $omplaint the de%endants t*i$e in Geopard" o% punishment %or the same o%%ense, the adulter" $ommitted b" the male de%endant $har#ed in the

2)6 se$ond $omplaint, should he be absolved %rom, or a$>uitted o%, the %irst $har#e upon the eviden$e that he did not /no* that his $ode%endant *as a married *oman, *ould remain or #o unpunished. 200) D, *(A2&* vs. FL*R,N( AN* G.R. No. L713553, Fe+r!ar4 23, 1960 Facts= Jose de '$ampo and (era%inaAloren$iano *ere married in 0pril 5, 191@ b" a reli#ious $eremon" in <uimba, 9ueva 7$iGa, and had lived therea%ter as husband and *i%e. he" be#ot several $hildren. In ,ar$h, 1951, plainti%% dis$overed on several o$$asions that his *i%e *as betra"in# his trust b" maintainin# illi$it relations *ith one Jose 0r$alas. .avin# %ound (era%ina Aloren$io $arr"in# marital relations *ith another man de '$ampo sent her to ,anila in June 1951 to stud" beaut" $ulture, *here she sta"ed %or one "ear. 0#ain, he dis$overed that *hile in the said $it" de%endant *as #oin# out *ith several other men, aside %rom Jose 0r$alas. o*ards the end o% June, 1952, *hen de%endant had %inished stud"in# her $ourse, she le%t de '$ampo and sin$e then the" had lived separatel". 'n June 1@, 1955, plainti%% surprised his *i%e in the a$t o% havin# illi$it relations *ith another man b" the name o% 9elson 'r=ame. Plainti%% si#ni%ied his intention o% %ilin# a petition %or le#al separation6 to *hi$h de%endant mani%ested her $on%ormit" provided she is not $har#ed *ith adulter" in a $riminal a$tion. 0$$ordin#l", plainti%% %iled on Jul" 5, 1955, a petition %or le#al separation. ss!e= Whether or not the $ondonation $an be a de%ense in obtainin# a de$ree o% le#al separation in the present $ase5 R!li"#= he (upreme 3ourt do not thin/ plainti%%Ns %ailure a$tivel" to sear$h %or de%endant and ta/e her home 8a%ter the latter had le%t him in 19524 $onstituted $ondonation or $onsent to her adulterous relations *ith 'r=ame. It *ill be remembered that she Ile%tI him a%ter havin# sinned *ith 0r$alas and a%ter he had dis$overed her dates *ith other men. 3onse>uentl", it *as not his

2)0 dut" to sear$h %or her to brin# her home. .ers *as the obli#ation to return. *o de$isions are $ited *herein %rom apparentl" similar $ir$umstan$es, the 3ourt in%erred the husbandNs $onsent to or $ondonation o% his *i%eNs mis$ondu$t. .o*ever, upon $are%ul examination, a vital di%%eren$e *ill be %ound: in both instan$es, the husband had abandoned his *i%e6 here it *as the *i%e *ho Ile%tI her husband. 20)) 2A$A1 5 vs. &RAM,D,5 G.R. No. L711066, *cto+er 25, 1960 Facts= (o$orro ,abutis and EoiloPraxedes *ere le#all" married on Januar" 10, 19)1 at Iri#a, 3amarines (ur. he $ouple, on ,a" 10, 19)), a#reed to live separatel" %rom ea$h other, *hi$h status remained un$han#ed until the present. 'n 0pril 1, 19)@, plainti%% and de%endant entered into an a#reement statin# that both o% them *ill relin>uish their ri#ht over the other as le#al husband and *i%e, that both $annot prose$ute the other %or adulter" or $on$ubina#e or an" other $rime or suit arisin# %rom the separation, that both are no lon#er entitled %or an" support %rom the other, and that neither o% them $an $laim an"thin# %rom the other %rom the time the" verball" separated. In Januar", 1955, Praxedes be#an $ohabitin# *ith one 0sun$ion Rebulado and on (eptember 1, 1955, said 0sun$ion #ave birth to a $hild *ho *as re$orded as the $hild o% said de%endant. It *as sho*n also that de%endant and 0sun$ion deported themselves as husband and *i%e and *as #enerall" reputed as su$h in the $ommunit". ss!e= Whether or not there *as $onsent on the part o% (o$orro ,abutis to the $on$ubina#e5 R!li"#= here *as $onsent on the part o% (o$orro ,atutis to the $on$ubina#e. he *ritten a#reement bet*een them is an unbridled li$ense she #ave her husband to $ommit $on$ubina#e. .avin# $onsented to the $on$ubina#e, the plainti%% $annot $laim le#al separation.

2)) 3ondonation and $onsent on the part o% plainti%% are ne$essaril" the import o% the a#reement. he $ondonation and $onsent here are not onl" implied but expressed. he la* 80rt. 100 3ivil 3ode4 spe$i%i$all" provides that le#al separation ma" be $laimed onl" b" the inno$ent spouse, provided there has been no $ondonation o% or $onsent to the adulter" or $on$ubina#e. .avin# $ondoned andLor $onsented in *ritin#, the plainti%% is no* undeservin# o% the $ourtNs s"mpath". 209) &,*&L, vs. 5(@N,(:,N1ARG,R G.R. No. L74)1)3, Nove.+er 10, 1941 Facts= 'n ,ar$h 1H, 192H, Rodol%o 0. ($hne$/enbur#er married the $ompliant 7lena Ramire= 3arta#ena and a%ter seven "ears o% martial li%e, the" a#reed, %or reason o% alle#ed in$ompatibilit" o% $hara$ter, to live separatel" ea$h other. 'n June 15, 1915, the a$$used ($hne$/enbur#er, *ithout leavin# the Philippines, se$ured a de$ree o% divor$e %rom the $ivil $ourt o% Juare=, Cravos Distri$t, (tate o% 3hihuahua, ,exi$o. 'n ,a" 11, 191H, he $ontra$ted another marria#e *ith his $o?a$$used, Julia ,edel, in the Gusti$e o% the pea$e $ourt o% ,alabon, Ri=al, and sin$e then the" lived to#ether as husband and *i%e in the $it" o% ,anila. Ce$ause o% the nullit" o% the divor$e de$reed b" the ,exi$o 3ourt, $omplaint herein instituted t*o a$tions a#ainst the a$$used, one %or bi#am" in the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al and the other $on$ubina#e in the $ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila. he %irst $ulminated in the $onvi$tion o% the a$$used %or *hi$h he *as senten$ed to penalt" o% t*o months and one da" o% arresto ma"or. ss!e= Whether or not Rodol%o ($hne$/enbur#eris #uilt" o% $on$ubina#e5 R!li"#= .e is not #uilt" in vie* o% the $onsent o% the *i%e. 3onsent *hi$h bars the o%%ended part" %rom institutin# a $riminal prose$ution in $ases o% adulter", $on$ubina#e, sedu$tion, abdu$tion, rape and a$ts o% las$iviousness is that *hi$h has been #iven expressl" or impliedl" a%ter the $rime has been $ommitted. he se$ond para#raph o% arti$le 1)) o% the Revised Penal 3ode

2)9 provides that the o%%ended part" $annot institute $riminal prose$ution *ithout in$ludin# both the #uilt" parties, i% the" are both alive, nor, in an" $ase, i% he shall have $onsented or pardoned the o%%enders. 3onsentI must have been intended a#reeabl" *ith its ordinar" usa#e, to re%er to the o%%ense prior to its $ommission. he a#reement is still null and void be$ause it is $ontrar" to the la* and $ontrar" to #ood morals. Cut be$ause 7lena had previousl" $onsented, she deserves less $onsideration than a *oman *ho $ondones. 210) &,*&L, vs 5,N5AN* G.R. No. L730020, 2arc' 20, 1933 Facts= Frsula (ensano and ,ariano Bentura *ere married on 0pril 29, 1919. he" had one $hild. (hortl" a%ter the birth o% his $hild, the husband le%t his *i%e to #o to the Provin$e o% 3a#a"an *here he remained %or three "ears *ithout *ritin# to his *i%e or sendin# her an"thin# %or the support o% hersel% and their son. Poor and illiterate, *ithout relatives upon *hom she $ould $all, she stru##led %or an existen$e %or hersel% and her son until a %atal da" *hen she met the ,ar$elo Ramos *ho too/ her and the $hild to live *ith him. 'n the return o% the husband 8in 192)4, he %iled a $har#e a#ainst his *i%e and ,ar$elo Ramos %or adulter" and both *ere senten$ed to %our months and one da" o% arresto ma"or. 0%ter $ompletin# her senten$e, Frsula (ensano le%t her paramour. (he thereupon appealed to this muni$ipal president and the Gusti$e o% the pea$e to send %or her husband so that she mi#ht as/ his pardon and be# him to ta/e her ba$/. 0t the house o% the president she be##ed his pardon and promised to be a %aith%ul *i%e it he *ould ta/e $are her ba$/. .e re%used to pardon her to live *ith her and said she $ould #o *here she *ished, that he *ould have nothin# more to do *ith her, and she $ould do as she pleased. 0bandoned %or the se$ond time, she and her $hild *ent ba$/ to ,ar$elo Ramos 8this *as in the "ear 192)4 and the" have lived *ith him ever sin$e. he husband, /no*in# that she resumed livin# *ith her $ode%endant in 192), did nothin# to inter%ere *ith their relations or to assert his ri#hts as husband. (hortl" therea%ter he le%t %or the erritor" o% .a*aii *here she

290 remained %or seven "ears $ompletel" abandonin# his said *i%e and $hild. 'n his return to these Islands, he presented the se$ond $har#e o% adulter" here involved *ith the sole purpose, as he de$lared, o% bein# able to obtain a divor$e under the provisions o% 0$t 9o. 2:10. ss!e= Whether or not the o%%ended part" $an institute $riminal prose$ution i% he have $onsented or pardoned the o%%enders5 R!li"#= he o%%ended part" $annot institute $riminal prose$ution *ithout in$ludin# both the #uilt" parties, i% the" are both alive, or, in an" $ase, i% he shall have $onsented or pardoned the o%%enders. 0rti$le 1)) o% the Revised Penal 3ode, para#raphs 1 and 2 provides that the $rimes o% adulter" and $on$ubina#e shall not be prose$uted ex$ept upon a $omplaint %iled b" the o%%ended spouse!, and that the o%%ended part" $annot institute $riminal prose$ution *ithout in$ludin# both the #uilt" parties, i% the" are both alive, nor, in an" $ase, i% he shall have $onsented or pardoned the o%%enders.! 0part %rom the %a$t that the husband in this $ase *as assumin# a mere pose *hen he si#ned the $omplaint as the Io%%endedI spouse, the $ourt have $ome to the $on$lusion that the eviden$e in this $ase and his $ondu$t *arrant the in%eren$e that he $onsented to the adulterous relations existin# bet*een the a$$used and there%ore he is not authori=ed b" la* to institute this $riminal pro$eedin#. 211) 1,N,D ($* vs. D,LA RA2A G.R. No. 1056, Dece.+er ), 1903 Facts= Plainti%% and de%endant had lived to#ether %rom the time o% their marria#e in Jul" 1@91 to 0u#ust 1@92. It is also admitted that the de%endant suddenl", *ithout an" previous *arnin#, too/ his *i%e to the house o% her parents, le%t her there, and never lived *ith her a%ter*ards. (he also $har#ed de%endant *ith havin# $ommitted $on$ubina#e *ith <re#oria CermeGo in 19@2. (he produ$ed no eviden$e to support this alle#ation. De%endant presented his $ounter?a%%idavit *here he a#reed on the time o% their marria#e. hat on his return %rom an inspe$tion o% one o% his

291 estates, his *i%e-s maid #ave him a letter in the o*n hand*ritin# o% his *i%e *hi$h *as dire$ted to his lover, a (panish $orporal o% the $ivil #uard named Eabal. (he admitted the #enuineness o% the letter, %ell upon her /nees, and implored him to pardon her. hat same da", he too/ her to the home o% her parents, told *hat had o$$urred, and le%t her there. Respondent then %iled %or +e#al (eparation *hi$h *as #iven b" the R 3. ss!e= Whether or not the +e#al (eparatin# %iled b" the respondent *ould prosper5 R!li"#= here is mutual #uilt in the $ase. It is said that i% the plainti%% is #uilt", the de%endant has $ondoned the o%%ense. he *i%e $an de%eat the husband-s suit b" provin# that he has pardoned her. 9either one o% the parties is entitled to +e#al (eparation. 0s $on$lusion o% la* %rom the %ore#oin# %a$ts, *e hold that neither part" is entitled to Gud#ment o% +e#al (eparation a#ainst the other. hat Gud#ment be entered that the plainti%% ta/e nothin# b" her a$tion. 212) D, *(A2&* vs. FL*R,N( AN* G.R. No. L713553, Fe+r!ar4 23, 1960 Facts= Jose de '$ampo and (era%inaAloren$iano *ere married in 0pril 5, 191@ b" a reli#ious $eremon" in <uimba, 9ueva 7$iGa, and had lived therea%ter as husband and *i%e. he" be#ot several $hildren. In ,ar$h, 1951, plainti%% dis$overed on several o$$asions that his *i%e *as betra"in# his trust b" maintainin# illi$it relations *ith one Jose 0r$alas. .avin# %ound (era%ina Aloren$io $arr"in# marital relations *ith another man de '$ampo sent her to ,anila in June 1951 to stud" beaut" $ulture, *here she sta"ed %or one "ear. 0#ain, he dis$overed that *hile in the said $it" de%endant *as #oin# out *ith several other men, aside %rom Jose 0r$alas. o*ards the end o% June, 1952, *hen de%endant had %inished stud"in# her $ourse, she le%t de '$ampo and sin$e then the" had lived separatel". 'n June 1@, 1955, plainti%% surprised his *i%e in the a$t o% havin# illi$it relations *ith another man b" the name o% 9elson 'r=ame. Plainti%% si#ni%ied his intention o% %ilin# a petition %or le#al separation6 to *hi$h de%endant mani%ested her $on%ormit"

292 provided she is not $har#ed *ith adulter" in a $riminal a$tion. 0$$ordin#l", plainti%% %iled on Jul" 5, 1955, a petition %or le#al separation. ss!e= Whether or not $ollusion bet*een the parties in the present $ase $an be appre$iated to obtain a de$ree o% le#al separation5 R!li"#= It has been held that $ollusion ma" not be in%erred %rom the mere %a$t that the #uilt" part" $on%esses to the o%%ense and thus enables the other part" to pro$ure eviden$e ne$essar" to prove it. 0nd proo% that the de%endant desires the divor$e and ma/es no de%ense, is not b" itsel% $ollusion. In this $ase, there *ould be $ollusion i% the parties had arran#ed to ma/e it appear that a matrimonial o%%ense had been $ommitted althou#h it *as not, or i% the parties had $onnived to brin# about a le#al separation even in the absen$e o% #rounds there%or. he o%%ense o% adulter" had reall" ta/in# pla$e, a$$ordin# to the eviden$e. he de%endant $ould not have %alsel" told the adulterous a$ts to the Ais$al, be$ause her stor" mi#ht send her to Gail the moment her husband re>uests the Ais$al to prose$ute. (he $ould not have pra$ti$ed de$eption at su$h a personal ris/.

213) 1R*CN vs. 9A21A* G.R. No. L710699, *cto+er 1), 1950 Facts= 'n Jul" 1), 1955, William .. Cro*n %iled suit in the 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% ,anila to obtain le#al separation %rom his la*%ul *i%e Juanita Mambao. .e alle#ed under oath that *hile interned b" the Japanese invaders, %rom 19)2 to 19)5, at the Fniversit" o% (to. omas internment $amp, Juanita Mambao en#a#ed in adulterous relations *ith one 3arlos Aield o% *hom she be#ot a bab" #irl that Cro*n learned o% his *i%e-s mis$ondu$t onl" in 19)5, upon his release %rom internment6 that therea%ter the spouse lived separatel" and later exe$uted a do$ument li>uidatin# their $onGu#al partnership and assi#nin# $ertain

293 properties to the errin# *i%e as her share. he $omplaint pra"ed %or $on%irmation o% the li>uidation a#reement6 %or $ustod" o% the $hildren issued o% the marria#e6 that the de%endant be de$lared dis>uali%ied to su$$eed the plainti%%6 and %or their remed" as mi#ht be Gust and e>uitable. ss!e= Whether or not the a$tion %or le#al separation o% William Cro*n *as barred5 R!li"#= he $ourt belo* also %ound, and $orre$tl" held that the appellantNs a$tion *as alread" barred, be$ause Cro*n did not petition %or le#al separation pro$eedin#s until ten "ears a%ter he learned o% his *i%eNs adulter", *hi$h *as upon his release %rom internment in 19)5. Fnder 0rti$le 102 o% the ne* 3ivil 3ode, a$tion %or le#al separation $annot be %iled ex$ept *ithin one 814 "ear %rom and a%ter the plainti%% be$ame $o#ni=ant o% the $ause and *ithin %ive "ears %rom and a%ter the date *hen su$h $ause o$$urred. 0ppellantNs brie% does not even $ontest the $orre$tness o% su$h %indin#s and $on$lusion. It is true that the *i%e has not interposed pres$ription as a de%ense. 9evertheless, the $ourts $an ta/e $o#ni=an$e thereo%, be$ause a$tions see/in# a de$ree o% le#al separation, or annulment o% marria#e, involve publi$ interest and it is the poli$" o% our la* that no su$h de$ree be issued i% an" le#al obsta$les thereto appear upon the re$ord. 214) D, *(A2&* vs. FL*R,N( AN* G.R. No. L713553, Fe+r!ar4 23, 1960 Facts= Jose de '$ampo and (era%inaAloren$iano *ere married in 0pril 5, 191@ b" a reli#ious $eremon" in <uimba, 9ueva 7$iGa, and had lived therea%ter as husband and *i%e. he" be#ot several $hildren. In ,ar$h, 1951, plainti%% dis$overed on several o$$asions that his *i%e *as betra"in# his trust b" maintainin# illi$it relations *ith one Jose 0r$alas. .avin# %ound (era%ina Aloren$io $arr"in# marital relations *ith another man de '$ampo sent her to ,anila in June 1951 to stud" beaut" $ulture, *here she sta"ed %or one "ear. 0#ain, he dis$overed that *hile in the said $it" de%endant *as #oin# out *ith several other men, aside %rom Jose 0r$alas.

294 o*ards the end o% June, 1952, *hen de%endant had %inished stud"in# her $ourse, she le%t de '$ampo and sin$e then the" had lived separatel". 'n June 1@, 1955, plainti%% surprised his *i%e in the a$t o% havin# illi$it relations *ith another man b" the name o% 9elson 'r=ame. Plainti%% si#ni%ied his intention o% %ilin# a petition %or le#al separation6 to *hi$h de%endant mani%ested her $on%ormit" provided she is not $har#ed *ith adulter" in a $riminal a$tion. 0$$ordin#l", plainti%% %iled on Jul" 5, 1955, a petition %or le#al separation. ss!e= Whether or not Jose de '$ampo-s ri#ht to le#al separation had pres$ribed5 R!li"#= he husbandNs ri#ht to le#al separation on a$$ount o% the de%endantNs adulter" *ith Jose 0r$alas had pres$ribed, be$ause his a$tion *as not %iled *ithin one "ear %rom ,ar$h 1951 *hen plainti%% dis$overed her in%idelit". 'n June 1@, 1955, plainti%% surprised his *i%e in the a$t o% havin# illi$it relations *ith another man b" the name o% 9elson 'r=ame. Plainti%% si#ni%ied his intention o% %ilin# a petition %or le#al separation6 to *hi$h de%endant mani%ested her $on%ormit" provided she is not $har#ed *ith adulter" in a $riminal a$tion. 0$$ordin#l", plainti%% %iled on Jul" 5, 1955, a petition %or le#al separation. 215) (*N$R,RA5 vs. 2A(ARA G G.R. No. L72913), 2a4 29, 1900 Facts: Plainti%% and de%endant *ere married on ,ar$h 1H, 1952. 'ut o% their ,arria#e, three $hildren *ere born and all the $hildren are in the $are o% plainti%% *i%e.(ometime in 195@, the $ouple a$>uired ri#hts, as lessee and pur$haser under a $onditional sale a#reement, to o*n a house and lot. In (eptember, 19H2, 0velino +ubos, driver o% the %amil" $ar, told plainti%% that de%endant *as livin# in (in#alon# *ith +il" 0nn 0l$ala. 0lthou#h plainti%%, in 0pril 19H1, also re$eived rumors that de%endant *as seen *ith a *oman *ho *as on the %amil" *a" on Dasmari;as (t., she *as so happ" that de%endant a#ain return to the %amil" home in ,a", 19H1 that she on$e more desisted %rom

295 dis$ussin# the matter *ith him be$ause she did not *ish to pre$ipitate a >uarrel and drive him a*a". 0ll this *hile, de%endant, i% and *henever he returned to the %amil" %old, *ould onl" sta" %or t*o or three da"s but *ould be #one %or a period o% about a month. In the earl" part o% De$ember, 19H1, plainti%%, a$$ompanied b" her t*o $hildren, Bi$toria and 0lexander, and b" ,rs. +eti$ia +a#ronio *ent to tal/ to de%endant at his pla$e o% *or/ on 7spa;a 7xtension in %ront o% Kue=on Institute. he" repaired to Bi$toria Pea/, a nearb" restaurant, *here plainti%% pleaded *ith de%endant to #ive up +il" 0nn 0l$ala and to return to the $onGu#al home, assurin# him that she *as *illin# to %or#ive him. De%endant in%ormed plainti%% that he $ould no lon#er leave +il" 0nn and re%used to return to his le#itimate %amil".'n De$ember 1), 19H1, plainti%% instituted the present a$tion %or le#al separation. ss!e: Whether or not the period o% one "ear provided %or in 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ivil 3ode should be $ounted, as %ar as the instant $ase is $on$erned5 R!li"#: he period o% I%ive "ears %rom a%ter the date *hen su$h $ause o$$urredI is not here involved. Fpon the undisputed %a$ts it seems $lear that, in the month o% (eptember 19H2, *hatever /no*led#e appellant had a$>uired re#ardin# the in%idelit" o% her husband, that is, o% the %a$t that he *as then livin# in (in#alon# *ith +il" 0nn 0l$ala, *as onl" throu#h the in%ormation #iven to her b" 0velino +ubos, driver o% the %amil" $ar. 0ppellant heard in 0pril 19H1 rumors that her husband *as seen *ith a *oman on the %amil" *a" on Dasmari;as (treet, but %ailed a#ain to either brin# up the matter *ith her husband or ma/e attempts to veri%" the truth o% said rumors, but this *as due, as the lo*er $ourt itsel% believed. 0s a matter o% %a$t, not*ithstandin# all these pain%ul in%ormation *hi$h *ould not have been le#all" su%%i$ient to ma/e a $ase %or le#al separation O appellant still made brave i% desperate attempts to persuade her husband to $ome ba$/ home. In the *ords o% the lo*er $ourt, she Ientreated her %ather?in?la*, +u$ilo ,a$arai#, to inter$ede *ith de%endant and to $onvin$e him to return to his %amil"I and also Ire>uested the $ooperation o% de%endantNs older sister, ,rs. 7nri>ueta ,aGulI %or the same

296 purpose, but all that *as o% no avail. .er husband remained obdurate.Arom all the %ore#oin# We $on$lude that it *as onl" on the o$$asion mentioned in the pre$edin# para#raph *hen her husband admitted to her that he *as livin# *ith and *ould no lon#er leave +il" 0nn to return to his le#itimate %amil" that appellant must be deemed to be under obli#ation to de$ide *hether to sue or not to sue %or le#al separation, and it *as onl" then that the le#al period o% one "ear must be deemed to have $ommen$ed. 216) 1AN,J vs. 1AN,J G.R. No. 132592, 3a"!ar4 23, 2002 Facts: he R 3 o% 3ebu de$reed le#al separation bet*een 0ida and Respondent <abriel on the #round o% (exual In%idelit". Dissolution o% $onGu#al propert" and division o% net $onGu#al assets %or%eiture o% <abriel-s hal% share in the net assets in %avor o% $ommon $hildren6 pa"ment o% 100,000 as attorne"-s %eesand surrender o% a ,a=da $ar and small residential house to petitioner and $ommon $hildren 15 da"s%rom re$eipt o% de$ision *as also de$reed b" the same $ourt. Respondent appealed.0ida %iled a motion %or exe$ution pendin# appeal. he R 3 #ave due $ourse to exe$ution pendin# appealand issued a *rit o% exe$ution $ommandin# the sheri%% to order the respondent to va$ate the house andsurrender the ,a=da $ar. It also ordered the petitioner to post bond to ans*er %or all dama#es thatrespondents ma" su%%er. he 30 set aside the Gud#ment.Fpon motion, 0ida pra"ed that she and her $hildren be allo*ed to o$$up" the house %or she did nothave the $han$e to o$$up" it and besides, she posted a bond %or dama#es that respondent ma" su%%er.Respondent on the other hand ar#ued that 0ida $hose not to live in the house %or she o*ned t*ohouses in the Fnited (tates *here she resides. ss!e= Whether or not the exe$ution pendin# appeal is Gusti%ied5 R!li"#= 7xe$ution pendin# appeal is allo*ed *hen superior $ir$umstan$es demandin# ur#en$" out*ei#h thedama#es that ma" result %rom issuan$e o% *rit. 'ther*ise, the *rit ma" be$ome a tool o% oppressionand ine>uit".In this $ase, $onsiderin# the

290 reason $ited o% 0ida, there is no superior or ur#ent $ir$umstan$es thatout*ei#h the dama#es *hi$h the respondent *ould su%%er i% he *ere ordered to va$ate the house. (hedid not re%ute the respondent-s alle#ations that she did not intend to use the house %or she o*ned t*ohouses in the F( *here she resides. ,erel", puttin# up a bond is not su%%i$ient to Gusti%" her plea %orexe$ution pendin# appeal.

210) LA&AJ 59 vs. ,AF,2 * G.R. No. L730900, 3a"!ar4 31, 1902 Facts: 30R,79 '. +0PFE (M %iled a petition %or le#al separation a#ainst 7FA7,I'. (he alle#ed that the" *ere married $ivill" on (eptember 21, 191) and had lived to#ether as husband and *i%e $ontinuousl" until 19)1 *hen her husband abandoned her. he" had no $hild. (he pra"ed %or the issuan$e o% a de$ree *hi$h *ould order de%endant 7u%emio to be deprived o% his share o% the $onGu#al partnership pro%its. 7FA7,I' alle#ed a%%irmative and spe$ial de%enses and $ounter?$laimed %or the de$laration o% nullit" ab initio o% his marria#e *ith 3armen be$ause o% his prior and subsistin# marria#e, $elebrated a$$ordin# to 3hinese la* and $ustoms, *ith one <o .io/, alias 9#o .io/. Durin# trial, petitioner 3armen died in a vehi$ular a$$ident on ,a" 19H9. 7u%emio moved to dismiss the petition %or le#al separation on 2 #rounds that the: 814 petition %or le#alseparation *as %iled be"ond the 1?"ear period provided %or in 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ivil 3ode6 and 8b4death o% 3armen abated the a$tion %or le#al separation. 3ounsel %or de$eased petitioner moved to substitute the de$eased 3armen b" her %ather, ,a$ario +apu=. 3ounsel %or 7u%emio opposed the motion. he $ourt dismissed the $ase and stated that the motion to dismiss and the motion %or substitutionhad to be resolved on the >uestion o% *hether or not the plainti%%Ns $ause o% a$tion has survived, *hi$hthe $ourt resolved in the ne#ative. Petitioner %iled a petitioner %or

29) revie* o% the order o% dismissal, but the order o% dismissal *asa%%i rmed. ss!e: Does the death o% the plainti%% be%ore %inal de$ree, in an a$tion %or le#al separation, abate the a$tion5 R!li"#: 0n a$tion %or le#al separation involves nothin# more than the bed and board separation o% the spouses is purel" personal. he 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines re$o#ni=es in 0rti$le 100 allo*s onl" the inno$ent spouse 8and no one else4 to $laim le#al separation and in0rti$le 10@, b" providin# that the spouses $an, b" their re$on$iliation, stop or abate the pro$eedin#s and even res$ind a de$ree o% le#al separation alread" rendered.Cein# personal in $hara$ter, it %ollo*s that the death o% onepart" to the a$tion $auses the death o% the a$tion itsel%. 3han#es in propert" relations bet*een spouses sho*s that the" are solel" the e%%e$t o% the de$ree o% le#al separation. .en$e the" $annot survive the death o% the plaintio%% i% it o$$urs prior to the de$ree. 0n a$tion %or le#al separation is abated b" the death o% the plainti%% even i%, propert" ri#hts are involved is that these ri#hts are mere e%%e$ts o% de$ree o% separation, their sour$e bein# the de$ree itsel%6 *ithout the de$ree su$h ri#hts do not $ome into existen$e, so that be%ore the %inalit" o% ade$ree, these $laims are merel" ri#hts in expe$tation. Re#ardin# 7u%emio-s petition %or a de$laration o% nullit" ab initio o% his marria#e to 3armen +apu=, it is apparent that su$h a$tion be$ame moot and a$ademi$ upon the death o% the latter, and there $ouldbe no %urther interest in $ontinuin# the same a%ter her demise, that automati$all" dissolved the>uestioned union. 21)) ARAN,$A vs. (*N(,&( *N G.R. No. L79660, 3!l4 31, 1956G 99 &'il 009 Facts: he main a$tion *as brou#ht b" Petitioner a#ainst his *i%e, one o% the Respondent herein, %or le#al separation on the #round o% adulter". 0%ter the issues *ere Goined De%endant therein %iled an omnibus petition to se$ure $ustod" o% their three minor $hildren, a monthl" support o% P5,000 %or hersel% and said

299 $hildren, and the return o% her passport, to enGoin Plainti%% %rom orderin# his hirelin#s %rom harassin# and molestin# her, and to have Plainti%% therein pa" %or the %ees o% her attorne" in the a$tion. he petition is supported b" her a%%idavit. Plainti%% pra"ed that as the petition %or $ustod" and support $annot be determined *ithout eviden$e, the parties be re>uired to submit their respe$tive eviden$e. .e also $ontended that De%endant is not entitled to the $ustod" o% the $hildren as she had abandoned them and had $ommitted adulter", that b" her $ondu$t she had be$ome un%it to edu$ate her $hildren, bein# unstable in her emotions and unable to #ive the $hildren the love, respe$t and $are o% a true mother and *ithout means to edu$ate them. 0s to the $laim %or support, Plainti%% $laims that there are no $onGu#al assets and she is not entitled to support be$ause o% her in%idelit" and that she *as able to support hersel%. ss!e: Whether or not the Jud#e erred in not allo*in# eviden$e to be introdu$ed5 R!li"#: It is $on$eded that the period o% six months %ixed therein 0rti$le 101 83ivil 3ode4 is evidentl" intended as a $oolin# o%% period to ma/e possible a re$on$iliation bet*een the spouses. he re$ital o% their #rievan$es a#ainst ea$h other in $ourt ma" onl" %an their alread" in%lamed passions a#ainst one another, and the la*ma/er has imposed the period to #ive them opportunit" %or dispassionate re%le$tion. Cut this pra$ti$al expedient, ne$essar" to $arr" out le#islative poli$", does not have the e%%e$t o% overridin# other provisions su$h as the determination o% the $ustod" o% the $hildren and alimon" and support pendente lite a$$ordin# to the $ir$umstan$es. 80rti$le 105, 3ivil 3ode.4 he la* expressl" enGoins that these should be determined b" the $ourt a$$ordin# to the $ir$umstan$es. I% these are i#nored or the $ourts $lose their e"es to a$tual %a$ts, ran/ in Gusti$e ma" be $aused. 219) 5o.osa7Ra.os vs. <a.e"ta, 3r. G.R. No. L734132, 3!l4 29, 1902 Facts: he petitioner +u$" (amosa?Ramos %iled in the sala o% respondent Gud#e %or le#al separation, on the #rounds o%

300 $on$ubina#e. (he additionall" alle#ed thatthere *as an attempt b" respondent 3lemen Ramos a#ainst her li%e. (he li/e*ise sou#ht o% a *rit o% preliminar" mandator" inGun$tion %or the return to hero% *hat she $laimed to be her paraphernal and ex$lusive propert", *hi$h *as then under theadministration and mana#ement o% respondent3lemente Ramos. 'pposition to this hearin# invo/es0rt 101 o% the 33, i% motion is to be heard, the prospe$to% re$on$iliation o% the spouses *ould be$ome dim.3AIordered the suspension, upon the plea o% the otherrespondent husband, o% the hearin# on a motion %or a*rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion %iled b" petitioner at thesame time the suit %or le#al separation *as instituted. ss!e= Whether or not 0rt. 101 o% the 3ivil 3ode prohibitin# the hearin# o% an a$tion %or le#al separation be%ore the lapse o% six months %rom the %ilin# o% the petition pre$lude the $ourt %rom a$tin# on a motion %or preliminar" mandator" inGun$tion applied %or as an an$illar" remed" %or su$h suit5 R!li"#= he (upreme 3ourt holds that 0rt. 101 o% the 3ivil 3ode is not an absolute bar to the hearin# o% a motion %or preliminar" inGun$tion prior to the expiration o% the H?month period. 0 suit %or le#al separation is somethin# else entirel" the hope that the parties ma" settle their di%%eren$es is not all to#ether abandoned hen$e durin# the interposition o% a H?month period be%ore an a$tion %or le#al separation is to be tried, the $ourt should remain passive at this time 8it is pre$luded %rom hearin# the suit4. 220) &A(,$, vs. (ARR AGA G.R. No. L753))0, 2arc' 10, 1994 Facts: 3on$ep$ion 0lanis and 7nri$o Pa$ete *ere married on 0pril 10, 191@ and had a $hild. 7nri$o $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ith 3larita dela 3on$ep$ion. 0lanis learned o% it on 0u#ust 1, 19:9. 3on$ep$ion 0lanis %iled a $omplaint on '$tober 19:9, %or the De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e bet*een her erst*hile husband 7nri$o Pa$ete and 3larita de la 3on$ep$ion, as *ell as %or le#al separation bet*een her and Pa$ete,

301 a$$ountin# and separation o% propert". (he averred in her $omplaint that she *as married to Pa$ete on 0pril 191@ and the" had a $hild named 3onsuelo. hat Pa$ete subse>uentl" $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ith 3larita de la 3on$ep$ion and that she learned o% su$h marria#e onl" on 0u#ust 19:9. Re$on$iliation bet*een her and Pa$ete *as impossible sin$e he evidentl" pre%erred to $ontinue livin# *ith 3larita. he de%endants *ere ea$h served *ith summons. he" %iled an extension *ithin *hi$h to %ile an ans*er, *hi$h the $ourt partl" #ranted. Due to un*anted misunderstandin#, parti$ularl" in $ommuni$ation, the de%endants %ailed to %ile an ans*er on the date set b" the $ourt. herea%ter the plainti%% %iled a motion to de$lare the de%endants in de%ault, *hi$h the $ourt %orth*ith #ranted. he $ourt re$eived plainti%%-s eviden$e durin# the hearin#s held on Aebruar" 15, 20, 21, and 22, 19@0. he 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e #ranted le#al separation, their $onGu#al properties divided e>uall". ss!e= Whether or not the 3ourt o% Airst Instna$e #ravel" abused its dis$retion in de$reein# the le#al separation o% 7nri$o Pa$ete, and held to be null and void ab initio the marria#e o% Pa$ete and 3larita 3on$ep$ion5 R!li"#= he 3ivil 3ode provides that no de$ree o% le#al separation shall be promul#ated upon a stipulation o% %a$ts or b" $on%ession o% Gud#ment. In $ase o% non? appearan$e o% the de%endant, the $ourt shall order the prose$utin# attorne" to in>uire *hether or not $ollusion bet*een parties exists. I% there is no $ollusion, the prose$utin# attorne" shall intervene %or the (tate in order to ta/e $are that the eviden$e %or the plainti%% is not %abri$ated.! he above stated provision $allin# %or the intervention o% the state attorne"s in $ase o% un$ontested pro$eedin#s %or le#al separation 8and o% annulment o% marria#es, under 0rti$le @@4 is to emphasi=e that marria#e is more than a mere $ontra$t. 0rti$le 101 o% the 3ivil 3ode, no* 0rti$le 5@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, %urther mandates that an a$tion %or le#al separation must in no

302 $ase be tried be%ore six months shall have elapsed sin$e the %ilin# o% the petition,! obviousl" in order to provide the parties a $oolin#?o%%! period. In this interim, the $ourt should ta/e steps to*ard #ettin# the parties to re$on$ile. he si#ni%i$an$e o% the above substantive provisions o% the la* is %urther or unders$ored b" the in$lusiono% a provision in Rule 1@ o% the Rules o% 3ourt *hi$h provides that no de%aults ina$tions %or annulments o% marria#e or %orle#al separation. here%ore, i% thede%endant in an a$tion %or annulment o% marria#e or %or le#al separation %ails to ans*er, the $ourt shall order the prose$utin# attorne" to investi#ate *hether or not a $ollusion bet*een the parties exists, and i% there is no $ollusion, to intervene %or the (tat e inorder to see to it that the eviden$e submitted is not %abri$ated. 221) &A(,$, vs. (ARR AGA G.R. No. L753))0, 2arc' 10, 1994 Facts: 3on$ep$ion 0lanis and 7nri$o Pa$ete *ere married on 0pril 10, 191@ and had a $hild. 7nri$o $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ith 3larita dela 3on$ep$ion. 0lanis learned o% it on 0u#ust 1, 19:9. 3on$ep$ion 0lanis %iled a $omplaint on '$tober 19:9, %or the De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e bet*een her erst*hile husband 7nri$o Pa$ete and 3larita de la 3on$ep$ion, as *ell as %or le#al separation bet*een her and Pa$ete, a$$ountin# and separation o% propert". (he averred in her $omplaint that she *as married to Pa$ete on 0pril 191@ and the" had a $hild named 3onsuelo. hat Pa$ete subse>uentl" $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e *ith 3larita de la 3on$ep$ion and that she learned o% su$h marria#e onl" on 0u#ust 19:9. Re$on$iliation bet*een her and Pa$ete *as impossible sin$e he evidentl" pre%erred to $ontinue livin# *ith 3larita. he de%endants *ere ea$h served *ith summons. he" %iled an extension *ithin *hi$h to %ile an ans*er, *hi$h the $ourt partl" #ranted. Due to un*anted misunderstandin#, parti$ularl" in $ommuni$ation, the de%endants

303 %ailed to %ile an ans*er on the date set b" the $ourt. herea%ter the plainti%% %iled a motion to de$lare the de%endants in de%ault, *hi$h the $ourt %orth*ith #ranted. he $ourt re$eived plainti%%-s eviden$e durin# the hearin#s held on Aebruar" 15, 20, 21, and 22, 19@0. he 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e #ranted le#al separation, their $onGu#al properties divided e>uall". ss!e= Whether or not the (tate throu#h the (oli$itor?<eneral a$tivel" parti$ipated in the pro$eedin#s5 R!li"#= he 3ivil 3ode provides that no de$ree o% le#al separation shall be promul#ated upon a stipulation o% %a$ts or b" $on%ession o% Gud#ment. In $ase o% non? appearan$e o% the de%endant, the $ourt shall order the prose$utin# attorne" to in>uire *hether or not $ollusion bet*een parties exists. I% there is no $ollusion, the prose$utin# attorne" shall intervene %or the (tate in order to ta/e $are that the eviden$e %or the plainti%% is not %abri$ated.! he above stated provision $allin# %or the intervention o% the state attorne"s in $ase o% un$ontested pro$eedin#s %or le#al separation 8and o% annulment o% marria#es, under 0rti$le @@4 is to emphasi=e that marria#e is more than a mere $ontra$t. 0rti$le 101 o% the 3ivil 3ode, no* 0rti$le 5@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, %urther mandates that an a$tion %or le#al separation must in no $ase be tried be%ore six months shall have elapsed sin$e the %ilin# o% the petition,! obviousl" in order to provide the parties a $oolin#?o%%! period. In this interim, the $ourt should ta/e steps to*ard #ettin# the parties to re$on$ile. he si#ni%i$an$e o% the above substantive provisions o% the la* is %urther or unders$ored b" the in$lusiono% a provision in Rule 1@ o% the Rules o% 3ourt *hi$h provides that no de%aults ina$tions %or annulments o% marria#e or %orle#al separation. here%ore, i% thede%endant in an a$tion %or annulment o% marria#e or %or le#al separation %ails to ans*er, the $ourt shall order the prose$utin# attorne" to investi#ate *hether or not a $ollusion bet*een the

304 parties exists, and i% there is no $ollusion, to intervene %or the (tat e inorder to see to it that the eviden$e submitted is not %abri$ated. 222) 5A1AL*N,5 vs (A G.R. No. 106169, Fe+r!ar4 14, 1994 Facts: Petitioner (amson . (abalones le%t to his *i%e, herein respondent Remedios <aviola?(abalones, the administration o% some o% their $onGu#al, properties %or %i%teen "ears *hile he as an ambassador travels to di%%erent pla$es. (abalones retired as ambassador in 19@5 and $ame ba$/ to the Philippines but not to his *i%e and their $hildren. Aour "ears later, he %iled an a$tion %or Gudi$ial authori=ation to sell a buildin# and lot lo$ated at (an Juan, ,etro ,anila, belon#in# to the $onGu#al partnership. .e $laimed that he *as sixt"?ei#ht "ears old, ver" si$/ and livin# alone *ithout an" in$ome, and that his share o% the pro$eeds o% the sale to de%ra" the prohibitive $ost o% his hospitali=ation and medi$al treatment. In her ans*er, the private respondent opposed the authori=ation and %iled a $ounter$laim %or le#al separation. (he alle#ed that the house in <reenhills *as bein# o$$upied b" her and their six $hildren and that the" *ere dependin# %or their support on the rentals %rom another $onGu#al propert", a buildin# and lot in Aorbes Par/ *hi$h *as on lease to 9obumi$hi I=umi. (he also in%ormed the $ourt that despite her husbandNs retirement, he had not returned to his le#itimate %amil" and *as instead maintainin# a separate residen$e in Aairvie*, Kue=on 3it", *ith helma 3umaren# and their three $hildren. Pendente lite, the respondent *i%e %iled a motion %or the issuan$e o% a *rit o% preliminar" inGun$tion to enGoin the petitioner %rom inter%erin# *ith the administration o% their properties in <reenhills and Aorbes Par/. (he alle#ed inter alia that he had harassed the tenant o% the Aorbes Par/ propert" b" in%ormin# him that his lease *ould not be rene*ed. (he also $omplained that the petitioner had disposed o% one o% their valuable $onGu#al properties in the Fnited (tates in %avor o% his paramour, to the preGudi$e o% his le#itimate *i%e and $hildren.

305 ss!e: Whether or not the the $ourt has %ailed to appoint an administrator o% the $onGu#al assets as mandated b" the la*5 R!li"#: he la* does indeed #rant to the spouses Goint administration over the $onGu#al properties as $learl" provided in the above?$ited 0rti$le 12) o% the Aamil" 3ode. .o*ever, 0rti$le H1, also above >uoted, states that a%ter a petition %or le#al separation has been %iled, the trial $ourt shall, in the absen$e o% a *ritten a#reement bet*een the $ouple, appoint either one o% the spouses or a third person to a$t as the administrator. While it is true that no formal desi#nation o% the administrator has been made, su$h desi#nation *as impli$it in the de$ision o% the trial $ourt den"in# the petitioner an" share in the $onGu#al properties 8and thus also dis>uali%"in# him as administrator thereo%4. hat desi#nation *as in e%%e$t approved b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals *hen it issued in %avor o% the respondent *i%e the preliminar" inGun$tion no* under $hallen#e. he 3ourt notes that the *i%e has been administerin# the subGe$t properties %or almost nineteen "ears no*, apparentl" *ithout $omplaint on the part o% the petitioner. .e has not alle#ed, mu$h less sho*n, that her administration has $aused preGudi$e to the $onGu#al partnership. What he merel" su##ests is that the lease o% the Aorbes Par/ propert" $ould be rene*ed on better terms, or he should at least be #iven his share o% the rentals. he t*in re>uirements o% a valid inGun$tion are the existen$e o% a ri#ht and its a$tual or threatened violation. Re#ardless o% the out$ome o% the appeal, it $annot be denied that as the petitionerNs le#itimate *i%e 8and the $omplainant and inGured spouse in the a$tion %or le#al separation4, the private respondent has a ri#ht to a share 8i% not the *hole4 o% the $onGu#al estate. here is also, in our vie*, enou#h eviden$e to raise the apprehension that entrustin# said estate to the petitioner ma" result in its improvident disposition to the detriment o% his *i%e and $hildren. We a#ree that inasmu$h as the trial $ourt had earlier de$lared the %or%eiture o% the petitionerNs share in the $onGu#al properties, it *ould be prudent not to allo* him in the meantime to parti$ipate in its mana#ement. +et it be stressed that the inGun$tion has not permanentl" installed the respondent *i%e as the administrator o% the *hole mass o% $onGu#al assets. It has merel" allo*ed her to $ontinue

306 administerin# the properties in the meantime *ithout inter%eren$e %rom the petitioner, pendin# the express desi#nation o% the administrator in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le H1 o% the Aamil" 3ode. 223) ,5& R $A AND LA9AG <5. (A G.R. No. 115640, 2arc' 15, 1995 Facts: Petitioner Re"naldo 7spiritu and respondent eresita ,asaudin# %irst met in Ili#an 3it" *here Re"naldo *as emplo"ed b" the 9ational (teel 3orporation and eresita *as emplo"ed as a nurse in a lo$al hospital. eresita le%t %or +os 0n#eles, 3ali%ornia to *or/ as a nurse. Re"naldo *as sent b" his emplo"er, the 9ational (teel 3orporation, to Pittsbur#h, Penns"lvania as its liaison o%%i$er and Re"naldo and eresita then be#an to maintain a $ommon la* relationship o% husband and *i%e. 'n 19@H, their dau#hter, Rosalind herese, *as born. While the" *ere on a brie% va$ation in the Philippines, Re"naldo and eresita #ot married, and upon their return to the Fnited (tates, their se$ond $hild, a son, this time, and #iven the name Re#inald Bin$e, *as born on 19@@. he relationship o% the $ouple deteriorated until the" de$ided to separate. Instead o% #ivin# their marria#e a se$ond $han$e as alle#edl" pleaded b" Re"naldo, eresita le%t Re"naldo and the $hildren and *ent ba$/ to 3ali%ornia. Re"naldo brou#ht his $hildren home to the Philippines, but be$ause his assi#nment in Pittsbur#h *as not "et $ompleted, he *as sent ba$/ b" his $ompan" to Pittsbur#h. .e had to leave his $hildren *ith his sister, <uillerma +a"u# and her %amil". eresita, mean*hile, de$ided to return to the Philippines and %iled the petition %or a *rit o% habeas $orpus a#ainst herein t*o petitioners to #ain $ustod" over the $hildren, thus startin# the *hole pro$eedin#s no* rea$hin# this 3ourt. he trial $ourt dismissed the petition %or habeas $orpus. It suspended eresitaNs parental authorit" over Rosalind and Re#inald and de$lared Re"naldo to have sole parental authorit" over them but *ith ri#hts o% visitation to be a#reed upon b" the parties and to be approved b" the 3ourt. ss!e: Whether or not the $ustod" o% the $hildren *hen the spouses have separated *ill be trans%erred to the mother,

300 eresita, and the *rit o% .abeas 3orpus *ill be #ranted to #ain $ustod" o% the $hildren5 R!li"#: (3 dismissed the *rit o% habeas $orpus petition b" the mother and retains the $ustod" o% the $hildren to the %ather. he illi$it or immoral a$tivities o% the mother had alread" $aused emotional disturban$es, personalit" $on%li$ts, and exposure to $on%li$tin# moral values a#ainst the $hildren. he $hildren are no* both over seven "ears old. heir $hoi$e o% the parent *ith *hom the" pre%er to sta" is $lear %rom the re$ord. Arom all indi$ations, Re"naldo is a %it person. he $hildren understand the un%ortunate short$omin#s o% their mother and have been a%%e$ted in their emotional #ro*th b" her behavior. 224) LA&AJ 59 vs. ,AF,2 * G.R. No. L730900, 3a"!ar4 31, 1902 Facts: 3armen +apu=?(" %iled a petition %or le#al separation a#ainst 7u%emio 7u%emio on 0u#ust 1951. he" *ere married $ivill" on (eptember 21, 191) and $anoni$all" a%ter nine da"s. he" had lived to#ether as husband and *i%e $ontinuousl" *ithout an" $hildren until 19)1 *hen her husband abandoned her. he" a$>uired properties durin# their marria#e. Petitioner then dis$overed that her husband $ohabited *ith a 3hinese *oman named <o .io/ on or about 19)9. (he pra"ed %or the issuan$e o% a de$ree o% le#al separation, *hi$h amon# others, *ould order that the de%endant 7u%emio should be deprived o% his share o% the $onGu#al partnership pro%its. 7u%emio $ounter$laimed %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% his marria#e *ith +apu=?(" on the #round o% his prior and subsistin# marria#e *ith <o .io/. rial pro$eeded and the parties addu$ed their respe$tive eviden$e. .o*ever, be%ore the trial $ould be $ompleted, respondent alread" s$heduled to present sure rebuttal eviden$e, petitioner died in a vehi$ular a$$ident on ,a" 19H9. .er $ounsel dul" noti%ied the $ourt o% her death. 7u%emio moved to dismiss the petition %or le#al separation on June 19H9 on the #rounds that the said petition *as %iled be"ond the one?"ear period provided in 0rti$le 102 o% the 3ivil 3ode and that the death o% 3armen abated the a$tion %or le#al separation. Petitioner-s

30) $ounsel moved to substitute the de$eased 3armen b" her %ather, ,a$ario +apu=. ss!e: Whether the death o% the plainti%%, be%ore %inal de$ree in an a$tion %or le#al separation, abate the a$tion and *ill it also appl" i% the a$tion involved propert" ri#hts5 R!li"#: 0n a$tion %or le#al separation is abated b" the death o% the plainti%%, even i% propert" ri#hts are involved. hese ri#hts are mere e%%e$ts o% de$ree o% separation, their sour$e bein# the de$ree itsel%6 *ithout the de$ree su$h ri#hts do not $ome into existen$e, so that be%ore the %inalit" o% a de$ree, these $laims are merel" ri#hts in expe$tation. I% death supervenes durin# the penden$" o% the a$tion, no de$ree $an be %orth$omin#, death produ$in# a more radi$al and de%initive separation6 and the expe$ted $onse>uential ri#hts and $laims *ould ne$essaril" remain unborn. he petition o% 7u%emio %or de$laration o% nullit" is moot and a$ademi$ and there $ould be no %urther interest in $ontinuin# the same a%ter her demise, that automati$all" dissolved the >uestioned union. 0n" propert" ri#hts a$>uired b" either part" as a result o% 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines H $ould be resolved and determined in a proper a$tion %or partition b" either the appellee or b" the heirs o% the appellant. 225) LA&,RAL vs. R,&A1L ( G.R. No. L71)00), *cto+er 30, 1962 Facts: he petitioner has been a bona %ide resident o% the 3it" o% Ca#uio %or the last three "ears prior to the date o% the %ilin# o% this petition. he petitionerNs maiden name is 7lisea +aperal6 she married ,r. 7nri>ue R. (antamaria6 that in a partial de$ision entered on this .onorable 3ourt, entitled N7nri>ue R. (antamaria vs. 7lisea +. (antamariaN ,r. 7nri>ue (antamaria *as #iven a de$ree o% le#al separation %rom her6 that the said partial de$ision is no* %inal. hat durin# her marria#e to 7nri>ue R. (antamaria, she naturall" used, instead o% her maiden name, that o% 7lisea +. (antamaria6 that aside %rom her le#al separation %rom 7nri>ue R. (antamaria, she has also $eased to live *ith him %or man" "ears

309 no*. hat in vie* o% the %a$t that she has been le#all" separated %rom ,r. 7nri>ue R. (antamaria and has li/e*ise $eased to live *ith him %or man" "ears, it is desirable that she be allo*ed to $han#e her name andLor be permitted to resume usin# her maiden name, 7lisea +aperal. ss!e: Whether Rule 101 *hi$h re%ers to $han#e o% name in #eneral *ill prevail over the spe$i%i$ provision o% 0rt. 1:2 o% the 3ivil 3ode *ith re#ard to married *oman le#all" separated %rom his husband5 R!li"#: In le#al separation, the married status is una%%e$ted b" the separation, there bein# no severan$e o% the vin$ulum. he %indin# that petitioner-s $ontinued use o% her husband surname ma" $ause undue $on%usion in her %inan$es *as *ithout basis. It must be $onsidered that the issuan$e o% the de$ree o% le#al separation in 195@, ne$essitate that the $onGu#al partnership bet*een her and 7nri>ue had automati$all" been dissolved and li>uidated. .en$e, there $ould be no more o$$asion %or an eventual li>uidation o% the $onGu#al assets. Aurthermore, appl"in# Rule 101 is not a su%%i$ient #round to Gusti%" a $han#e o% the name o% 7lisea %or to hold other*ise *ould be to provide %or an eas" $ir$umvention o% the mandator" provision o% 0rt. 1:2. Petition *as dismissed. 226) 5 *(@ vs. G*J*N G.R. No. 169900, 2arc' 1), 2010 Facts: 'n 0u#ust 11, 1991, 0l%redo and ,ario (io$hi entered into an 0#reement to Cu" and (ell the propert". 0t that time, 7lvira-s %iled petition %or le#al separation as *ell as a noti$e o% lis pendens, annotated *ith 3 9o. 515, *ere still pendin# at the 3avite 3it" Re#ional rial 3ourt 83avite R 34. ,ario demanded an a%%idavit to be exe$uted b" 7lvira, *hi$h in e%%e$t *ould establish that the propert" is an ex$lusive possession o% 0lberto and that it should be ex$luded %rom their $onGu#al propert". 9onetheless, 0l%redo %ailed to $ompl" *ith these stipulations and ,ario pro$eeded *ith pa"in# P5 ,illion earnest mone" as partial

310 pa"ment. 0%ter the pa"ment, he too/ possession o% the land in (eptember 1991. 3onse>uentl", the 3avite R 3 upon the Gud#ment rendered de$reein# their le#al separation also held that the propert" is deemed $onGu#al propert". 'n 0u#ust 22, 199) 0l%redo exe$uted a Deed o% Donation over the propert" in %avor o% their dau#hter Wini%red <o=on. 'n '$tober 2H, 199), 0l%redo b" virtue o% a (pe$ial Po*er o% 0ttorne" exe$uted in his %avor b" Wini%red, sold the propert" to Inter?Dimensional Realt", In$. 8IDRI4 %or P1@ ,illion. he $ompan" paid in %ull therea%ter. ,ario then %iled *ith the ,alabon Re#ional rial 3ourt a $omplaint %or (pe$i%i$ Per%orman$e and Dama#es, 0nnulment o% Donation and (ale, *ith Preliminar" ,andator" and Prohibition InGun$tion andLor emporar" Restrainin# 'rder. he rendered Gud#ment o% ,alabon R 3 inte#rated that enGoinin# de%endants should respe$t plainti%%-s possession o% the propert", that the Deed o% Donation entered into b" and bet*een 0l%redo <o=on and Wini%red <o=on is null and void alon# *ith a$tual and $ompensator" dama#es %or the plainti%% 8,ario4 and %or Inter?Dimensional Realt", In$. 'n appeal, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irmed the ,alabon R 3s de$ision but *ith modi%i$ation as %ollo*s6 that sale o% the subGe$t land b" de%endant 0l%red <o=on to plainti%%?appellant (io$hi is null and void be$ause the $onve"an$e *as done *ithout the $onsent o% the de%endant?appellee 7lvira <o=on, that 0l%redo <o=on-s one? hal% undivided share is %or%eited in %avor o% his dau#hter Wini%red <o=on b" virtue o% le#al separation and that de%endants 0l%redo and Wini%red must pa" the pro?rated moral and exemplar" dama#es. ss!e: Whether or not ,ario-s 0#reement should be treated as a $ontinuin# o%%er *hi$h ma" be per%e$ted b" the a$$eptan$e o% the other spouse be%ore the o%%er is *ithdra*n5 R!li"#: (in$e the disposition o% the propert" o$$urred a%ter the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode, the appli$able la* is the Aamil" 3ode. 0rti$le 12) o% the Aamil" 3ode elaborates the essen$e that in the event that one spouse is in$apa$itated or other*ise unable to parti$ipate in the administration o% the $onGu#al properties, the

311 other spouse ma" assume sole po*ers o% administration. hese po*ers do not in$lude the po*ers o% disposition or en$umbran$e *hi$h must have the authorit" o% the $ourt or the *ritten $onsent o% the other spouse. In the absen$e o% su$h authorit" or $onsent, the disposition or en$umbran$e shall be void. he $ourt ruled that the absen$e o% the $onsent o% one o% the spouse renders the entire sale void, in$ludin# the portion o% the $onGu#al propert" pertainin# to the spouse *ho $ontra$ted the sale. With re#ards to ,ario-s $ontention that the 0#reement is a $ontinuin# o%%er *hi$h ma" be per%e$ted b" 7lvira-s a$$eptan$e be%ore the o%%er is *ithdra*n, the %a$t that the propert" *as subse>uentl" donated b" 0l%redo to Wini%red and then sold to IDRI $learl" indi$ates that the o%%er *as alread" *ithdra*n. 0s %ound b" the R 3 o% ,alabon and the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, IDRI had a$tual /no*led#e o% the %a$ts and $ir$umstan$es *hi$h should impel a $autious person to ma/e %urther in>uiries about the vendors title to the propert". hus IDRI $ould not %ei#n i#noran$e o% the 3avite R 3 de$ision de$larin# the propert" as $onGu#al. 220) &,LA9* vs. LAAR*N G.R. No. 129295, A!#!st 15, 2001 Facts: 'n 9ovember 21, 190H, a ph"si$ian named 0rturo Pela"o %iled a $omplaint a#ainst ,arelo +auron and Juana 0bellana. 'n the ni#ht o% '$tober 11th o% the same "ear, the plainti%% *as $alled to render medi$al assistan$e to the de%endant-s dau#hter? in?la*, *ho *as about to #ie birth. 0%ter the $onsultation o% Dr. 7s$a;o, it *as deemed that the operation *as #oin# to be di%%i$ult %or $hild birth, but re#ardless, Dr. Pela"o pro$eeded *ith the Gob o% operatin# on the subGe$t and also removed the a%terbirth. he operation *ent on until mornin# and on the same da", visited several times and billed the de%endants the Gust amount o% P500 %or the servi$es rendered to *hi$h de%endants re%used to pa". In ans*er to the $omplaint, $ounsel %or the de%endants denied all o% the alle#ation and alle#ed as a spe$ial de%ense, that their dau#hter?in?la* had died in $onse>uen$e o% the said $hildbirth, that *hen she *as alive she lived *ith her husband independentl" and in a separate house *ithout an" relation

312 *hatever *ith them, and that, i% on the da" *hen she #ave birth she *as in the house o% the de%endants, her sta" there *as a$$idental and due to %ortuitous $ir$umstan$es. here%ore, he pra"ed that the de%endants be absolved o% the $omplaint *ith $osts a#ainst the plainti%%. ss!e: Whether or not the de%endants should be held liable %or the %ees demanded b" the plainti%% upon renderin# medi$al assistan$e to the de%endants- dau#hter?in?la*5 R!li"#: 9o. 0$$ordin# to arti$le 10@9 o% the 3ivil 3ode, obli#ations are $reated b" la*, b" $ontra$ts, b" >uasi?$ontra$ts, and b" illi$it a$ts and omissions or b" those in *hi$h an" /ind o% %ault or ne#li#en$e o$$urs. 'bli#ations arisin# %rom la* are not presumed. hose expressl" determined in the $ode or in spe$ial la*s, et$., are the onl" demandable ones. 'bli#ations arisin# %rom $ontra$ts have le#al %or$e bet*een the $ontra$tin# parties and must be %ul%illed in a$$ordan$e *ith their stipulations. he renderin# o% medi$al assistan$e in $ase o% illness *as $omprised amon# the mutual obli#ations to *hi$h the spouses *ere bound b" *a" o% mutual support. 80rts. 1)2 and 1)14 I% ever" obli#ation $onsists in #ivin#, doin# or not doin# somethin#, and spouses *ere mutuall" bound to support ea$h other, there $an be no >uestion but that, *hen either o% them b" reason o% illness should be in need o% medi$al assistan$e, the other *as under the unavoidable obli#ation to %urnish the ne$essar" servi$es o% a ph"si$ian in order that health ma" be restored, and he or she ma" be %reed %rom the si$/ness b" *hi$h li%e is Geopardi=ed. he part" bound to %urnish su$h support *as there%ore liable %or all expenses, in$ludin# the %ees o% the medi$al expert %or his pro%essional servi$es. In the %a$e o% the above le#al pre$epts, it *as un>uestionable that the person bound to pa" the %ees due to the plainti%% %or the pro%essional servi$es that he rendered to the dau#hter?in?la* o% the de%endants durin# her $hildbirth, *as the husband o% the patient and not her %ather and mother? in?la* o% the de%endants herein. 22)) G* vs. (*AR$ *F A&&,AL5 G.R. No. 114091, 2a4 29, 1990

313

Facts: Private respondents spouses .ermo#enes and Jane 'n# *ere married on June :, 19@1, in Duma#uete 3it". he video $overa#e o% the *eddin# *as provided b" petitioners at a $ontra$t pri$e o% P1,H50.00. hree times therea%ter, the ne*l"*eds tried to $laim the video tape o% their *eddin#, *hi$h the" planned to sho* to their relatives in the Fnited (tates *here the" *ere to spend their hone"moon, and thri$e the" %ailed be$ause the tape *as apparentl" not "et pro$essed. he parties then a#reed that the tape *ould be read" upon private respondents- return. When private respondents $ame home %rom their hone"moon, ho*ever, the" %ound out that the tape had been erased b" petitioners and there%ore, $ould no lon#er be delivered. Aurious at the loss o% the tape *hi$h *as supposed to be the onl" re$ord o% their *eddin#, private respondents %iled on (eptember 21, 19@1 a $omplaint %or spe$i%i$ per%orman$e and dama#es a#ainst petitioners be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt, :th Judi$ial Distri$t, Cran$h 11, Duma#uete 3it" ss!e: Whether or not the *i%e *ho $ontra$ted the servi$es *ill be the onl" one *ho *ill be held liable5 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 11: o% the 3ivil 3ode 8no* 0rti$le :1 o% the Aamil" 3ode4, the *i%e ma" exer$ise an" pro%ession, o$$upation or en#a#e in business *ithout the $onsent o% the husband. In the instant $ase, *e are $onvin$ed that it *as onl" petitioner 9an$" <o *ho entered into the $ontra$t *ith private respondent. 3onse>uentl", *e rule that she is solel" liable to private respondents %or the dama#es a*arded belo*, pursuant to the prin$iple that $ontra$ts produ$e e%%e$t onl" as bet*een the parties *ho exe$ute them. 229) ARR*9* vs. <A5IA,J7ARR*9* G.R. No. 10014, A!#!st 11, 1921 Facts: ,ariano 0rro"o and Dolores Ba=>ue= de 0rro"o have been married %or 10 "ears *hen Dolores de$ided to leave their domi$ile *ith the intention o% livin# then$e%orth separate %rom her husband. ,ariano thus initiated an a$tion to $ompel her to return

314 to the matrimonial home and live *ith him as a duti%ul *i%e. he de%endant ans*ered that she had been $ompelled to leave b" $ruel treatment on the part o% the husband and thus she %iled a $ross $omplaint that as/s %or a de$ree o% separation, a li>uidation o% $onGu#al partnership, and an allo*an$e %or $ounsel %ees and permanent separate maintenan$e. he trial Gud#e, upon $onsideration o% the eviden$e, $on$luded that the $ontinued ill? treatment o% her %urnished su%%i$ient Gusti%i$ation %or her abandonment o% the $onGu#al home and the permanent brea/in# o%% o% marital relations *ith him. hus, the Gud#e #ave Gud#ment in %avor o% the de%endant. he plainti%% appealed ss!e: Whether or not $ross $omplaint $on$lusivel" proves that the plainti%% has %or%eited his ri#ht to the marital so$iet" o% his *i%e and Whether or not the husband is entitled to a permanent mandator" inGun$tion to $ompel the *i%e to return to the matrimonial home and live *ith him as his duti%ul *i%e5 R!li"#: he obli#ation *hi$h the la* imposes on the husband to maintain the *i%e is a dut" universall" re$o#ni=ed and is $learl" expressed in arti$les 1)2 and 1)1, 33. 0$$ordin#l", *here the *i%e is %or$ed to leave the matrimonial abode and to live apart %rom her husband, she $an, in this Gurisdi$tion, $ompel him to ma/e provision %or her separate maintenan$e6 and he ma" be re>uired to pa" the expenses, in$ludin# attorne"-s %ees, ne$essaril" in$urred in en%or$in# su$h obli#ation. 9evertheless, the interests o% both parties as *ell as o% so$iet" at lar#e re>uire that the $ourts should move *ith $aution in en%or$in# the dut" to provide %or the separate maintenan$e o% the *i%e, %or this step involves a re$o#nition o% the de %a$to separation o% the spousesO a state *hi$h is abnormal and %rau#ht *ith #rave dan#er to all $on$erned. Arom this $onsideration it %ollo*s that provision should not be made %or separate maintenan$e in %avor o% the *i%e unless it appears that the $ontinued $ohabitation o% the pair has be$ome impossible and separation ne$essar" %rom the %ault o% the husband. Aa$ts o% the $ase sho* that the plainti%% has done nothin# to %or%eit his ri#ht to the marital so$iet" o% his *i%e and she is under a moral and le#al obli#ation to return to the $ommon home and $ohabit *ith him.

315 0lthou#h the husband is entitled to a Gudi$ial de$laration that his *i%e has absented hersel% *ithout su%%i$ient $ause and that it is her dut" to return, the 3ourt is disin$lined to san$tion the do$trine that an order, en%or$eable b" pro$ess o% $ontempt, ma" be entered to $ompel the restitution o% the purel" personal ri#ht o% $onsortium. hus, that the plainti%% in this $ase is not entitled to the un$onditional and absolute order %or the return o% the *i%e to the marital domi$ile, *hi$h is sou#ht in the petitioner-s part o% the $omplaint. 230) LA5*R * vs. 1 LDN,R, LA5*R * G.R. No. 1390)9, 2a4 12, 2000 Facts: 'n ,ar$h 11, 1999, 7rlinda J. Ilusorio, the matriar$h *ho *as so lovin#l" inseparable %rom her husband some "ears a#o, %iled a petition *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals %or "abeas corpus to have $ustod" o% her husband in $onsortium. 'n 0pril 5, 1999, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals promul#ated its de$ision dismissin# the petition %or la$/ o% unla*%ul restraint or detention o% the subGe$t, Poten$iano Ilusorio. hus, on '$tober 11, 1999, 7rlinda J. Ilusorio %iled *ith the (upreme 3ourt an appeal via $ertiorari pursuin# her desire to have $ustod" o% her husband Poten$iano Ilusorio. his $ase *as $onsolidated *ith another $ase %iled b" Poten$iano Ilusorio and his $hildren, 7rlinda I. Cildner and ("lvia J. Ilusorio appealin# %rom the order #ivin# visitation ri#hts to his *i%e, assertin# that he never re%used to see her. 'n ,a" 12, 2000, *e dismissed the petition %or habeas $orpus %or la$/ o% merit, and #ranted the petition to nulli%" the 3ourt o% 0ppealsN rulin# #ivin# visitation ri#hts to 7rlinda J. Ilusorio. ss!e: Whether or not, 7rlinda and Poten$iano are dut" bound to live to#ether and $are %or ea$h other5 R!li"#: he la* provides that the husband and the *i%e are obli#ed to live to#ether, observe mutual love, respe$t and %idelit". he san$tion there%or is the Ispontaneous, mutual a%%e$tion bet*een husband and *i%e and not an" le#al mandate or $ourt orderI to en%or$e $onsortium. 'bviousl", there *as absen$e o% empath" bet*een spouses 7rlinda and Poten$iano, havin#

316 separated %rom bed and board sin$e 19:2. We de%ined empat"y as a shared %eelin# bet*een husband and *i%e experien$ed not onl" b" havin# spontaneous sexual intima$" but a deep sense o% spiritual $ommunion. ,arital union is a t*o?*a" pro$ess. ,arria#e is de%initel" %or t*o lovin# adults *ho vie* the relationship *ith Iamor gignit amoremI respe$t, sa$ri%i$e and a $ontinuin# $ommitment to to#etherness, $ons$ious o% its value as a sublime so$ial institution. 231) G* $ A vs. (A2&*5 RA,DA G.R. No. 11263, Nove.+er 2, 1916 Facts: he parties *ere le#all" married in the $it" o% ,anila on Januar" :, 1915, and immediatel" therea%ter established their residen$e at 115 3alle (an ,ar$elino, *here the" lived to#ether %or about a month, *hen the plainti%% returned to the home o% her parents alle#edl" be$ause the de%endant, one month a%ter he had $ontra$ted marria#e *ith the plainti%%, demanded o% her that she per%orm un$haste and las$ivious a$ts on his #enital or#ans6 that the plainti%% reGe$t the dis#ustin# demands o% the de%endant and re%used to per%orm an" a$t other than le#al and valid $ohabitation6 that the de%endant, sin$e that date had $ontinuall" on other su$$essive dates, made similar inde$ent and impolite demands on his *i%e, the plainti%%, *ho al*a"s spurned them, *hi$h Gust re%usals o% the plainti%% %rustrated the de%endant and indu$e him to maltreat her b" *ord and deed and in%li$t inGuries upon her lips, her %a$e and di%%erent parts o% her bod". ss!e: Whether or not, the husband is obli#ed %or support outside o% the $onGu#al domi$ile5 R!li"#: .ereb" is a Gud#ment sustainin# the de%endantNs demurrer upon the #round that the %a$ts alle#ed in the $omplaint do not state a $ause o% a$tion. his $ourt held, that the de%endant $annot be $ompelled to support the plainti%%, ex$ept in his o*n house, unless it be b" virtue o% a Gudi$ial de$ree #rantin# her a divor$e or separation %rom the de%endant. 232) (A,N(A vs. (A,N(A

310 G.R. No. L702321, Dece.+er ), 19)) Facts: he respondent %iled a $omplaint %or re$over" o% real propert" and dama#es a#ainst petitioner. his, ho*ever, *as dismissed. 'n appeal, 3ourt o% 0ppeals reversed the de$ision o% the trial $ourt. Petitioner, then, motioned %or Re$onsideration, (upplemental ,otion %or Re$onsideration or ,otion %or 9e* rial on the #round o% ne*l" dis$overed eviden$e but *as then denied %or la$/ o% merit and %or havin# been %iled out o% time. ss!e: Whether or not, the ,otion %or 9e* time5 rial *as %iled out o%

R!li"#: (e$tion 1 o% arti$le 51 shall appl" in the $ase at bar. It states that be%ore a Ainal 'rder or Jud#ment rendered b" the 3ourt o% 0ppeals be$ome exe$utor", a ,otion %or 9e* rial ma" be %iled on ne*l" dis$overed eviden$e. .en$e, the ,otion *as %iled *ithin the re#lementar" period. 233) AR(A1A vs. D, 1A$*(A,L G.R. No. 1466)3, Nove.+er 22, 2001 Facts: 'n Januar" 1H, 195H, Aran$is$o 3omille and his *i%e Eosima ,ontallana be$ame the re#istered o*ners o% +ot 9o. )1:? 0. 0%ter the death o% Eosima on '$tober 1, 19@0, Aran$is$o and his mother?in?la*, Juliana Custalino ,ontallana, exe$uted a deed o% extraGudi$ial partition *ith *aiver o% ri#hts, in *hi$h the latter *aived her share $onsistin# o% one?%ourth 81L)4 o% the propert" to Aran$is$o. 'n June 2:, 191H, Aran$is$o re#istered the lot in his name *ith the Re#istr" o% Deeds. .avin# no $hildren to ta/e $are o% him a%ter his retirement, Aran$is$o as/ed his nie$e +eti$ia Cellosillo, the latterNs $ousin, +u=viminda Pa#ha$ian, and petitioner 3irila 0r$aba, then a *ido*, to ta/e $are o% his house, as *ell as the store inside. It appears that *hen +eti$ia and +u=viminda *ere married, onl" 3irila *as le%t to ta/e $are o% Aran$is$o. .e did not pa" 3irila a re#ular $ash *a#e as a house helper, thou#h he provided her %amil" *ith %ood and lod#in#. 'n Januar" 2), 1991, a %e* months be%ore his death, Aran$is$o exe$uted an instrument denominated IDeed o% Donation Inter Bivos,I in *hi$h he $eded a portion o% +ot )1:?0, $onsistin# o% 150

31) s>uare meters, to#ether *ith his house, to 3irila, *ho a$$epted the donation in the same instrument. Aran$is$o le%t the lar#er portion o% 2H@ s>uare meters in his name. he deed stated that the donation *as bein# made in $onsideration o% Ithe %aith%ul servi$es R3irila 0r$abaS had rendered over the past ten 8104 "ears.I he deed *as notari=ed b" 0tt". Bi$ . +a$a"a, (r.19 and later re#istered b" 3irila as its absolute o*ner. ss!e= Whether or not, the donation o% Aran$is$o to 3irila is valid5 R!li"#= Respondents havin# proven b" a preponderan$e o% eviden$e that 3irila and Aran$is$o lived to#ether as husband and *i%e *ithout a valid marria#e, the ines$apable $on$lusion is that the donation made b" Aran$is$o in %avor o% 3irila is void under 0rt. @: o% the Aamil" 3ode. 234) 2A$A1A,NA vs. (,R<AN$,5 G.R. No. L72)001, 2arc' 31, 1901 Facts: Aelix ,atabuena donated a par$el o% land to Petronila 3ervantes, his mistress on Aebruar" 20, 195H. When Aelix died, 3ornelia ,atabuena, herein petitioner and the sister o% Aelix, >uestions the said donation, $ontendin# that it must be de$lared void and pra"in# that it must be nulli%ied be$ause the donation *ere exe$uted durin# the marria#e o% her brother to Petronila *hi$h under the Aamil" 3ode is void. .o*ever, it *as sho*n that the t*o married onl" on ,ar$h 2@, 19H2. ss!e: Whether or not, the donation is void *hen made durin# the $ommon la* relationship as husband and *i%e bet*een Aelix and Petronila5 R!li"#: While 0rti$le 111 o% the 3ivil 3ode $onsiders as void a donation bet*een the spouses durin# the marria#e, poli$" $onsiderations o% the most exi#ent $hara$ter as *ell as the di$tates o% moralit" re>uire that the same prohibition should appl" to a $ommon la* relationship. Aor as %ar as $ommon la* relationship in the Philippines is not valid, then it must also

319 adhere to *hat prohibitions under valid marria#e ma" be imposed. 235) @ARD NG vs. (*22,R( AL (*2&AN9 G.R. No. 12000, A!#!st 10, 191) AN *N A55ARAN(,

Facts= Plainti%%s are husband and *i%e and residents o% the $it" o% ,anila6 that the de%endant is a %orei#n $orporation or#ani=ed and existin# under and b" virtue o% the la*s o% <reat Critain and dul" re#istered in the Philippine Islands, and (mith, Cell P 3o. 8limited4, a $orporation or#ani=ed and existin# under the la*s o% the Philippine Islands, *ith its prin$ipal domi$ile in the $it" o% ,anila, is the a#ent in the Philippine Islands o% said de%endant. In 191H, ,rs. .enr" 7. .ardin# *as the o*ner o% a (tudeba/er automobile, re#istered number 20H1, in the $it" o% ,anila6 that on said date6 in $onsideration o% the pa"ment to the de%endant o% the premium o% P150, b" said plainti%%, ,rs. .enr" 7. .ardin#, *ith the $onsent o% her husband, the de%endant b" its dul" authori=ed a#ent, (mith, Cell P 3ompan", made its poli$" o% insuran$e in *ritin# upon said automobile *as set %orth in said poli$" to be P1,000 that the value o% said automobile *as set %orth in said poli$" to be P1,0006 that on ,ar$h 2), 191H, said automobile *as totall" destro"ed b" %ire6 that the loss thereb" to plainti%%s *as the sum o% P1,0006 that therea%ter, *ithin the period mentioned in the said poli$" o% insuran$e, the plainti%%, ,rs. .enr" 7. .ardin#, %urnished the de%endant the proo%s o% her said loss and interest, and other*ise per%ormed all the $onditions o% said poli$" on her part, and that the de%endant has not paid said loss nor an" part thereo%, althou#h due demand *as made upon de%endant there%or. ss!e= C'et'er or "ot, t'e %o"atio" .a%e +4 t'e 6i-e to 'er '!s+a"% is vali%E R!li"#= he $ourt %ound that the automobile *as #iven to plainti%% b" her husband shortl" a%ter the issuan$e o% the poli$" here in >uestion. 0ppellant does not dispute the $orre$tness o% this %indin#, but $ontends that the #i%t *as void, $itin# arti$le 111) o% the 3ivil 3ode *hi$h provides that I0ll #i%ts bet*een spouses

320 durin# the marria#e shall be void. ,oderate #i%ts *hi$h the spouses besto* on ea$h other on %estive da"s o% the %amil" are not in$luded in this rule.I 7ven assumin# that de%endant mi#ht have invo/ed arti$le 111) as a de%ense, the burden *ould be upon it to sho* that the #i%t in >uestion does not %all *ithin the ex$eption therein established. We $annot sa", as a matter o% la*, that the #i%t o% an automobile b" a husband to his *i%e is not a moderate one. Whether it is or is not *ould depend upon the $ir$umstan$es o% the parties, as to *hi$h nothin# is dis$losed b" the re$ord. We are, there%ore, o% the opinion and hold that plainti%% *as the o*ner o% the automobile in >uestion and had an insurable interest therein6 that there *as no %raud on her part in pro$urin# the insuran$e6 that the valuation o% the automobile, %or the purposes o% the insuran$e, is bindin# upon the de%endant $orporation. 236) NA<ARR* vs. ,5(*1 D* G.R. No. 1530)), Nove.+er 20, 2009 Facts= J0R79 . <' is married to <+799 '. <', a resident o% 3a#a"an de 'ro 3it" and doin# business under the trade name J0R<' 79 7RPRI(7(, *hi$h is involved in the business o%, amon# others, bu"in# and sellin# motor vehi$les, in$ludin# haulin# tru$/s and other heav" e>uipment. In 199:, R'<7R 90B0RR', herein petitioner leased %rom plainti%% a $ertain motor vehi$le as eviden$ed b" a +70(7 0<R77,79 WI . 'P I'9 ' PFR3.0(7 entered into b" and bet*een J0R<' 79 7RPRI(7(, then represented b" its ,ana#er, the a%orementioned <+799 '. <', and de%endant R'<7R 90B0RR'6 that in a$$ordan$e *ith the provisions o% the above +70(7 0<R77,79 WI . 'P I'9 ' PFR3.0(7, de%endant 90B0RR' delivered unto plainti%% six 8H4 post?dated $he$/s ea$h in the amount o% (IU M?(IU .'F(09D .R77 .F9DR7D .IR M? .R77 *hi$h *ere supposedl" in pa"ment o% the a#reed rentals6 that *hen the %i%th and sixth $he$/s *ere presented %or pa"ment andLor $redit, the same *ere dishonored andLor returned b" the dra*ee ban/ %or the $ommon reason that the $urrent deposit a$$ount a#ainst *hi$h the said $he$/s *ere issued did not have su%%i$ient %unds to $over the amounts thereo%6 that the total amount o% the t*o 824 $he$/s, there%ore represents the prin$ipal liabilit" o% de%endant R'<7R

321 90B0RR' unto plainti%% on the basis o% the provisions o% the above +70(7 0<R77,79 WI . RI<. ' PFR3.0(76 that demands, *ritten and oral, *ere made o% de%endant R'<7R 90B0RR' to pa" or to return the subGe$t motor vehi$le as also provided %or in the +70(7 0<R77,79 WI . RI<. ' PFR3.0(7, but said demands *ere, and still are, in vain to the #reat dama#e and inGur" o% herein plainti%%. ss!e= Whether or not, J0R<' enterprise is the $onGu#al propert" o% Jaren and <lenn5 R!li"#= his $ourt holds that it is a $onGu#al propert". 0rti$le 12) o% the Aamil" 3ode, on the administration o% the $onGu#al propert", provides: 0rt. 12). $'e a%.i"istratio" a"% e"8o4.e"t o- t'e co"8!#al part"ers'ip propert4 s'all +elo"# to +ot' spo!ses 8oi"tl4. In $ase o% disa#reement, the husband-s de$ision shall prevail, subGe$t to re$ourse to the $ourt b" the *i%e %or proper remed", *hi$h must be availed o% *ithin %ive "ears %rom the date o% the $ontra$t implementin# su$h de$ision. his provision, b" its terms, allo*s either Jaren or <lenn <o to spea/ and a$t *ith authorit" in mana#in# their $onGu#al propert", i.e., Jar#o 7nterprises. 9o need exists, there%ore, %or one to obtain the $onsent o% the other be%ore per%ormin# an a$t o% administration or an" a$t that does not dispose o% or en$umber their $onGu#al propert". Fnder 0rti$le 10@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, the $onGu#al partnership is #overned b" the rules on the $ontra$t o% partnership in all that is not in $on%li$t *ith *hat is expressl" determined in this 3hapter or b" the spouses in their marria#e settlements. In other *ords, the propert" relations o% the husband and *i%e shall be #overned primaril" b" 3hapter ) on 3onGu#al Partnership o% <ains o% the Aamil" 3ode and, suppletoril", b" the spouses- marria#e settlement and b" the rules on partnership under the 3ivil 3ode. In the absen$e o% an" eviden$e o% a marria#e settlement bet*een the spouses <o, *e loo/ at the 3ivil 3ode provision on partnership %or #uidan$e. 230) < LLANA,<A vs. (A

322 G.R. No. 1432)6, April 14, 2004 Facts: Plainti%% 7usebia 9apisa Retu"a, is the le#al *i%e o% de%endant 9i$olas Retu"a, havin# been married to the latter on '$tober :, 192H. 'ut o% the la*%ul *edlo$/, the" be#ot %ive 854 $hildren, namel", 9atividad, 0n#ela, 9apoleon, (alome, and Roberta. (pouses Retu"a resided at ipolo, ,andaue 3it". Durin# their marria#e the" a$>uired real properties and all improvements situated in ,andaue 3it", and 3onsola$ion, 3ebu. 0lso, de%endant, 9i$olas Retu"a, is $o?o*ner o% a par$el o% land situated in ,andaue 3it" *hi$h he inherited %rom his parents 7steban Retu"a and Calbina (olon as *ell as the pur$hasers o% hereditar" shares o% approximatel" ei#ht 8@4 par$els o% land in ,andaue 3it". (ome o% these properties above?mentioned earn in$ome %rom $o$onuts and the other landsLhouses are leased. In 19)5, de%endant 9i$olas Retu"a no lon#er lived *ith his le#itimate %amil" and $ohabited *ith de%endant, Pa$ita Billanueva, *herein de%endant, Pro$opio Billanueva, is their ille#itimate son. 9i$olas, then, *as the onl" person *ho re$eived the in$ome o% the above?mentioned properties. De%endant, Pa$ita Billanueva, %rom the time she started livin# in $on$ubina#e *ith 9i$olas, has no o$$upation, she had no properties o% her o*n %rom *hi$h she $ould derive in$ome. In 19@5, 9i$olas su%%ered a stro/e and $annot tal/ an"more, $annot *al/ an"more and the" have to raise him up in order to *al/. 9atividad Retu"a /ne* o% the ph"si$al $ondition o% her %ather be$ause the" visited him at the hospital. Arom the time de%endant 9i$olas Retu"a su%%ered a stro/e on Januar" 2:, 19@5 and until the present, it is de%endant Pro$opio Billanueva, one o% 9i$olas- ille#itimate $hildren *ho has been re$eivin# the in$ome o% these properties. Witness 9atividad Retu"a *ent to Pro$opio to ne#otiate be$ause at this time their %ather 9i$olas *as alread" senile and has a $hildli/e mind. (he told de%endant, Pro$opio that their %ather *as alread" in$apa$itated and the" had to tal/ thin#s over and the latter replied that it *as not "et the time to tal/ about the matter. ss!e: Whether or not, properties a$>uired durin# the existen$e o% the marria#e o% 9i$olas and 7usebia are $onGu#al5

323 R!li"#: he $ohabitation o% a spouse *ith another person, even %or a lon# period, does not sever the tie o% a subsistin# previous marria#e. 'ther*ise, the la* *ould be #ivin# a stamp o% approval to an a$t that is both ille#al and immoral. What petitioners %ail to #rasp is that 9i$olas and Pa$ita-s $ohabitation $annot *or/ to the detriment o% 7usebia, the le#al spouse. he marria#e o% 9i$olas and 7usebia $ontinued to exist re#ardless o% the %a$t that 9i$olas *as alread" livin# *ith Pa$ita. .en$e, all propert" a$>uired %rom : '$tober 192H, the date o% 9i$olas and 7usebia-s marria#e, until 21 9ovember 199H, the date o% 7usebia-s death, are still presumed $onGu#al. Petitioners have neither $laimed nor proved that an" o% the subGe$t properties *as a$>uired outside or be"ond this period. 23)) .a"i vs. 2etropolita" 1a"> ? $r!st (o. G.R. No. 1)0023, Nove.+er 10, 2010 Facts= 7van#eline D. Imani si#ned a 3ontinuin# (uret"ship 0#reement in %avor o% respondent ,etropolitan Can/ P rust 3ompan" 8,etroban/4, *ith other $o?sureties. 0s sureties, the" bound themselves to pa" ,etroban/ *hatever indebtedness 3.P. Da=o anner", In$. 83PD I4 in$urs. +ater, 3PD I obtained loans but 3PD I de%aulted in the pa"ment o% its loans. ,etroban/ made several demands %or pa"ment upon 3PD I, but to no avail. his prompted ,etroban/ to %ile a $olle$tion suit a#ainst 3PD I and its sureties, in$ludin# 7van#eline Imani. 0%ter due pro$eedin#s, the R 3 rendered a de$ision in %avor o% ,etroban/, orderin# de%endants to pa" ,etroban/ and rust 3ompan". ,etroban/ undertoo/ to $onsolidate the title $overin# the subGe$t propert" in its name, and %iled a ,ani%estation and ,otion, pra"in# that spouses (ina and 7van#line Imani be dire$ted to surrender the o*ner-s $op" o% %or $an$ellation. 7van#eline opposed the motion, she ar#ued that the subGe$t propert" belon#s to the $onGu#al partnership6 as su$h, it $annot be held ans*erable %or the liabilities in$urred b" 3PD I to ,etroban/. 9either $an it be subGe$t o% lev" on exe$ution or publi$ au$tion. ss!e= Is 7van#eline $orre$t in $laimin# that the propert" is a $onGu#al propert" and thus $annot be subGe$t to liabilities5

324

R!li"#= 9o. 0s a #eneral rule all propert" o% the marria#e is presumed to be $onGu#al. .o*ever, %or this presumption to appl", the part" *ho invo/es it must %irst prove that the propert" *as a$>uired durin# the marria#e. Proo% o% a$>uisition durin# the $overture is a $ondition sine >ua non to the operation o% the presumption in %avor o% the $onGu#al partnership. hus, the time *hen the propert" *as a$>uired is material. .o*ever, the a%%idavit presented b" 7van#eline Imani $an hardl" be $onsidered su%%i$ient eviden$e to prove her $laim that the propert" is $onGu#al. ,oreover, the a%%idavit exe$uted b" 3risanto 'ri#en, the %ormer o*ner o% the propert", attestin# that spouses (ina and 7van#eline Imani *ere the vendees o% the subGe$t propert" has no evidentiar" *ei#ht be$ause 3risanto 'ri#en *as not presented in the R 3 to a%%irm the vera$it" o% his 0%%idavit. 239) ('i"# vs. (A G.R No. 124642, Fe+r!ar4 23, 2004 Facts= In 19:@, Philippine Cloomin# ,ills 3ompan" 8PC,3I4 obtained a 9?million peso loan %rom 0llied Can/in# 3orporation 80C34. 0l%redo 3hin# to#ether *ith t*o other persons exe$uted a $ontinuin# #uarantee *ith 0C3 bindin# themselves Gointl" and severall" liable %or the PC,3I obli#ations. he extent o% their #uarantee is up to 1@ million pesos. PC,3I %ailed to settle the loans *hi$h amounted to P12, H12,9:2.@@ 8ex$lusive o% interests, penalties and other ban/ $har#es.4 o#ether *ith the *rit o% preliminar" atta$hment, the sheri%% levied 8sei=ed4 the 100,000 $ommon shares o% 3it" 3orporation sto$/s re#istered solel" to 0l%redo 3hin#. ,rs. 3hin# %iled a petition to set aside the lev" o% the 100,000 $ommon shares. 0$$ordin# to her, the shares *ere pur$hased out o% the $onGu#al %unds. (he also ar#ued that the loan o% PC,3I did not redound to the bene%it o% the $onGu#al partnership or %amil". ss!e= Is ,rs. 3hin# $orre$t in $laimin# that the shares *ere pur$hased out o% the $onGu#al %unds5

325 R!li"#= Mes. 0C3 has the burden o% proo% to sho* that the $ommon shares re#istered solel" to the name o% 0l%redo 3hin# *ere o*ned b" the latter. Just be$ause ,r. 3hin#-s name appeared as the sole re#istrant o% the shares in the $orporate boo/s o% 3it" 3orporation, that doesn-t mean that it is his ex$lusive propert" and not to the $onGu#al partnership. 0s held in the $ase o% 0"ala Investment and Development 3orporation vs. 3ourt o% 0ppeals, the $ourt said that si#nin# as a suret" is $ertainl" not an exer$ise o% an industr" or pro%ession. It is not embar/in# in a business.! Aor the $onGu#al partnership to be$ome liable, it is important to sho* that the %amil" re$eived bene%its and advanta#es %rom the liabilit" in$urred. here is no presumption that *hen a husband entered into an a$$ommodation a#reement or a $ontra$t o% suret", the $onGu#al partnership *ould be bene%ited. he bene%its must be those dire$tl" resultin# %rom the loan. here%ore, ,r. 0l%redo 3hin#-s $ommon shares must not be levied be$ause he is not the sole o*ner o% su$h sto$/s. he shares belon# to the $onGu#al partnership. 240) $a" vs. (A G.R. No. 120594, 3!"e 10, 1990 Facts= 0 $ase %or partition and a$$ountin# *as instituted b" the spouses 0l%onso and 7teria an a#ainst the 0l%onso-s brothers, 3elestino and ,aximo, and their respe$tive *ives, Rosario and eresita. It *as alle#ed in the $omplaint that the parties are $o? o*ners o% a 90H?s>uare meter residential lot *ith improvements thereon situated at Canaue, 3ebu 3it" a$>uired sometime in 19:0. Pursuant to the provisions o% 0rti$le )9) o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode, the spouses 0l%onso and 7teria an, bein# $o?o*ners to the extent o% one?third 81L14 portion o% the a%oresaid lot, sou#ht partition o% the same. 0nent the a$tion %or a$$ountin#, the spouses $laimed that on 0u#ust 15, 19H1, the brothers to#ether *ith other siblin#s put up a business *hi$h the" re#istered as Cel 0ir 0uto (uppl" 3ompan" and *as en#a#ed in the sale and distribution o% auto spare parts. he" alle#ed that the" are entitled to the %ruits, pro$eeds and pro%its o% the said %amil" business, so that, an a$$ountin# o% the assets and liabilities o% the

326 partnership, as *ell as the interests and parti$ipation o% ea$h member, is proper in the premises. he 0l%onso brothers in a $ounter?$laim alle#ed that 0l%onso mismana#ed the business durin# his in$umben$" as mana#er and, as a $onse>uen$e thereo%, in$urred advan$es and indebtedness %rom the partnership and 0l%onso-s one?third 81L14 share o% the subGe$t propert" *as mort#a#ed b" him to his sister, +olita an?<o, in order to se$ure a loan he obtained %rom her. the 90H?s>uare meter lot, to#ether *ith other properties, *as a$tuall" inherited b" the an brothers and their sisters %rom their mother *ho died intestate on De$ember 15, 19H@ but said lot *as adGudi$ated to the three 814 brothers in a notari=ed I7xtraGudi$ial De$laration o% .eirs and 0dGudi$ation o% PropertiesI exe$uted b" the heirs on (eptember @, 19H9. ss!e= Is the 1L1 portion o% the lot in liti#ation a$>uired b" 0l%onso an *hile said 0l%onso an and his *i%e 7teria *ere still livin# to#ether5 R!li"#= 9o. 0rti$le 1H0 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode provides that all propert" o% the marria#e is presumed to belon# to the $onGu#al partnership6 unless it be proved that it pertains ex$lusivel" to the husband or to the *i%e. It is not ne$essar", to prove that the propert" *as a$>uired *ith %unds o% the partnership. (o that *hen an immovable *as a$>uired b" pur$hase durin# the marria#e, it is $onsidered as $onGu#al propert". (aid presumption is, ho*ever, rebuttable *ith stron# $lear, $ate#ori$al, and $onvin$in# eviden$e that the propert" belon#s ex$lusivel" to one o% the spouses and the burden o% proo% rests upon the part" assertin# it. In the $ase at bar, $on$lusive eviden$e points to the %a$t that the undivided one?third 81L14 o% the par$el o% land in >uestion is not the $onGu#al partnership propert" o% the spouses 0l%onso an and 7teria eves an. It is the 0l%onsoNs ex$lusive propert" *hi$h he had inherited %rom his mother, rinidad F", the ori#inal o*ner o% the propert". he propert" is re#istered in the name o% 0l%onso F. an, married to 7teria eves, 3elestino F. an, married to Rosario D" Ju$hin and ,aximo F. an, sin#le. here $an be no doubt then, that althou#h a$>uired durin# 0l%onsoNs marria#e to 7teria, the one?third portion o% the propert" should be re#arded as

320 0l%onsoNs o*n ex$lusivel", as a matter o% la* pursuant to 0rti$le 1)@ o% the 3ivil 3ode *hi$h provides that: he %ollo*in# shall be the ex$lusive propert" o% ea$h spouse: 824 hat *hi$h ea$h a$>uires, durin# the marria#e, b" lu$rative title. 241) " re 2!ller vs. 2!ller G.R. No. 149615, A!#!st 29, 2006 Facts= 7lena Cuenaventura ,uller and .elmut ,uller *ere married in .ambur#, <erman". he $ouple resided in <erman" at a house o*ned b" respondent-s parents but de$ided to move and reside permanentl" in the Philippines. C" this time, .elmut ,uller had inherited the house in <erman" %rom his parents *hi$h he sold and used the pro$eeds %or the pur$hase o% a par$el o% land in 0ntipolo, Ri=al and the $onstru$tion o% a house. he 0ntipolo propert" *as re#istered in the name o% 7lena ,uller. Due to in$ompatibilities and .elmut-s alle#ed *omani=in#, drin/in#, and maltreatment, the spouses eventuall" separated. .elmut ,uller %iled %or separation o% properties be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% Kue=on 3it". Petitioner $ontends that respondent, bein# an alien, is dis>uali%ied to o*n private lands in the Philippines6 that respondent *as a*are o% the $onstitutional prohibition but $ir$umvented the same6 and that respondent-s purpose %or %ilin# an a$tion %or separation o% propert" is to obtain ex$lusive possession, $ontrol and disposition o% the 0ntipolo propert". .elmut ,uller $laim that he is not pra"in# %or trans%er o% o*nership o% the 0ntipolo propert" but merel" reimbursement6 that the %unds paid b" him %or the said propert" *ere in $onsideration o% his marria#e to 7lena6 that the %unds *ere #iven to 7lena in trust6 and that e>uit" demands that he should be reimbursed o% his personal %unds. ss!e= Is .elmut ,uller entitled to reimbursement o% the %unds used %or the a$>uisition o% the 0ntipolo propert"5 R!li"#= 9o. he $onstitutional prohibition provides that aliens, *hether individuals or $orporations, are dis>uali%ied %rom a$>uirin# lands o% the publi$ domain. .en$e, the" are also dis>uali%ied %rom a$>uirin# private lands. he primar" purpose o%

32) the $onstitutional provision is the $onservation o% the national patrimon". .elmut ,uller *as a*are o% the $onstitutional prohibition and expressl" admitted his /no*led#e to the 3ourt. .e de$lared that he had the 0ntipolo propert" titled in the name o% petitioner be$ause o% the said prohibition. .is attempt at subse>uentl" assertin# or $laimin# a ri#ht on the said propert" $annot be sustained. hus, the re#ime o% absolute $ommunit" bet*een 7lena and .elmut ,uller is terminated and de$reein# a separation o% propert" bet*een them and orderin# the partition o% the personal properties lo$ated in the Philippines e>uall". 242) Dela &e"a vs. Avila G.R No. 1)0490, Fe+r!ar4 ), 2012 Facts= 0ntonia R. Dela Pe;a o*ned a 2:: s>uare meter par$el o% residential land situated in ,ari/ina 3it". 0ntonia obtained %rom 0.3. 0#uila P (ons, 3o.80#uila4 a loan *hi$h, pursuant to the Promissor" 9ote 0ntonia exe$uted in %avor o% the 0#uila, *as pa"able on or be%ore Jul" :, 199H. 'n the ver" same da", 0ntonia also exe$uted in %avor o% 0#uila a notari=ed Deed o% Real 7state ,ort#a#e over the propert", %or the purpose o% se$urin# the pa"ment o% said loan obli#ation. 'n 9ovember ), 199:, 0ntonia exe$uted a notari=ed Deed o% 0bsolute (ale over the propert" in %avor o% <emma Remil"n 3. 0vila. <emma also $onstituted a real estate mort#a#e over said par$el in %avor o% respondent Aar 7ast Can/ and rust 3ompan" Rno* Can/ o% the Philippine IslandsS. 'n ,a" 1@, 199@, 0ntonia and her son, 0lvin John C. Dela Pe;a, %iled a#ainst <emma the $omplaint %or annulment o% deed o% sale. 3laimin# that the subGe$t realt" *as $onGu#al propert", the Dela Pe;as alle#ed that the Deed o% Real 7state ,ort#a#e 0ntonia exe$uted in %avor o% 0#uila *as not $onsented to b" 0nte#ono *ho had, b" then, alread" died6 that despite its intended 199@ maturit" date, the due date o% the loan se$ured b" the mort#a#e *as shortened b" <emma *ho, ta/in# advanta#e o% her proximate relationship! *ith 0#uila, altered the same to 199:6 and, that the 9ovember ), 199: Deed o% 0bsolute (ale in %avor o% <emma *as exe$uted b" 0ntonia *ho *as misled into believin# that the trans%er *as ne$essar" %or the loan the %ormer promised to pro$ure on her behal% %rom A7C 3?CPI. In addition to

329 the annulment o% said Deed o% 0bsolute (ale %or bein# simulated and dero#ator" o% 0lvin-s su$$essional ri#hts, the Dela Pe;as sou#ht the re$onve"an$e o% the propert" as *ell as the #rant o% their $laims %or moral and exemplar" dama#es, attorne"-s %ees and the $osts. ss!e= Is the Deed o% 0bsolute (ale exe$uted b" <emma null and void5 R!li"#= 9o. Pursuant to 0rti$le 1H0 o% the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines, all propert" o% the marria#e is presumed to belon# to the $onGu#al partnership6 unless it be proved that it pertains ex$lusivel" to the husband or to the *i%e. 0lthou#h it is not ne$essar" to prove that the propert" *as a$>uired *ith %unds o% the partnership, proo% o% a$>uisition durin# the marria#e is an essential $ondition %or the operation o% the presumption in %avor o% the $onGu#al partnership. Pursuant to 0rti$le 1H0 o% the 3ivil 3ode, the Dela Pe;as did not proved that the subGe$t propert" *as a$>uired durin# the marria#e bet*een 0ntonia and 0nte#ono. ,oreover, the re#istration in the name o% 0ntonia R. Dela Pe;a, o% le#al a#e, Ailipino, married to 0nte#ono 0. Dela Pe;a! is not su%%i$ient to established its $onGu#al nature. he phrase married to! is merel" des$riptive o% the $ivil status o% the *i%e and $annot be interpreted to mean that the husband is also a re#istered o*ner. Ce$ause it is li/e*ise possible that the propert" *as a$>uired b" the *i%e *hile she *as still sin#le and re#istered onl" a%ter her marria#e, neither *ould re#istration thereo% in said manner $onstitute proo% that the same *as a$>uired durin# the marria#e and, %or said reason, to be presumed $onGu#al in nature. 243) $ita" (o"str!ctio" (orporatio" vs. Davi% G.R. No. 16954), 2arc' 15, 2010 Facts= ,anuel 0. David, (r. and ,artha (. David *ere married on ,ar$h 25, 195:. In 19:0, the spouses a$>uired a H02 s>uare meter lot lo$ated at White Plains, Kue=on 3it", *hi$h *as re#istered in the name o% ,artha David. In 19:H, the spouses separated de %a$to, and no lon#er $ommuni$ated *ith ea$h other. (ometime in

330 ,ar$h 1995, ,anuel dis$overed that ,artha had previousl" sold the propert" to itan 3onstru$tion 3orporation 8 itan4 dated 0pril 2), 1995. hus, on ,ar$h 11, 199H, ,anuel %iled a 3omplaint %or 0nnulment o% 3ontra$t and Re$oven"an$e a#ainst itan be%ore the R 3 o% Kue=on 3it". ,anuel alle#ed that the sale exe$uted b" ,artha in %avor o% itan *as *ithout his /no*led#e and $onsent, and there%ore void. .e pra"ed that that the propert" be re$onve"ed to the spouses, and that a ne* title be issued in their names. ss!e= Is the Deed o% (ale exe$uted b" ,anuel in %avor o% 3orporation void5 itan

R!li"#= Mes. (in$e the propert" *as undoubtedl" part o% the $onGu#al partnership, the sale to itan re>uired the $onsent o% both spouses. 0rti$le 1H5 o% the 3ivil 3ode expressl" provides that the husband is the administrator o% the $onGu#al partnership!. +i/e*ise, 0rti$le 1:2 o% the 3ivil 3ode ordains that 8t4he *i%e $annot bind the $onGu#al partnership *ithout the husband-s $onsent, ex$ept in $ases provided b" la*!. (imilarl", 0rti$le 12) o% the Aamil" 3ode re>uires that an" disposition or en$umbran$e o% $onGu#al propert" must have the *ritten $onsent o% the other spouse6 other*ise, su$h disposition is void. hus: 0rt. 12). he administration and enGo"ment o% the $onGu#al partnership shall belon# to both spouses Gointl". In $ase o% disa#reement, the husbandNs de$ision shall prevail, subGe$t to re$ourse to the $ourt b" the *i%e %or proper remed", *hi$h must be availed o% *ithin %ive "ears %rom the date o% the $ontra$t implementin# su$h de$ision. In the event that one spouse is in$apa$itated or other*ise unable to parti$ipate in the administration o% the $onGu#al properties, the other spouse ma" assume sole po*ers o% administration. hese po*ers do not in$lude disposition or en$umbran$e *ithout authorit" o% the $ourt or the *ritten $onsent o% the other spouse. In the absen$e o% su$h authorit" or $onsent, the disposition or en$umbran$e shall be void. .o*ever, the transa$tion shall be $onstrued as a $ontinuin# o%%er on the part o% the $onsentin# spouse and the third person, and ma" be per%e$ted as a bindin# $ontra$t upon the a$$eptan$e b" the other spouse or authori=ation b" the $ourt be%ore the o%%er is *ithdra*n b" either or both o%%erors. 244) A4ala "vest.e"t ? Develop.e"t (orp. vs. (A

331 G.R. No. 11)305, Fe+r!ar4 12, 199) Facts= Philippine Cloomin# ,ills 8PC,4 obtained a loan %rom 0"ala Investment and Development 3orporation 80ID34. 0s added se$urit" %or the $redit line extended to PC,, 0l%redo 3hin#, 7xe$utive Bi$e President o% PC,, exe$uted se$urit" a#reements ma/in# himsel% Gointl" and severall" ans*erable *ith PC,Ns indebtedness to 0ID3. PC, %ailed to pa" the loan. hus, 0ID3 %iled a $ase %or sum o% mone" a#ainst PC, and 0l%redo 3hin# *ith the then 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al. 0%ter trial, the $ourt rendered Gud#ment orderin# PC, and 0l%redo 3hin# to Gointl" and severall" pa" 0ID3 *ith interests. Pendin# appeal o% the Gud#ment and upon motion o% 0ID3 the lo*er $ourt issued a *rit o% exe$ution issuin# the three 814 o% their $onGu#al properties o% 0l%redo 3hin# and his *i%e to au$tion sale. he spouses %iled a $ase o% inGun$tion a#ainst a#ainst 0ID3 *ith the then 3ourt o% Airst Instan$e o% Ri=al to enGoin the au$tion sale alle#in# that 0ID3 $annot en%or$e the Gud#ment a#ainst the $onGu#al partnership levied on the #round that, amon# others, the subGe$t loan did not redound to the bene%it o% the said $onGu#al partnership. Fpon appli$ation o% the spouses, the lo*er $ourt issued a temporar" restrainin# order to prevent petitioner ,a#saGo %rom pro$eedin# *ith the en%or$ement o% the *rit o% exe$ution and *ith the sale o% the said properties at publi$ au$tion. ss!e= 3an the properties o% spouses 3hin# be au$tioned in %avor o% 0ID35 R!li"#= 9o. 0rti$le 121, para#raph 1, o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that the pa"ment o% personal debts $ontra$ted b" the husband or the *i%e be%ore or durin# the marria#e shall not be $har#ed to the $onGu#al partnership ex$ept to the extent that the" redounded to the bene%it o% the %amil". .ere, the propert" in dispute also involves the %amil" home. he loan is a $orporate loan not a personal one. (i#nin# as a suret" is $ertainl" not an exer$ise o% an industr" or pro%ession nor an a$t o% administration %or the bene%it o% the %amil". 245) @eirs o- Go, 5r. vs. 5ervacio

332 G.R. No. 150530, 5epte.+er 0, 2011 Facts= Jesus C. <aviola sold t*o par$els o% land to Prota$io C. <o, Jr. *ent" three "ears later, Prota$io, Jr. exe$uted an 0%%idavit o% Renun$iation and Waiver, *hereb" he a%%irmed under oath that it *as his %ather, Prota$io <o, (r., not he, *ho had pur$hased the t*o par$els o% land. ,arta Carola <o died the *i%e o% Prota$io, (r. and mother o% the petitioners as heirs o% <o represented b" +eonor <o. When Prota$io, (r. and his son Rito C. <o sold a portion o% the propert" to 7ster +. (erva$io. he heirs o% <o demanded the return o% the propert", but (erva$io re%used. 0%ter baran#a" pro$eedin#s %ailed to resolve the dispute, the" sued (erva$io and Rito in the Re#ional rial 3ourt in +e"te %or the annulment o% the sale o% the propert". he petitioners heirs o% <o averred that %ollo*in# Prota$io, Jr.-s renun$iation, the propert" be$ame $onGu#al propert"6 and that the sale o% the propert" to (erva$io *ithout the prior li>uidation o% the $ommunit" propert" bet*een Prota$io, (r. and ,arta *as null and void. ss!e= Is the sale b" Prota$io, (r. to (erva$io void %or bein# made *ithout prior li>uidation5 R!li"#= 9o. 0rti$le 110 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that upon the termination o% the marria#e b" death, the $onGu#al partnership propert" shall be li>uidated in the same pro$eedin# %or the settlement o% the estate o% the de$eased. In $onsonan$e *ith 0rti$le 105 o% the Aamil" 3ode, that in $ase the %uture spouses a#ree in the marria#e settlements that the re#ime o% $onGu#al partnership o% #ains shall #overn their propert" relations durin# marria#e, the provisions in this 3hapter shall be o% supplementar" appli$ation. Prota$io, (r., althou#h be$omin# a $o?o*ner *ith his $hildren in respe$t o% ,arta-s share in the $onGu#al partnership, $ould not "et assert or $laim title to an" spe$i%i$ portion o% ,arta-s share *ithout an a$tual partition o% the propert" bein# %irst done either b" a#reement or b" Gudi$ial de$ree. Fntil then, all that he had *as an ideal or abstra$t >uota in ,arta-s share. 9onetheless, a $o?o*ner $ould sell his undivided share6 hen$e, Prota$io, (r. had the ri#ht to %reel" sell and dispose o% his undivided interest, but not the interest o% his $o?o*ners. 3onse>uentl", the sale b"

333 Prota$io, (r. and Rito as $o?o*ners *ithout the $onsent o% the other $o?o*ners *as not ne$essaril" void, %or the ri#hts o% the sellin# $o?o*ners *ere thereb" e%%e$tivel" trans%erred, ma/in# the bu"er 8(erva$io4 a $o?o*ner o% ,arta-s share. his result $on%orms to the *ell?established prin$iple that the bindin# %or$e o% a $ontra$t must be re$o#ni=ed as %ar as it is le#all" possible to do so 8>uando res non valet ut a#o, valeat >uantum valere potest4. 246) Ros vs. &'ilippi"e Natio"al 1a"> G.R. No. 100166, April 6, 2011 Facts= 'n Januar" 11, 19@1, spouses Jose 0. Ros and 7strella 0#uete %iled a $omplaint %or the annulment o% the Real 7state ,ort#a#e and all le#al pro$eedin#s ta/en a#ainst P9C, +aoa# Cran$h . he $omplaint *as later amended and *as ra%%led to the Re#ional rial 3ourt, Cran$h 15, +aoa# 3it". he averments in the $omplaint dis$losed that plainti%%?appellee Joe 0. Ros obtained a loan o% P115,000.00 %rom P9C +aoa# Cran$h on '$tober 1), 19:) and as se$urit" %or the loan, plainti%%?appellee Ros exe$uted a real estate mort#a#e involvin# a par$el o% land. Fpon maturit", the loan remained outstandin#. 0s a result, P9C instituted extraGudi$ial %ore$losure pro$eedin#s on the mort#a#ed propert". 0%ter the extraGudi$ial sale thereo%, a 3erti%i$ate o% (ale *as issued in %avor o% P9C, +aoa# as the hi#hest bidder. 0%ter the lapse o% one 814 "ear *ithout the propert" bein# redeemed, the propert" *as $onsolidated and re#istered in the name o% P9C, +aoa# Cran$h 3laimin# that she has no /no*led#e o% the loan obtained b" her husband nor she $onsented to the mort#a#e instituted on the $onGu#al propert", a $omplaint *as %iled to annul the pro$eedin#s pertainin# to the mort#a#e, sale and $onsolidation o% the propert". ss!e= Whether or not the loan must be $har#ed to the $onGu#al propert"5 R!li"#= RosN loan %rom P9C redounded to the bene%it o% the $onGu#al partnership. .en$e, the debt is $har#eable to the $onGu#al partnership. Arom the ver" nature o% the $ontra$t o% loan

334 or servi$es, the %amil" stands to bene%it %rom the loan %a$ilit" or servi$es to be rendered to the business or pro%ession o% the husband. It is immaterial, i% in the end, his business or pro%ession %ails or does not su$$eed. (impl" stated, *here the husband $ontra$ts obli#ations on behal% o% the %amil" business, the la* presumes, and ri#htl" so, that su$h obli#ation *ill redound to the bene%it o% the $onGu#al partnership.0#uete a%%ixed her si#natures on the do$uments /no*in#l" and *ith her %ull $onsent. 240) 2AR * 5 *(@ vs. G*J*N G.R. No. 169900, 2arc' 1), 2010 Facts= 'n 0u#ust 11, 1991, *hile the le#al separation $ase bet*een 0l%redo and 7lvira Robles <o=on *as still pendin#, 0l%redo and ,ario (io$hi 8,ario4 entered into an 0#reement to Cu" and (ell 80#reement4 involvin# the propert" %or the pri$e o% P 1@ million subGe$t to stipulations. .o*ever, despite repeated demands %rom ,ario, 0l%redo %ailed to $ompl" *ith the stipulations entered into. 0%ter the pa"mento% P5 million earnest mone", as partial pa"ment o% the pur$hase pri$e, ,ario too/ possession o% the propert" in (eptember 1991. 'n June 29, 199), the 3avite R 3 rendered a de$ision de$reein# the le#al separation bet*een 7lvira and 0l%redo. 'n 0u#ust 22, 199), 0l%redo exe$uted a Deed o% Donation over the propert" in %avor o% their dau#hter, Wni%red <o=on 8Wini%red4. ss!e= Whether or not the deed o% donation *hi$h *as exe$uted b" 0l%redo <o=on is valid5 R!li"#= he deed o% donation *hi$h *as exe$uted b" 0l%redo <o=on is not valid. 0rti$le 1028)4 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that %or purposes o% $omputin# the net pro%its subGe$t to %or%eiture in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le )1, 9o. 824 and H1, 9o. 824, the said pro%its shall be the in$rease in value bet*een the mar/et value o% the $ommunit" propert" at the time o% the $elebration o% the marria#e and the mar/et value at the time o% its dissolution.! What is %or%eited in %avor o% Wini%red is not 0l%redo-s share in the $onGu#al partnership propert" but merel" in the net pro%its o% the $onGu#al partnership propert".

335 0mon# the e%%e$ts o% the de$ree o% le#al separation is that the $onGu#al partnership is dissolved and li>uidated and the o%%endin# spouse *ould have no ri#ht to an" share o% the net pro%its earned b" the $onGu#al partnership. 24)) 5&5. R,M AND (*N(,&( *N AGGA1A* vs. &ARALAN, 3R. G.R. No. 165)03, 5epte.+er 1, 2010 Facts= Real estate bro/er ,arta J. 0tana$io o%%ered the propert" to the petitionersin Januar" 1991, *ho initiall" did not sho* interest due to the rundo*n $ondition o% the improvements. Cut 0tana$ioNs persisten$e prevailed upon them and 0tana$io met *ith ,a. 7lena at the site o% the propert". Durin# their meetin#, ,a. 7lena sho*ed to them some do$uments. Ce%ore the meetin# ended, the" paid P20,000.00 as earnest mone", %or *hi$h ,a. 7lena exe$uted a hand*ritten Re$eipt o% 7arnest ,one". he petitioners *ent to the '%%i$e o% the Re#ister o% Deeds and the 0ssessorNs '%%i$e o% Para;a>ue 3it" to veri%" the 3 s sho*n b" ,a. 7lena in the $ompan" o% 0tana$io and her husband. he" dis$overed that the lot under 3 9o. H11:H had been en$umbered to Can$o Ailipino in 19@1 or 19@), but that the en$umbran$e had alread" been $an$elled due to the %ull pa"ment o% the obli#ation. he" noti$ed that the Can$o Ailipino loan had been e%%e$ted throu#h an (P0 exe$uted b" Dionisio in %avor o% ,a. 7lena. ss!e= Whether or not the sale o% the propert" is valid5 R!li"#= he 3ourt de$lared that the (P0 in the hands o% ,a. 7lena *as a %or#er", based on its %indin# that Dionisio had been out o% the $ountr" at the time o% the exe$ution o% the do$uments and he did not $onsented the sale o% the propert" and that the sale *as void pursuant to 0rti$le 12) o% the Aamil" 3ode. 249) FA,N$,5 vs. R*(A G.R. No. 10)902, April 21, 2010

336 Facts= (abina arro=a o*ned lot in 3anelar, Eamboan#a 3it", sold it to her son, ar$iano Ro$a under a Deed o% 0bsolute (ale. Cut ar$iano did not %or the meantime have the re#istered title trans%erred to his name. (ix "ears later ar$iano o%%ered to sell the lot to petitioners ,anuel and +eti$ia Auentes he" later si#ned an a#reement dated 0pril 29, 19@@, *hi$h a#reement expressl" stated that it *as to ta/e e%%e$t in six months. he a#reement re>uired the Auentes spouses to pa" ar$iano a do*n pa"ment o% PH0,000.00 %or the trans%er o% the lotNs title to him. 0nd, *ithin six months, ar$iano *as to $lear the lot o% stru$tures and o$$upants and se$ure the $onsent o% his estran#ed *i%e, Rosario <abriel Ro$a to the sale. Fpon ar$ianoNs $omplian$e *ith these $onditions, the Auentes spouses *ere to ta/e possession o% the lot and pa" him an additional P1)0,000.00 or P1H0,000.00, dependin# on *hether or not he su$$eeded in demolishin# the house standin# on it. he parties le%t their si#ned a#reement *ith 0tt". Pla#ata *ho then *or/ed on the other re>uirements o% the sale. 0$$ordin# to the la*"er, he *ent to see Rosario in one o% his trips to ,anila and had her si#n an a%%idavit o% $onsent. ss!e= Whether or not the sale o% the land is void5 R!li"#= he sale o% the lot *ithout his *i%eNs $onsent, the sale is not voidbut merel" voidable. 0rti$le 1:1 #ave Rosario the ri#ht to have the sale annulled durin# the marria#e *ithin ten "ears %rom the date o% the sale. he la* that applies to this $ase is the Aamil" 3ode, not the 3ivil 3ode. 0lthou#h ar$iano and Rosario #ot married in 1950, ar$iano sold the $onGu#al propert" to the Auentes spouses on Januar" 11, 19@9, a %e* months a%ter the Aamil" 3ode too/ e%%e$t on 0u#ust 1, 19@@. When ar$iano married Rosario, the 3ivil 3ode put in pla$e the s"stem o% $onGu#al partnership o% #ains on their propert" relations. While its 0rti$le 1H5 made ar$iano the sole administrator o% the $onGu#al partnership, 0rti$le 1HH prohibited him %rom sellin# $ommonl" o*ned real propert" *ithout his *i%eNs $onsent. he 3ourt %ound that RosarioNs si#nature had been %or#ed and observed a mar/ed di%%eren$e bet*een her si#natures on the a%%idavit o% $onsent. he 3ourt #ave no *ei#ht to 0tt".

330 Pla#ataNs testimon" that he sa* Rosario si#n the do$ument in ,anila. 250) 2,$R*&*L $AN 1AN: AND $RA5$ (*. vs. &A5(AAL G.R. No. 163044, Fe+r!ar4 29, 200) Facts= 9i$holson Pas$ual and Aloren$ia 9eval#a *ere married on Januar" 19, 19@5. Durin# the union, Aloren$ia bou#ht %rom spouses 3larito and Celen (erin# a 250?s>uare meter lot *ith a three?door apartment standin# thereon lo$ated in ,a/ati 3it". In 199), Aloren$ia %iled a suit %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode. 0%ter trial, the Re#ional rial 3ourt rendered, a de$ision de$larin# the marria#e o% 9i$holson and Aloren$ia null and void on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% 9i$holson. In the same de$ision, the R 3, ordered the dissolution and li>uidation o% the ex?spouses- $onGu#al partnership o% #ains. (ubse>uent events sa* the $ouple #oin# their separate *a"s *ithout li>uidatin# their $onGu#al partnership. 'n 0pril 10, 199:, Aloren$ia, to#ether *ith spouses 9orberto and 7lvira 'liveros, obtained a PhP 5@ million loan %rom petitioner ,etropolitan Can/ and rust 3o. o se$ure the obli#ation, Aloren$ia and the spouses 'liveros exe$uted several real estate mort#a#es on their properties, in$ludin# one involvin# a lot. 0mon# the do$uments Aloren$ia submitted to pro$ure the loan *ere a $op" o% 3 9o. 15H2@1, a photo$op" o% the marria#e? nulli%"in# R 3 de$ision, and a do$ument denominated as IWaiverI that 9i$holson purportedl" exe$uted on 0pril 9, 1995. he *aiver, made in %avor o% Aloren$ia, $overed the $onGu#al properties o% the ex?spouses listed therein, but did not in$identall" in$lude the lot in >uestion.Due to the %ailure o% Aloren$ia and the spouses 'liveros to pa" their loan obli#ation *hen it %ell due, ,etroban/ initiated %ore$losure pro$eedin#s under 0$t 9o. 1115, be%ore the '%%i$e o% the 9otar" Publi$ o% ,a/ati 3it". 0t the au$tion sale on Januar" 21, 2000, ,etroban/ emer#ed as the hi#hest bidder. ss!e= Whether or not the $onGu#al propert" *as dissolved a$$ordin#l" to both spouses5

33)

R!li"#= ,ere de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#edoes not automati$all" result in a re#ime o% $omplete separation *hen it is sho*n that there *as no li>uidation o% the $onGu#al assets. he de$lared nullit" o% marria#e o% 9i$holson and Aloren$ia severed their marital bond and dissolved the $onGu#al partnership but the $hara$ter o% the properties a$>uired be%ore su$h de$laration $ontinues to subsist as $onGu#al properties until and a%ter the li>uidation and partition o% the partnership. 0rt. 129 o% the Aamil" 3ode on li>uidation o% the $onGu#al partnership-s assets and liabilities shall be applied. he real estate mort#a#e on the propert" $overed b" 3 are null and void *ith respe$t to the undivided 1L2 portion o% the disputed propert" o*ned b" 9i$holson, but valid *ith respe$t to the other undivided 1L2 portion belon#in# to Aloren$ia. 251) IA A* vs. IA A* G.R. No. 106556, 3!l4 4, 2012 Facts= 'n '$tober 2H, 2000, herein respondent Rita 3. Kuiao %iled a $omplaint %or le#al separation a#ainst herein petitioner Cri#ido C. Kuiao. (ubse>uentl", the R 3 rendered a De$ision dated '$tober 10, 2005.0s su$h, the herein parties shall be entitled to live separatel" %rom ea$h other, but the marria#e bond shall not be severed. 7x$ept %or +ete$ia 3. Kuiao *ho is o% le#al a#e, the three minor $hildren, namel", Jit$hie, +otis and Pet$hie, all surnamed Kuiao shall remain under the $ustod" o% the plainti%% *ho is the inno$ent spouse. Aurther, ex$ept %or the personal and real properties alread" %ore$losed b" the R3C3, all the remainin# properties shall be divided e>uall" bet*een herein respondents and petitioner subGe$t to the respe$tive le#itimes o% the $hildren and the pa"ment o% the unpaid $onGu#al liabilities o% P)5, :)0.00. Petitioner-s share, ho*ever, o% the net pro%its earned b" the $onGu#al partnership is %or%eited in %avor o% the $ommon $hildren. 'n De$ember 12, 2005, the respondents %iled a motion %or exe$ution *hi$h the trial $ourt #ranted in its 'rder dated De$ember 1H, 2005. (ubse>uentl", on Aebruar" 10, 200H, the R 3 issued a Writ o% 7xe$ution. 9ot satis%ied *ith the trial $ourtNs 'rder, the petitioner %iled a ,otion %or Re$onsideration.

339

ss!e= Whether or not the dissolution and the $onse>uent li>uidation o% the $ommon properties o% the husband and *i%e b" virtue o% the de$ree o% le#al separation #overned b" 0rti$le 125 o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= (in$e at the time o% the dissolution o% the petitioner and the respondentNs marria#e the operative la* is alread" the Aamil" 3ode, the same applies in the instant $ase and the appli$able la* in so %ar as the li>uidation o% the $onGu#al partnership assets and liabilities is $on$erned is 0rti$le 129 o% the Aamil" 3ode in relation to 0rti$le H1824 o% the Aamil" 3ode. he latter provision is appli$able be$ause a$$ordin# to 0rti$le 25H o% the Aamil" 3ode this 3ode shall have retroa$tive e%%e$t inso%ar as it does not preGudi$e or impair vested or a$>uired ri#hts in a$$ordan$e *ith the 3ivil 3ode or other la*. 252) ALA N 2. D L* vs. 2A. (AR DAD L. D L* G.R. No. 10)044, 3a"!ar4 19, 2011 Facts= 0lain Di;o married 3aridad Di;o. 0%ter ten "ears, the" de$ided to separate but also a#reed to live to#ether a#ain. Ainall", the" *ere $ivill" married. herea%ter, petitioner %iled an a$tion pra"in# %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e on the #round o% ps"$holo#i$al In$apa$it" o% respondent. Petitioner alle#ed that respondent %ailed in her marital obli#ation to #ive love and support to him, and had abandoned her responsibilit" to the %amil", $hoosin# instead to #o on shoppin# sprees and #allivantin# *ith her %riends that depleted the %amil" assets. Dr. 9ed" +. a"a#, a $lini$al ps"$holo#ist, submitted a ps"$holo#i$al report establishin# that respondent *as su%%erin# %rom 9ar$issisti$ Personalit" Disorder *hi$h *as deepl" in#rained in her s"stem sin$e her earl" %ormative "ears. Dr. a"a# %ound that respondentNs disorder *as lon#?lastin# and b" nature, in$urable. he $ourt ordered that the de$ree o% nullit" o% marria#e shall be issued a%ter li>uidation, partition and distribution o% the partiesN properties under 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode.

340 ss!e= Whether the $ourt erred *hen it ordered that a de$ree o% absolute nullit" o% marria#e shall onl" be issued a%ter li>uidation, partition, and distribution o% the partiesN properties under 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#= he de$ision o% the trial that the de$ree o% absolute nullit" o% the marria#e shall be issued upon %inalit" o% the trial $ourtNs de$ision *ithout *aitin# %or the li>uidation, partition, and distribution o% the partiesN properties under 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode. 0rt.1): provides that *hen a man and a *oman *ho are $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other, live ex$lusivel" *ith ea$h other as husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e or under a void marria#e, their *a#es and salaries shall be o*ned b" them in e>ual shares and the propert" a$>uired b" both o% them throu#h their *or/ or industr" shall be #overned b" the rules on $o?o*nership. It applies to union o% parties *ho are le#all" $apa$itated and not barred b" an" impediment to $ontra$t marria#e, but *hose marria#e is nonetheless void. 253) 2AM,9 vs. (*AR$ *F A&&,AL5 G.R. No. L745)00, 2a4 11, 19)4 Facts= ,elbourne ,axe" married Re#ina ,orales and the" had six $hildren. he $ouples *ere married in a militar" %ashion but the" a$>uired a par$el o% land be%ore their $hur$h *eddin#. 0%ter Re#ina died6 ,elbourne $ontra$ted a marria#e *ith Julia Pamatluan *ho sold the propert" o% ,elbourne *ith his %irst *i%e usin# a Po*er o% 0ttorne" to spouses Ceato ,a$ar"a. herea%ter, the $hildren o% ,elbourne and Re#ina, herein plainti%%s, %iled a $ase pra"in# %or the annulment o% the deed o% sale involvin# the par$el o% land and to re$over the said propert" *ith dama#es $laimin# that the said properties *ere the $ommon propert" o% their parents and that their %ather exe$uted the sale *ithout their $onsent. (pouses $laimed that the" are the la*%ul o*ners o% the disputed propert" havin# been pur$hased in #ood %aith. he" have been in possession o% the said +ot.

341 ss!e= Whether or not the properties in >uestion are the ex$lusive properties o% the late ,elbourne ,axe", to the ex$lusion o% his *i%e Re#ina ,orales5 R!li"#= 0rti$le 1)) o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines to solve the issue raised thereo%. he said provision prohibits a survivin# spouse married as $ommon?la* partners and a%ter the death o% the other spouse to sell the propert" a$>uired b" them be%ore the" #ot le#all" married. he la* provides that the heirs o% the spouses are entitled to Z %rom the vendee. hus, the $hildren o% ,elbourne and Re#ina have the ri#ht over the disputed propert". Private respondents then should pa" some %orm o% rentals %or their use o% Z o% the properties. 254) (ari"o vs. (ari"o G.R. No. 132529, Fe+r!ar4 2, 2009 Facts: In 19H9 (P') (antia#o 3arino married (usan 9i$dao3arino. .e had 2 $hildren *ith her. In 1992, (P') $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e, this time *ith (usan Mee 3arino. In 19@@, prior to his se$ond marria#e, (P') is alread" bedridden and he *as under the $are o% Mee. In 1992, he died 11 da"s a%ter his marria#e *ith Mee. herea%ter, the spouses *ent on to $laim the bene%its o% (P'). 9i$dao *as able to $laim a total o% P1)0,000.00 *hile Mee *as able to $olle$t a total o% P21,000.00. In 1991, Mee %iled an a$tion %or $olle$tion o% sum o% mone" a#ainst 9i$dao. (he *anted to have hal% o% the P1)0/. Mee admitted that her marria#e *ith (P') *as solemni=ed durin# the subsisten$e o% the marria#e bLn (P') and 9i$dao but the said marria#e bet*een 9i$dao and (P') is null and void due to the absen$e o% a valid marria#e li$ense as $erti%ied b" the lo$al $ivil re#istrar. Mee also $laimed that she onl" %ound out about the previous marria#e on (P')-s %uneral. ss!e: Whether or not the absolute nullit" o% marria#e ma" be invo/ed to $laim presumptive le#itimes5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt ruled that Mee has no ri#ht to the bene%its earned b" (P') as a poli$eman %or their marria#e is void due to bi#am"6 she is onl" entitled to properties, mone" et$

342 o*ned b" them in $ommon in proportion to their respe$tive $ontributions. Wa#es and salaries earned b" ea$h part" shall belon# to him or her ex$lusivel" 80rt. 1)@ o% A34. 9i$dao is entitled to the %ull bene%its earned b" (P') as a $op even i% their marria#e is li/e*ise void. his is be$ause the t*o *ere $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other %or there *ere no impediments but their marria#e *as void due to the la$/ o% a marria#e li$ense6 in their situation, their propert" relations is #overned b" 0rt 1): o% the A3 *hi$h provides that ever"thin# the" earned durin# their $ohabitation is presumed to have been e>uall" $ontributed b" ea$h part" & this in$ludes salaries and *a#es earned b" ea$h part" not*ithstandin# the %a$t that the other ma" not have $ontributed at all.

255) <al%es vs. R$( a"% <al%es G.R. No. 122049, 3!l4 31, 1996 Facts: 0ntonio Balde= and 3onsuelo <ome= *ere married in 19:1 and be#otten 5 $hildren. Balde= %iled a petition in 1992 %or a de$laration o% nullit" o% their marria#e pursuant to 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h *as #ranted hen$e, marria#e is null and void on the #round o% their mutual ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". (tella and Joa>uin are pla$ed under the $ustod" o% their mother *hile the other 1 siblin#s are %ree to $hoose *hi$h the" pre%er. <ome= sou#ht a $lari%i$ation o% that portion in the de$ision re#ardin# the pro$edure %or the li>uidation o% $ommon propert" in unions *ithout marria#e!. Durin# the hearin# on the motion, the $hildren %iled a Goint a%%idavit expressin# desire to sta" *ith their %ather. ss!e: Whether or not the propert" re#ime should be based on $o?o*nership5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt ruled that in a void marria#e, re#ardless o% the $ause thereo%, the propert" relations o% the parties are #overned b" the rules on $o?o*nership 80rt 1): Aamil" 3ode4. 0n" propert" a$>uired durin# the union is prima %a$ie presumed to have been obtained throu#h their Goint e%%orts. 0 part" *ho did not parti$ipate in the a$>uisition o% the propert"

343 shall be $onsidered as havin# $ontributed thereto Gointl" i% said part"-s e%%orts $onsisted in the $are and maintenan$e o% the %amil".

256) 1!e"ave"t!ra vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 12035), 2arc' 31, 2005 Facts: 9oel Cuenaventura %iled a position %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e on the #round that both he and his *i%e *ere ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated. he R 3 in its de$ision, de$lared the marria#e entered into bet*een petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the li>uidation o% the assets o% the $onGu#al partnership propert"6 ordered petitioner a re#ular support in %avor o% his son in the amount o% 15,000 monthl", subGe$t to modi%i$ation as the ne$essit" arises, and a*arded the $are and $ustod" o% the minor to his mother. Petitioner appealed be%ore the 30. While the appeal *as pendin#, the 30, upon respondent-s motion issued a resolution in$reasin# the support pendants li/e to P20, 000. he 30 dismissal petitioner appeal %or la$/ o% merit and a%%irmed in to the R 3 de$ision. Petitioner motion %or re$onsideration *as denied, hen$e this petition. ss!e: Whether or not $o?o*nership is appli$able to valid marria#e5 R!li"#: (in$e the present $ase does not involve the annulment o% a bi#amous marria#e, the provisions o% arti$le 50 in relation to arti$les )1, )2 and )1 o% the Aamil" 3ode, providin# %or the dissolution o% the absolute $ommunit" or $onGu#al partnership o% #ains, as the $ase ma"be, do not appl". Rather the #eneral rule applies, *hi$h is in $ase a marria#e is de$lared void ab initio, the propert" re#ime appli$able to be li>uidated, partitioned and distributed is that o% e>ual $o?o*nership. (in$e the properties ordered to be distributed b" the $ourt a >uo *ere %ound, both b" the R 3 and the 30, to have been a$>uired durin# the union o% the parties, the same *ould be $overed b" the $o?o*nership. 9o %ruits o% a separate propert" o% one o% the parties appear to have been in$luded or involved in said distribution.

344

250) 2aB!ila" vs. 2aB!ila" G.R. No. 155409, 3!"e ), 2000 Facts: (pouses ,a>uilan on$e had a bliss%ul married li%e and out o% *hi$h *ere blessed to have a son. .o*ever, their on$e su#ar $oated roman$e turned bitter *hen Bir#ilo dis$overed that Dita *as havin# illi$it sexual a%%air *ith her paramour, *hi$h thus, prompted the Bir#ilio to %ile a $ase o% adulter" a#ainst .er *i%e and the latterNs paramour. 3onse>uentl", both a$$used *ere $onvi$ted o% the $rime $har#ed. herea%ter, private respondent, throu#h $ounsel, %iled a Petition %or De$laration o% 9ullit" o% ,arria#e, Dissolution and +i>uidation o% 3onGu#al Partnership o% <ains and Dama#es imputin# ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" on the part o% the petitioner. Durin# the pre?trial o% the said $ase, petitioner and private respondent entered into a 3',PR',I(7 0<R77,79 . (ubse>uentl", petitioner %iled a motion %or the repudiation o% the 0<R77,79 . his motion *as denied. Petitioner then %iled a Petition %or 3ertiorari and Prohibition *ith the 3ourt o% 0ppeals on the #round that the $onvi$tion o% the respondent o% the $rime o% adulter" dis>uali%" her %rom sharin# in the $onGu#al propert". he Petition *as dismissed. ss!e: Is the $onvi$tion o% the respondent o% the $rime o% adulter" a dis>uali%i$ation %or her to share in the $onGu#al propert"5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that under 0rti$le 1)1 o% the Aamil" 3ode, separation o% propert" ma" be e%%e$ted voluntaril" or %or su%%i$ient $ause, subGe$t to Gudi$ial approval. he >uestioned 3ompromise 0#reement *hi$h *as Gudi$iall" approved is exa$tl" su$h a separation o% propert" allo*ed under the la*. his $on$lusion holds true even i% the pro$eedin#s %or the de$laration o% nullit" o% marria#e *as still pendin#. .o*ever, the 3ourt must stress that this voluntar" separation o% propert" is subGe$t to the ri#hts o% all $reditors o% the $onGu#al partnership o% #ains and other persons *ith pe$uniar" interest pursuant to 0rti$le 11H o% the Aamil" 3ode.

345 25)) Go"/ales vs. Go"/ales G.R. No. 159521, Dece.+er 16, 2005 Facts: Aran$is$o <on=ales, and 7rminda <on=ales started livin# as husband and *i%e. 0%ter t*o 824 "ears, or on Aebruar" ), 19:9, the" #ot married. he" be#ot %our $hildren. (ometime in the "ear 1992, 7rminda %iled a $omplaint *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt, Cran$h 1)1, ,a/ati 3it", %or annulment o% marria#e *ith pra"er %or support pendentelite, do$/eted as 3ivil 3ase 9o. 12?11111. he $omplaint alle#es that Aran$is$o is ps"$holo#i$all" in$apa$itated to $ompl" *ith the obli#ations o% marria#e. .e beats her %or no Gusti%iable reason, humiliates and embarrasses her, and denies her love, sexual $om%ort and lo"alt". Durin# the time the" lived to#ether, the" a$>uired properties. (he mana#ed their pi==a business and *or/ed hard %or its development. (he pra"s %or the de$laration o% the nullit" o% their marria#e and %or the dissolution o% the $onGu#al partnership o% #ains. ss!e: Whether or not the properties should be divided e>uall"5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that their propert" relation shall be #overned b" the provisions o% 0rti$le 1): o% the Aamil" 3ode. he provisions enumerate the t*o instan$es *hen the propert" relations bet*een spouses shall be #overned b" the rules on $o? o*nership. hese are: 814 *hen a man and *oman $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other live ex$lusivel" *ith ea$h other as husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e6 and 824 *hen a man and *oman live to#ether under a void marria#e. Fnder this propert" re#ime o% $o?o*nership, properties a$>uired b" both parties durin# their union, in the absen$e o% proo% to the $ontrar", are presumed to have been obtained throu#h the Goint e%%orts o% the parties and *ill be o*ned b" them in e>ual shares. 0rti$le 1): $reates a presumption that properties a$>uired durin# the $ohabitation o% the parties have been a$>uired throu#h their Goint e%%orts, *or/ or industr" and shall be o*ned b" them in e>ual shares. It %urther provides that a part" *ho did not parti$ipate in the a$>uisition b" the other part" o% an" propert" shall be deemed to have $ontributed Gointl" in the a$>uisition thereo% i% the %ormer-s e%%orts $onsisted in the $are and maintenan$e o% the %amil" and o% the household.

346

259) 2erca%o7Fe'r vs. Fe'r G.R. No. 152016, *cto+er 23, 2003 Facts: In ,ar$h 19@1, a%ter 2 "ears o% lon#?distan$e $ourtship, 7lna le%t 3ebu and moved in *ith Cruno in ,anila and be#ot one $hild. he" pur$hased a $ondominium unit 8(uite 20)4 at +<3 $ondominium b" a $ontra$t ' sell dated Jul" 2H, 19@1. he" #ot married in ,ar$h 19@5. In 199@, trial $ourt de$lared the marria#e bet*een 7lna and Cruno, void ab initio under A3 1H and subse>uentl" ordered the li>uidation o% their$onGu#al partnership. he $ourt %ound (uite 20) to be ex$lusive propert" o% Cruno be$ause it *as pur$hased on instalment basis usin# Cruno-s ex$lusive%unds prior to the marria#e. heir properties *ere then divided. ss!e: Whether or not (uite 20) is Cruno-s ex$lusive propert"5 R!li"#: he Aamil" 3ode, 0rti$le 1): applies in this $ase be$ause both o% them *ere $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other6 the" lived ex$lusivel" as husband and *i%e6 and their union is *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e or their marria#e is void. 7viden$e sho*s that the propert" *as a$>uired durin# their $ohabitation and in appl"in# 0rti$le 1):, the rules on $o?o*nership should #overn. (uite 20) must be $onsidered as $ommon propert" o% 7lna and Cruno. 1?*a" partition o% properties does not appl" also. Propert" re#ime should be divided in a$$ordan$e *ith the la* on $o? o*nership.

260) (ari"o vs. (ari"o G.R. No. 132529, Fe+r!ar4 2, 2009 Facts: In 19H9 (P') (antia#o 3arino married (usan 9i$dao3arino. .e had 2 $hildren *ith her. In 1992, (P') $ontra$ted a se$ond marria#e, this time *ith (usan Mee 3arino. In 19@@, prior to his se$ond marria#e, (P') is alread" bedridden and he *as under the $are o% Mee. In 1992, he died 11 da"s a%ter his marria#e *ith Mee. herea%ter, the spouses *ent on to $laim

340 the bene%its o% (P'). 9i$dao *as able to $laim a total o% P1)0,000.00 *hile Mee *as able to $olle$t a total o% P21,000.00. In 1991, Mee %iled an a$tion %or $olle$tion o% sum o% mone" a#ainst 9i$dao. (he *anted to have hal% o% the P1)0/. Mee admitted that her marria#e *ith (P') *as solemni=ed durin# the subsisten$e o% the marria#e bLn (P') and 9i$dao but the said marria#e bet*een 9i$dao and (P') is null and void due to the absen$e o% a valid marria#e li$ense as $erti%ied b" the lo$al $ivil re#istrar. Mee also $laimed that she onl" %ound out about the previous marria#e on (P')-s %uneral. ss!e: 3onsiderin# the marria#e o% Mee and 3arino a bi#amous marria#e, *hat la* shall be appli$able5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt de$ided that under 0rti$le 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h re%ers to the propert" re#ime o% bi#amous marria#es, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state o% $on$ubine, relationships *here both man and *oman are married to other persons, multiple allian$es o% the same married man, onl" the properties a$>uired b" both o% the parties throu#h their a$tual Goint $ontribution o% mone", propert", or industr" shall be o*ned b" them in $ommon in proportion to their respe$tive $ontributions. In this propert" re#ime, the properties a$>uired b" the parties throu#h their a$tual Goint $ontribution shall belon# to the $o?o*nership. Wa#es and salaries earned b" ea$h part" belon# to him or her ex$lusivel". hen too, $ontributions in the %orm o% $are o% the home, $hildren and household, or spiritual or moral inspiration, are ex$luded in this re#ime. 3onsiderin# that the marria#e o% respondent (usan Mee and the de$eased is a bi#amous marria#e, havin# been solemni=ed durin# the subsisten$e o% a previous marria#e then presumed to be valid 8bet*een petitioner and the de$eased4, the appli$ation o% 0rti$le 1)@ is there%ore in order.

261) $!.los vs. Fer"a"%e/ G.R. No. 130650, April 12, 2000 Facts: ,ario and +ourdes Aernande= *ere plainti%%s in an a$tion %or eGe$tment %iled a#ainst <uillerma, <ina and oto umlos. In

34) the $omplaint, spouses Aernande= alle#ed that the" are the absolute o*ners o% an apartment buildin# that throu#h their toleran$e the" allo*ed the umlos- to o$$up" the apartment %or the last : "ears *ithout pa"ment o% an" rent. It *as a#reed that <uillerma *ill pa" 1,H00 a month *hile the other de%endants promised to pa" 1,000 a month *hi$h *as not $omplied *ith. Demand *as made several times %or the de%endants to va$ate the premises as the" are in need o% the propert" %or the $onstru$tion o% a ne* buildin#. De%endants appealed to R 3 that ,ario and <uillerma had an amorous relationship and that the" a$>uired the propert" in >uestion as their love nest. It *as li/e*ise alle#ed that the" lived to#ether in the said apartment buildin# *ith their 2 $hildren %or about 10 "ears and that <ullerma administered the propert" b" $olle$tin# rentals %rom the lessees until she dis$overed that ,ario de$eived her as to the annulment o% their marria#e. ss!e: <uillerma umlos is a $o?o*ner o% the apartment a$$ordin# to 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode or 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode5 R!li"#: he appli$able la* is not 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode, but 0rti$le 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode. 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode applies onl" to a relationship bet*een a man and a *oman *ho are not in$apa$itated to marr" ea$h other, or to one in *hi$h the marria#e o% the parties is void%rom the be#innin#. It does not appl" to a $ohabitation that amounts to adulter" or $on$ubina#e, %or it *ould be absurd to $reate a $o?o*nership *here there exists a prior $onGu#al partnership or absolute $ommunit" bet*een the man and his la*%ul *i%e. the relationship bet*een petitioner and Respondent ,ario Aernande= is #overned b" 0rti$le 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode. Justi$e 0li$ia B. (empio?Di" points out that IRtShe Aamil" 3ode has %illed the hiatus in 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode b" expressl" re#ulatin# in its 0rti$le 1)@ the propert" relations o% $ouples livin# in a state o% adulter" or $on$ubina#e. he la* itsel% states that it $an be applied retroa$tivel" i% it does not preGudi$e vested or a$>uired ri#hts. In this $ase, petitioner %ailed to sho* an" vested ri#ht over the propert" in >uestion. he 3ourt have applied 0rti$le 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode retroa$tivel".

349 262) Fra"cisco vs. 2aster ro" Cor>s G.R. No. 151960, Fe+r!ar4 16, 2005 Facts: Jose%ina 3astillo *as 2) "ears old *hen she and 7duardo Aran$is$o #ot married on Januar" 19@1. he latter *as then emplo"ed as Bi$e President in a Private 3orporation. Jose%ina a$>uired t*o par$els o% land *here Imus Can/ exe$uted a deed o% absolute sale in %avor o% Jose%ina, married to 7duardo. 0n a%%idavit o% *aiver *as exe$uted b" 7duardo *here he de$lared that prior to his marria#e *ith Jose%ina, the latter pur$hased the land *ith her o*n savin#s and that he *aived *hatever $laims he had over the propert". When Jose%ina mort#a#ed the propert" %or a loan, 7duardo a%%ixed his marital $on%ormit" to the deed. In 1990, 7duardo *ho *as then a <eneral ,ana#er, bou#ht ba#s o% $ement %rom de%endant but %ailed to pa" the same. he latter %iled a $omplaint %or re$over" and trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment a#ainst 7duardo. he $ourt then issued a *rit o% exe$ution and the sheri%% issued a noti$e o% lev" on exe$ution over the alle#ed propert" o% Jose%ina %or the re$over" o% the balan$e o% the amount due under the de$ision o% the trial $ourt. Petitioner %iled a third part" $laim over the 2 par$els o% land in *hi$h she $laimed as her paraphernal propert". While the $ase is pendin#, Jose%ina %iled a de$laration o% nullit" o% her marria#e to 7duardo sin$e the latter *as previousl" married to 3armelita 3arpio, hen$e their marria#e is null and void %or bein# bi#amous. ss!e: Whether or not the subGe$t propert" is a $onGu#al propert" o% Jose%ina and 7duardo5 R!li"#: heir propert" relation *as #overned b" 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h provides that eviden$e must sho* that the spouse a$tuall" $ontributed to the a$>uisition o% the subGe$t propert". .o*ever, in the $ase, petitioner %ailed to sho* that she a$>uired the propert" b" usin# her personal %unds. 0nd sin$e the subGe$t propert" *as a$>uired durin# the subsisten$e o% the marria#e o% 7duardo and 3armelita, under normal $ir$umstan$es, the same should be presumed to be $onGu#al propert". 0rti$le 105 o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines provides that the 3ode shall appl" to $onGu#al partnership established be%ore the $ode too/

350 e%%e$t, *ithout preGudi$e to vested ri#hts alread" a$>uired under the 9e* 3ivil 3ode or other la*s. 263) 3oaB!i"o vs. Re4es G.R. No. 154645, 3!l4 13, 2004 Facts: +ourdes Re"es *as the *ido* o% Rodol%o Re"es, havin# been married in 19): in ,anila. Rodol%o, ho*ever, in the $ourse o% their marria#e, had illi$it relations *ith one ,ila#ros Joa>uino, to *hom he alle#edl" Iput into $ustod"I some o% the $oupleNs $onGu#al properties. (aid properties spe$i%i$all" in$lude his earnin#s and retirement bene%its %rom *or/in# as the Bi$e President and 3omptroller o% Warner Carns and t*o $ars6 and that the amount herein stated *as used to pa" o%% the loan and monthl" mort#a#e o% a house in Parana>ue, re#istered under Joa>uinoNs name. +ourdes then pra"ed that the properties be de$lared $onGu#al, that ,ila#ros surrenders the possession thereo%, and that dama#es be a*arded. ,ila#ros, on the other hand, $ontends that she pur$hased the mentioned properties in her ex$lusive $apa$it", that she had no /no*led#e o% the Rodol%oNs %irst marria#e, that she had *as never a bene%i$iar" o% the latterNs earnin#s, and that her livin# to#ether *ith Rodol%o %or nineteen 8194 "ears, alon# *ith the %a$t that she had $hildren *ith him, be $onsidered b" the $ourt in renderin# Gud#ment. +ourdes, ho*ever, died and *as later represented b" her $hildren *ith Rodol%o. (ubse>uentl", the trial $ourt #ranted +ourdesN $omplaint. Fpon appeal to the 30, ho*ever, ,ila#ros reiterated her stand and >uestioned the %indin#s o% the trial $ourt. Cut to no avail, the 30 li/e*ise held that the propert" had been paid out o% the $onGu#al %unds o% Rodol%o and +ourdes, be$ause the %unds used to pa" the house o%% *as sour$ed %rom Rodol%oNs earnin#s as part o% the $onGu#al partnership ss!e: Whether or not the properties belon# to the $onGu#al partnership #ains o% spouses Rodol%o and +ourdes Re"es5 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 1H0 o% the 3ode, all properties o% the marria#e, unless proven to pertain to the husband or the *i%e ex$lusivel", are presumed to belon# to the 3onGu#al Partnership

351 <ains. Aor the rebuttable presumption to arise, ho*ever, the properties must %irst be proven to have been a$>uired durin# the existen$e o% the marria#e. 'n the other hand, 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode mandates a $o?o*nership bet*een a man and a *oman *ho are livin# to#ether but is not le#all" married. Prevailin# Gurispruden$e holds, thou#h, that %or 0rti$le 1)) to appl", the $ouple must not be in$apa$itated to $ontra$t marria#e. It has been held that the 0rti$le is inappli$able to $ommon?la* relations amountin# to adulter" or $on$ubina#e, as in this $ase. he reason there%ore is the absurdit" o% $reatin# a $o?o*nership in $ases in *hi$h there exists a prior $onGu#al partnership bet*een the man and his la*%ul *i%e. 264) 5a#!i% vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G. R. No. 150611, 3!"e 10, 2003 Facts: <ina (. Re" *as married but separated de %a$to %rom her husband, she later met petitioner Ja$into (a#uid and 3ohabit *ith him %or nine "ears. Ja$into made livin# as a patron o% their %ish vessel *hile <ina helped as a %ish dealer. he latter ho*ever *or/ed in Japan as entertainer and *hen her relationship *ith her Ja$into-s relatives #ot *orse, the" ended their relationship. <ina then %iled a $omplaint %or Partition and Re$over" o% Personal Propert" alle#in# that she *as able to $ontribute an amount %or the $ompletion o% their un%inished house and *as able to a$>uire Aurniture, applian$es and other household e%%e$ts. Ja$into ho*ever $ontend that expenses in$urred %rom their un%inished house de%ra"ed solel" %rom his in$ome as a $aptain o% their %ish vessel and that <ina *as not able to $ontribute sin$e she did not $ontinuousl" *or/ed in Japan but onl" %or six months and her earnin# *ere spent on dail" needs and business o% her parents. ss!e: Whether or not the parties are $o?o*ner o% the subGe$t Properties5 R!li"#: It is not disputed that <ina and Ja$into *ere not $apa$itated to marr" ea$h other be$ause the %ormer *as validl" married to another man at the time o% her $ohabitation *ith the latter. heir propert" re#ime there%ore is #overned b" 0rti$le

352 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h applies to bi#amous marria#es, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state o% $on$ubina#e, relationships *here both man and *oman are married to other persons, and multiple allian$es o% the same married man. Fnder this re#ime, ITonl" the properties a$>uired b" both o% the parties throu#h their a$tual Goint $ontribution o% mone", propert", or industr" shall be o*ned b" them in $ommon in proportion to their respe$tive $ontributions ...I Proo% o% a$tual $ontribution is re>uired. In the $ase at bar, althou#h the adulterous $ohabitation o% the parties $ommen$ed in 19@:, *hi$h is be%ore the date o% the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 199@, 0rti$le 1)@ thereo% applies be$ause this provision *as intended pre$isel" to %ill up the hiatus in 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode. Ce%ore 0rti$le 1)@ o% the Aamil" 3ode *as ena$ted, there *as no provision #overnin# propert" relations o% $ouples livin# in a state o% adulter" or $on$ubina#e. .en$e, even i% the $ohabitation or the a$>uisition o% the propert" o$$urred be%ore the Aamil" 3ode too/ e%%e$t, 0rti$le 1)@ #overns. 265) 3!a"i/a vs. 3ose G. R. No. L75012072), 2arc' 30, 1909 Facts: 7u#enio Jose *as the re#istered o*ner and operator o% a passen#er Geepne" that *as involved in an a$$ident resultin# to death o% seven passen#ers and ph"si$al inGuries to other %ive. 0t that time, Jose *as le#all" married to (o$orro Ramos but $ohabited *ith Rosalie 0rro"o. he $ourt rendered a de$ision stated that Jose and 0rro"o should pa" the vi$tims Gointl" and severall" %or the $laim o% dama#es. 0rro"o, on the other hand %iled %or motion %or re$onsideration $ontendin# amon# others that she is not a $o?o*ner o% the passen#er Geepne" thereb" she should not be held liable. ss!e: Whether or not Rosalie *ho is not a re#istered o*ner o% the Geepne" $an be held liable %or the dama#es5 @el%: It has been $onsistentl" ruled b" this 3ourt that the $o? o*nership $ontemplated in 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode re>uires that the man and the *oman livin# to#ether must not in an" *a"

353 be in$apa$itated to $ontra$t marria#e. (in$e 7u#enio Jose is le#all" married to (o$orro Ramos, there is an impediment %or him to $ontra$t marria#e *ith Rosalie 0rro"o. Fnder the a%ore$ited provision o% the 3ivil 3ode, 0rro"o $annot be a $o?o*ner o% the Geepne". he Geepne" belon#s to the $onGu#al partnership o% Jose and his le#al *i%e. here is there%ore no basis %or the liabilit" o% 0rro"o %or dama#es arisin# %rom the death o%, and ph"si$al inGuries su%%ered b", the passen#ers o% the Geepne" *hi$h %i#ured in the $ollision. 266) A%ria"o vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 12411), 2arc' 20, 2000 Facts: 0mbro$io 0driano married <li$eria Dorado on '$tober 29, 1911. he" had three $hildren out o% their la*%ul marria#e, herein respondent. he" a%ter separated sometime in 19)2 and <li$eria moved to +a#una *here she died on June 11, 19H@. 0mbro$io then $ohabited *ith Bi$enta Billa *ith *hom he had ei#ht $hildren, herein petitioner. Aive months a%ter the death o% <li$eria, 0mbro$io married Bi$enta until the" separated in 19:2. +u$io then exe$ute a +ast *ill and estament assi#nin# Bi$enta and all his $hildren %orm the %irst and se$ond marria#e to be his devisees and le#atees. When +u$io died in in 19@1, appointed exe$utrix 3elestina 0driano %iled Petition %or the Probate o% the Will. Bi$enta ho*ever opposed but *as denied. he latter died in 19@5. While the $ase *as pendin#, Petitioners instituted an a$tion %or the annulment o% the *ill o% 0mbro$io $ontendin# that Bi$ente and 0mbro$io $ohabited be%ore their marria#e and that the" a$>uired the subGe$t properties, .en$e properties should not be divided. ss!e: Whether or 9ot the subGe$t properties in the *ill are $onGu#al properties o% 0mbro$io and Bi$enta5 R!li"#: PetitionersN insisten$e that a $o?o*nership o% properties existed bet*een +u$io and Bi$enta durin# their period o% $ohabitation be%ore their marria#e in 19H@ is *ithout la*%ul basis $onsiderin# that +u$ioNs marria#e *ith <li$eria *as then subsistin#. he $o?o*nership in 0rti$le 1)) o% the 3ivil 3ode re>uires that the man and *oman livin# to#ether as

354 husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e must not in an" *a" be in$apa$itated to marr". 3onsiderin# that the propert" *as a$>uired in 19H), or *hile +u$ioNs marria#e *ith <li$eria subsisted, su$h propert" is presumed to be $onGu#al unless it is proved that it pertains ex$lusivel" to the husband or to the *i%e. 260) G!errero vs. Re#io"al $rial (o!rt 229 5(RA 204 Facts: <uerrero and .ernando are brothers in la*, the" bein# married to hal% sisters. In a $omplaint %iled b" Petitioner <uerrero to Private respondent .ernando, respondent Jud#e dismissed su$h $ontendin# that parties are brothers?in?la* hen$e the" must have exerted e%%orts to settle %irst to*ard a $ompromise. It *as dismissed sin$e the relationship is an alle#ed de%e$t *hi$h *as overloo/ed sin$e respondent .ernando did not %iled a motion to dismiss or atta$/ the $omplaint on that #round, and their relationship *as onl" made /no*n durin# the pre?trial $on%eren$e. <uerrero moved to re$onsider alle#in# that sin$e brothers b" a%%init" are not members o% the same %amil", exert e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise is not re>uired. Respondent Gud#e denied the motion $ontendin# that %ailure to alle#e the earnest e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise is Gurisdi$tional *hi$h *ould deprive the $ourt o% its Gurisdi$tion to ta/e $o#ni=an$e o% the $ase. ss!e: Whether or not brothers in la* are $onsidered to be a member o% the same %amil". R!li"#: he 3onstitution prote$ts the san$tit" o% the %amil" and endeavors to stren#then it as a basi$ autonomous so$ial institution. his is also embodied in 0rt. 1)9, and #iven %lesh in 0rt. 151, o% the Aamil" 3ode, *hi$h provides that 9o suit bet*een members o% the same %amil" shall prosper unless it should appear %rom the veri%ied $omplaint or petition that earnest e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise have been made, but that the same had %ailed. I% it is sho*n that no su$h e%%orts *ere in %a$t made, the $ase must be dismissed. .o*ever, it is not appli$able in the $ase, in the $ase o% <a"on vs. <a"on, the (upreme 3ourt held that the enumeration o% Ibrothers and sistersI as members o% the same %amil" does not

355 $omprehend Isisters?in?la*I. In that $ase, then 3hie% Justi$e 3on$ep$ion emphasi=ed that Isisters?in?la*I 8hen$e, also Ibrothers?in?la*I4 are not listed under 0rt. 21: o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode as members o% the same %amil". (in$e 0rt. 150 o% the Aamil" 3ode repeats essentiall" the same enumeration o% Imembers o% the %amil"I, *e %ind no reason to alter existin# Gurispruden$e on the matter. 26)) @i4as vs. Ac!"a 500 5(RA 514 Facts: 'n 9ovember 2), 2000, private respondent 0lberto ,oreno %iled a $omplaint a#ainst respondent .i"as (avin#s and +oan Can/, In$, his *i%e and (pouses '*e %or the $an$ellation o% mort#a#e $ontendin# that he did not se$ure an" loan %rom petitioner, nor did he si#n or exe$ute an" $ontra$t o% mort#a#e in its %avor and that his *i%e, in a$tin# $onspira$" *ith .i"as and (pouses '*e *ere the ones *ho bene%ited %rom the loan and that he did not exe$ute or si#n an" $ontra$t sin$e he *as then *or/in# abroad. Petitioner %iled a motion to dismiss on the #round that ,oreno did not $ompl" *ith the 0R I3+7 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h provides that no suit bet*een members o% the same %amil" shall prosper unless it should appear %rom the veri%ied $omplaint that earnest e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise have been made. .e motion ho*ever *as denied b" the trial $ourt explainin# that e%%orts are not re>uired sin$e the parties are stran#ers and are not members o% the same %amil". ss!e: Whether or 9ot the liti#ation %iled b" Respondent a#ainst Petitioner *hi$h in$ludes her Wi%e and t*o others is in re#ards o% 0rti$le 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode. R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held in the $ase o% ,a#baleta that su$h e%%orts to $ompromise should be a Gurisdi$tional pre? re>uisite %or the maintenan$e o% an a$tion *henever a stran#er to the %amil" is a part" thereto, *hether as a ne$essar" or indispensable one. It is not al*a"s that one *ho is alien to the %amil" *ould be *illin# to su%%er the in$onvenien$e o%, mu$h less relish, the dela" and the $ompli$ations that *ran#lin# bet*een or

356 amon# relatives more o%ten than not entail. Cesides, it is neither pra$ti$al nor %air that the determination o% the ri#hts o% a stran#er to the %amil" *ho Gust happened to have inno$entl" a$>uired some /ind o% interest in an" ri#ht or propert" disputed amon# its members should be made to depend on the *a" the latter *ould settle their di%%eren$es amon# themselves!. .en$e, 'n$e a stran#er be$omes a part" to a suit involvin# members o% the same %amil", the la* no lon#er ma/es it a $ondition pre$edent that earnest e%%orts be made to*ards a $ompromise be%ore the a$tion $an prosper. 269) @o"tiveros vs. Re#io"al $rial (o!rt 309 5(RA 340 Facts: 'n De$ember 1, 1990, petitioner (pouses 0u#usto and ,aria .ontiveros %iled a $omplaint %or dama#es a#ainst private respondent (pouses <re#orio .ontiveros and eodora 0"son alle#in# that the" are the o*ner o% the par$el o% land in 3api=, ho*ever due to the land re#istration $ase %iled b" <re#orio, petitioners *ere deprived o% in$ome %rom rentals o% tenants in the land sin$e petitioners *ithheld possession o% the land in bad %aith. Petitioners denied the alle#ations and $ounter$laimed that the possession o% land had alread" been trans%erred to petitioners b" virtue o% *rit o% possession issued b" the $ourt, and that the $omplaint %ailed to state a $ause o% a$tion sin$e it did not alle#e that earnest e%%orts to*ards a $ompromise have been made, $onsiderin# that petitioner 0u#usto .ontiveros and private respondent <re#orio .ontiveros are brothers. In the amended $omplaint o% petitioners, the" inserted in the alle#ation that earnest e%%orts to*ards a $ompromise have been made but *as unsu$$ess%ul, this *as denied b" the other part". he trial $ourt in its de$ision stated that the %a$t in their $omplaint *as not veri%ied as provided in 0rti$le 151 that no suit amon# members o% the %amil" shall prosper unless earnest e%%orts to*ards a $ompromise have been made. ss!e: Whether or not 0rti$le 151 is appli$able in the $ase5

350 R!li"#: 0rti$le 151 provides that 9o suit bet*een members o% the same %amil" shall prosper unless it should appear %rom the veri%ied $omplaint or petition that earnest e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise have been made, but that the same have %ailed. It i% is sho*n that no su$h e%%orts *ere in %a$t made, the $ase must be dismissed.! .o*ever this is not appli$able in the $ase sin$e the suit is not amon# the members o% the %amil" $onsiderin# that in$lusion o% private respondent 0"son as de%endant and petitioner ,aria .ontiveros as plainti%% ta/es the $ase out o% the ambit o% 0rt. 151 o% the %amil" $ode *hi$h ex$lusivel" pertains to the husband and *i%e, parents and $hildren, as$endants and des$endants, and brothers and sisters, *hether %ull or hal%?blood as members o% the %amil". 200) <%a. De 2a"alo vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 129242, 3a"!ar4 16, 2001 Facts: roadio ,analo, a resident o% 19HH ,aria 3lara (treet, (ampalo$, ,anila died intestate on Aebruar" 1), 1992. .e *as survived b" his *i%e, Pilar (. ,analo, and his eleven 8114 $hildren, namel": Purita ,. Ja"me, 0ntonio ,analo, ,ila#ros ,. erre, Celen ,. 'rillano, Isabelita ,analo, Rosalina ,. 0$uin, Romeo ,analo, Roberto ,analo, 0malia ,analo, 'rlando ,analo, and Imelda ,analo, *ho are all o% le#al a#e. 0t the time o% his death on Aebruar" 1), 1992, roadio ,analo le%t several real properties lo$ated in ,anila and in the provin$e o% arla$ in$ludin# a business under the name and st"le ,analo-s ,a$hine (hop *ith o%%i$es at 9o. 19 3alavite (treet, +a +oma, Kue=on 3it" and at 9o. )5 <en. inio (treet, 0rt" (ubdivision, Balen=uela, ,etro ,anila. 'n 9ovember 2H, 1992, herein respondents, *ho are ei#ht 8@4 o% the survivin# $hildren o% the late roadio ,analo, namel": Purita, ,ila#ros, Celen, Rosalina, Romeo, Roberto, 0malia, and Imelda %iled a petition *ith the respondent Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,anila %or the Gudi$ial settlement o% the estate o% their late %ather, roadio ,analo, and %or the appointment o% their brother, Romeo ,analo, as administrator thereo%.

35) ss!e: Whether or not a suit amon# members o% the %amil" $an be sustained5 R!li"#: 0rt. 222. 9o suit shall be %iled or maintained bet*een members o% the same %amil" unless it should appear that earnest e%%orts to*ard a $ompromise have been made, but that the same have %ailed, subGe$t to the limitations in 0rti$le 2015 8underscoring supplied4. he above?>uoted provision o% the la* is appli$able onl" to ordinar" $ivil a$tions. his is $lear %rom the term suit! that it re%ers to an a$tion b" one person or persons a#ainst another or others in a $ourt o% Gusti$e in *hi$h the plainti%% pursues the remed" *hi$h the la* a%%ords him %or the redress o% an inGur" or the en%or$ement o% a ri#ht, *hether at la* or in e>uit". 0 $ivil a$tion is thus an a$tion %iled in a $ourt o% Gusti$e, *hereb" a part" sues another %or the en%or$ement o% a ri#ht, or the prevention or redress o% a *ron#. Cesides, an ex$erpt %rom the Report o% the 3ode 3ommission unmista/abl" reveals the intention o% the 3ode 3ommission to ma/e that le#al provision appli$able onl" to $ivil a$tions *hi$h are essentiall" adversarial and involve members o% the same %amil", thus: It is di%%i$ult to ima#ine a sadder and more tra#i$ spe$ta$le than a liti#ation bet*een members o% the same %amil". It is ne$essar" that ever" e%%ort should be made to*ard a $ompromise be%ore liti#ation is allo*ed to breed hate and passion in the %amil". It is /no*n that la*suit bet*een $lose relatives #enerates deeper bitterness than stran#ers. 201) 5a"tos vs. (A 405 5(RA 1 Facts: Plainti%% +eouel (antos married de%endant Julia Cedia on (eptember 20, 19@H. 'n ,a" 1@ 19@@, Julia le%t %or the F.(. (he did not $ommuni$ate *ith +eouel and did not return to the $ountr". In 1991, +eoul %iled *ith the R 3 o% 9e#ros 'riental, a $omplaint %or voidin# the marria#e under 0rti$le 1H o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines. he R 3 dismissed the $omplaint and the 30 a%%irmed the dismissal.

359 ss!e: Does the %ailure o% Julia to return home, or at the ver" least to $ommuni$ate *ith him, %or more than %ive "ears $onstitute ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it"5 R!li"#: 9o, the %ailure o% Julia to return home or to $ommuni$ate *ith her husband +eouel %or more than %ive "ears does not $onstitute ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it". Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" must be $hara$teri=ed b" 8a4 <R0BI M 8b4 JFRIDI30+ 09 737D7937 8$4 I93FR0CI+I M Ps"$holo#i$al in$apa$it" should re%er to no less than a mental 8not ph"si$al4 in$apa$it" that $auses a part" to be trul" in$o#nitive o% the basi$ marital $ovenants that $on$omitantl" must be assumed and dis$har#ed b" the parties to the marria#e *hi$h, as so expressed b" 0rt. H@ o% the Aamil" 3ode in$lude their mutual obli#ations to live to#ether, observe love, respe$t and %idelit" and render help and support. he intendment o% the la* has been to $on%ine the meanin# o% P(M3.'+'<I30+ I930P03I M! to the most serious $ases o% personalit" disorders $learl" demonstrative o% an utter insensitivit" or inabilit" to #ive meanin# and si#ni%i$an$e to the marria#e. his ps"$holo#i$al $ondition must exist at the time the marria#e is $elebrated. Fndeniabl" and understandabl", +eouel stands a##rieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Re#rettabl", neither la* nor so$iet" itsel% $an al*a"s provide all the spe$i%i$ ans*ers to ever" individual problem. 202) 2e"%o/a vs. (A 19 5(RA 056 Facts: ,anoto/ *as the administrator o% a par$el o% land *hi$h it leased to CenGamin ,endo=a6 that the $ontra$t o% lease expired on De$ember 11, 19@@6 that even a%ter the expiration o% the lease $ontra$t, CenGamin ,endo=a, and a%ter his demise, his son, Romeo, $ontinued to o$$up" the premises and thus in$urred a total o% P)),011.25 as unpaid rentals %rom Januar" 1, 19@9 to Jul" 11, 199H6 that on Jul" 1H, 199H, ,anoto/ made a demand on CenGamin ,endo=a to pa" the rental arrears and to va$ate the

360 premises *ithin %i%teen 8154 da"s %rom re$eipt o% the demand letter6 that despite re$eipt o% the letter and a%ter the expiration o% the 15?da" period, the ,endo=as re%used to va$ate the propert" and to pa" the rentals. he $omplaint pra"ed that the $ourt order ,endo=a and those $laimin# ri#hts under him to va$ate the premises and deliver possession thereo% to ,anoto/, and to pa" the unpaid rentals %rom Januar" 1, 19@9 to Jul" 11, 199H plus P@:5.:5 per month startin# 0u#ust 1, 199H, subGe$t to su$h in$rease allo*ed b" la*, until he %inall" va$ates the premise. ss!e: Whether or not the .onorable 3ourt o% 0ppeals $ommitted error in #ivin# e%%i$a$" to a lease $ontra$t si#ned in 19@@ *hen the alle#ed si#nator" *as alread" dead sin$e 19@H5 R!li"#: his is a $ase %or unla*%ul detainer. It appears that respondent $orporation leased the propert" subGe$t o% this $ase to petitioner-s %ather. 0%ter expiration o% the lease, petitioner $ontinued to o$$up" the propert" but %ailed to pa" the rentals. 'n Jul" 1H, 199H, Respondent 3orporation made a demand on petitioner to va$ate the premises and to pa" their arrears. 0n a$tion %or unla*%ul detainer ma" be %iled *hen possession b" a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person o% an" land or buildin# is unla*%ull" *ithheld a%ter the expiration or termination o% the ri#ht to hold possession b" virtue o% a $ontra$t, express or implied. he onl" issue to be resolved in an unla*%ul detainer $ase is ph"si$al or material possession o% the propert" involved, independent o% an" $laim o% o*nership b" an" o% the parties involved. In the $ase at bar, petitioner lost his ri#ht to possess the propert" upon demand b" Respondent 3orporation to va$ate the rented lot. Petitioner $annot no* re%ute the existen$e o% the lease $ontra$t be$ause o% his prior admissions in his pleadin#s re#ardin# his status as tenant on the subGe$t propert". 203) $ri"i%a%7Ra.os vs. &a"#ili"a" G.R. No. 1)5920, 3!l4 20, 2010 Facts: Respondents %iled a $omplaint %or ille#al dismissal a#ainst 7.,. Ramos 7le$tri$, In$., a $ompan" o*ned b" 7rnesto ,. Ramos 8Ramos4, the patriar$h o% herein petitioners. he labor arbiter

361 ordered Ramos and the $ompan" to pa" the respondents- ba$/? *a#es, separation pa", 11th month pa" P servi$e in$entive leave pa". he de$ision be$ame %inal and exe$utor" so a *rit o% exe$ution *as issued *hi$h the Deput" (heri%% o% the 9ational +abor Relations 3ommission 89+R34 implemented b" lev"in# a propert" in Ramos- name situated in Panda$an. 0lle#in# that the Panda$an propert" *as the %amil" home, hen$e, exempt %rom exe$ution to satis%" the Gud#ment a*ard, Ramos and the $ompan" moved to >uash the *rit o% exe$ution. Respondents ar#ued that it is not the %amil" home there bein# another one in 0ntipolo and that the Panda$an address is a$tuall" the business address. he motion *as denied and the appeal *as li/e*ise denied b" the 9+R3. Ramos and the $ompan" appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals durin# the penden$" o% *hi$h Ramos died and *as substituted b" herein petitioners. he appellate $ourt, in den"in# petitioners- appeal, held that the Panda$an propert" *as not exempted %rom exe$ution, %or *hile 0rti$le 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that the %amil" home is deemed $onstituted on a house and lot %rom the time it is o$$upied as a %amil" residen$e, it did not mean that the arti$le has a retroa$tive e%%e$t su$h that all existin# %amil" residen$es are deemed to have been $onstituted as %amil" homes at the time o% their o$$upation prior to the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode.! ss!e: Whether or not the lev" upon the Panda$an propert" *as valid5 R!li"#: he #eneral rule is that the %amil" home is a real ri#ht *hi$h is #ratuitous, inalienable and %ree %rom atta$hment, $onstituted over the d*ellin# pla$e and the land on *hi$h it is situated, *hi$h $on%ers upon a parti$ular %amil" the ri#ht to enGo" su$h properties, *hi$h must remain *ith the person $onstitutin# it and his heirs. It $annot be sei=ed b" $reditors ex$ept in $ertain spe$ial $ases. Aor the %amil" home to be exempt %rom exe$ution, distin$tion must be made as to *hat la* applies based on *hen it *as $onstituted and *hat re>uirements must be $omplied *ith b" the Gud#ment debtor or his su$$essors $laimin# su$h privile#e. .en$e, t*o sets o% rules are appli$able. I% the %amil" home *as $onstru$ted be%ore the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode or be%ore

362 0u#ust 1, 19@@, then it must have been $onstituted either Gudi$iall" or extra?Gudi$iall" as provided under 0rti$les 225, 229? 211 and 211 o% the 3ivil 3ode. ,ean*hile, extraGudi$ial $onstitution is #overned b" 0rti$les 2)0 to 2)2. 'n the other hand, %or %amil" homes $onstru$ted a%ter the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@, there is no need to $onstitute extra Gudi$iall" or Gudi$iall", and the exemption is e%%e$tive %rom the time it *as $onstituted and lasts as lon# as an" o% its bene%i$iaries under 0rt. 15) a$tuall" reside therein. ,oreover, the %amil" home should belon# to the absolute $ommunit" or $onGu#al partnership, or i% ex$lusivel" b" one spouse, its $onstitution must have been *ith $onsent o% the other, and its value must not ex$eed $ertain amounts dependin# upon the area *here it is lo$ated. Aurther, the debts in$urred %or *hi$h the exemption does not appl" as provided under 0rt. 155 %or *hi$h the %amil" home is made ans*erable must have been in$urred a%ter 0u#ust 1, 19@@. In both instan$es, the $laim %or exemption must be proved. In the present $ase, sin$e petitioners $laim that the %amil" home *as $onstituted prior to 0u#ust 1, 19@@, or as earl" as 19)), the" must $ompl" *ith the pro$edure mandated b" the 3ivil 3ode. here bein# absolutel" no proo% that the Panda$an propert" *as Gudi$iall" or extra Gudi$iall" $onstituted as the Ramos- %amil" home, the la* prote$tin# the %amil" home $annot appl" thereb" ma/in# the lev" upon the Panda$an propert" valid. 204) 2o%eB!illo vs. 1reva G.R. No. )6355, 2a4 31, 1990 Facts: 'n Jul" :, 19@@, the sheri%% levied on a par$el o% residential land lo$ated at Pobla$ion ,alala#, Davao del (ur $ontainin# an area o% H00s>uare meters *ith a mar/et value o% P1),550.00 and assessed value o% P:,5:0.00 per ax De$laration 9o. @:00@? 01159, re#istered in the name o% Jose ,ode>uillo in the o%%i$e o% the Provin$ial 0ssessor o% Davao del (ur6 and a par$el o% a#ri$ultural land lo$ated at Dala#bon# Cula$an, ,alala#, Davao del (ur $ontainin# an area o% 1 he$tares *ith a mar/et value o% P2),110.00 and assessed value o% P9,H50.00 per ax De$laration 9o. @:?0@?01@)@ re#istered in the name o% Jose ,ode>uillo in the

363 o%%i$e o% the Provin$ial 0ssessor o% Davao del (ur. 0 motion to >uash andLor to set aside lev" o% exe$ution *as %iled b" de%endant Jose ,ode>uillo alle#in# therein that the residential land lo$ated at Pobla$ion ,alala# is *here the %amil" home is built sin$e19H9 prior to the $ommen$ement o% this $ase and as su$h is exempt %rom exe$ution, %or$ed sale or atta$hment under 0rti$les 152 and 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode ex$ept %or liabilities mentioned in 0rti$le 155thereo%, and that the Gud#ment debt sou#ht to be en%or$ed a#ainst the %amil" home o% de%endant is not one o% those enumerated under 0rti$le155 o% the Aamil" 3ode. 0s to the a#ri$ultural land althou#h it is de$lared in the name o% de%endant it is alle#ed to be still part o% the publi$ land and the trans%er in his %avor b" the ori#inal possessor and appli$ant *ho *as a member o% a $ultural minorit" *as not approved b" the proper #overnment a#en$". 0n opposition thereto *as %iled b" the plainti%%s. In the present $ase, the residential house and lot o% petitioner *as not $onstituted as a %amil" home *hether Gudi$iall" or extra Gudi$iall" under the 3ivil 3ode. It be$ame a %amil" home b" operation o% la* onl" under 0rti$le 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode. It is deemed $onstituted as a %amil" home upon the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@ not 0u#ust ), one "ear a%ter its publi$ation in the ,anila 3hroni$le on 0u#ust ), 19@: 819@@ bein# a leap "ear4. ss!e: Whether or not the propert" in dispute is deemed to be a %amil" home5 R!li"#: he $ontention o% petitioner that it should be $onsidered a %amil" home %rom the time it *as o$$upied b" petitioner and his %amil" in19H9 is not *ell? ta/en. Fnder 0rti$le 1H2 o% the Aamil" 3ode, it is provided that Ithe provisions o% this 3hapter shall also #overn existin# %amil" residen$es inso%ar as said provisions are appli$able.I It does not mean that 0rti$les 152 and 151 o% said 3ode have a retroa$tive e%%e$t su$h that all existin# %amil" residen$es are deemed to have been $onstituted as %amil" homes at the time o% their o$$upation prior to the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode and are exempt %rom exe$ution %or the pa"ment o% obli#ations in$urred be%ore the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode. 0rti$le 1H2 simpl" means that all existin# %amil" residen$es at the

364 time o% the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode, are $onsidered %amil" homes and are prospe$tivel" entitled to the bene%its a$$orded to a %amil" home under the Aamil" 3ode. 0rti$le 1H2 does not state that the provisions o% 3hapter 2, itle B have a retroa$tive e%%e$t. Is the %amil" home o% petitioner exempt %rom exe$ution o% the mone" Gud#ment a%ore$ited5 9o. he debt or liabilit" *hi$h *as the basis o% the Gud#ment arose or *as in$urred at the time o% the vehi$ular a$$ident on ,ar$h 1H, 19:H and the mone" Gud#ment arisin# there %rom *as rendered b" the appellate $ourt on Januar" 29, 19@@.Coth pre$eded the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@. his $ase does not %all under the exemptions %rom exe$ution provided in the Aamil" 3ode. 0s to the a#ri$ultural land subGe$t o% the exe$ution, the trial $ourt $orre$tl" ruled that the lev" to be made b" the sheri%% shall be on *hatever ri#hts the petitioner ma" have on the land. 205) 3ose- vs. 5a"tos G.R. No. 165060, Nove.+er 20, 200) Facts= Petitioner 0lbino Jose% *as the de%endant in $ivil $ase, *hi$h is a $ase %or $olle$tion o% sum o% mone" %iled b" herein respondent 'telio (antos, *ho $laimed that petitioner %ailed to pa" the shoe materials *hi$h he bou#ht on $redit %rom respondent on various dates in 199). 0%ter trial, the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,ari/ina 3it", Cran$h 2:2, %ound petitioner liable to respondent in the amount o% P)0),@1H.50 *ith interest at 12W per annum re$/oned %rom Januar" 9, 1995 until %ull pa"ment. Petitioner appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, *hi$h a%%irmed the trial $ourt-s de$ision in toto. Petitioner %iled be%ore this 3ourt a petition %or revie* on $ertiorari, but it *as dismissed in a Resolution dated Aebruar" 1@, 2002. he Jud#ment be$ame %inal and exe$utor" on ,a" 21, 2002. 'n Aebruar" 1:, 2001, respondent moved %or issuan$e o% a *rit o% exe$ution, *hi$h *as opposed b" petitioner. In an 'rder dated Jul" 1H, 2001, the trial $ourt #ranted the motion. ss!e: Whether or not the au$tionin# o% the petitioner-s %amil" home, to satis%" the a*ard is valid5

365 R!li"#: Cein# void, the Jul" 1H, 2001 'rder $ould not have $on%erred an" ri#ht to respondent. 0n" *rit o% exe$ution based on it is li/e*ise void. 0lthou#h *e have held in several $ases that a $laim %or exemption %rom exe$ution o% the %amil" home should be set up and proved be%ore the sale o% the propert" at publi$ au$tion, and %ailure to do so *ould estop the part" %rom later $laimin# the exemption sin$e the ri#ht o% exemption is a personal privile#e #ranted to the Gud#ment debtor *hi$h must be $laimed b" the Gud#ment debtor himsel% at the time o% the lev" or *ithin a reasonable period therea%ter, the $ir$umstan$es o% the instant $ase are di%%erent. Petitioner $laimed exemption %rom exe$ution o% his %amil" home soon a%ter respondent %iled the motion %or issuan$e o% a *rit o% exe$ution, thus #ivin# noti$e to the trial $ourt and respondent that a propert" exempt %rom exe$ution ma" be in dan#er o% bein# subGe$ted to lev" and sale. hereupon, the trial $ourt is $alled to observe the pro$edure as herein laid out6 on the other hand, the respondent should observe the pro$edure pres$ribed in 0rti$le 1H0 o% the Aamil" 3ode, that is, to obtain an order %or the sale on exe$ution o% the petitioner-s %amil" home, i% so, and appl" the pro$eeds & less the maximum amount allo*ed b" la* under 0rti$le 15: o% the 3ode *hi$h should remain *ith the petitioner %or the rebuildin# o% his %amil" home & to his Gud#ment $redit. Instead, both the trial $ourt and respondent $ompletel" i#nored petitioner-s ar#ument that the properties subGe$t o% the *rit are exempt %rom exe$ution. 206) :elle4, 3r. vs. &la"ters &ro%!cts, "c. G.R. No. 102263, 3!l4 9, 200) Facts= Petitioner 0uther <. Jelle", Jr. a$>uired a#ri$ultural $hemi$al produ$ts on $onsi#nment %rom respondent Planters Produ$ts, In$. 8PPI4 in 19@9. Due to 0uther-s %ailure to pa" despite demand, PPI %iled an a$tion %or sum o% mone" a#ainst him in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% ,a/ati 3it", Cran$h 5:. 0%ter trial, the R 3 de$ided in %avor o% PPI and issued a *rit o% exe$ution. Pursuant thereto, respondent sheri%% Jor#e 0. Ra#utana sold on exe$ution real propert" $overed b" 3 9o. 150:9 lo$ated in 9a#a 3it". 0 $erti%i$ate o% sale *as issued in %avor o% PPI as the hi#hest bidder.

366 0%ter bein# belatedl" in%ormed o% the said sale, petitioners 0uther and his *i%e Doris 0. Jelle" %iled a motion to dissolve or set aside the noti$e o% lev" in the R 3 ,a/ati 3it" on the #round that the subGe$t propert" *as their %amil" home *hi$h *as exempt %rom exe$ution. Petitioners- motion *as denied %or %ailure to $ompl" *ith the three?da" noti$e re>uirement. (ubse>uentl", petitioners %iled a $omplaint %or de$laration o% nullit" o% lev" and sale o% the alle#ed %amil" home *ith dama#es a#ainst Ra#utana and PPI in the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% 9a#a 3it", Cran$h 19. he $ase *as, ho*ever, dismissed %or la$/ o% Gurisdi$tion and la$/ o% $ause o% a$tion. he dismissal *as upheld b" the 30. ss!e= Whether or not the sale o% subGe$t propert" *as valid5 Rulin#: Petitioners an$hor their a$tion in 3ivil 3ase 9o. 2000?01@@ on their $ontention that 3 9o. 150:9 is the Jelle" %amil" home. 9o doubt, a %amil" home is #enerall" exempt %rom exe$ution, provided it *as dul" $onstituted as su$h. here must be proo% that the alle#ed %amil" home *as $onstituted Gointl" b" the husband and *i%e or b" an unmarried head o% a %amil". It must be the house *here the" and their %amil" a$tuall" reside and the lot on *hi$h it is situated. he %amil" home must be part o% the properties o% the absolute $ommunit" or the $onGu#al partnership, or o% the ex$lusive properties o% either spouse *ith the latter-s $onsent, or on the propert" o% the unmarried head o% the %amil". he a$tual value o% the %amil" home shall not ex$eed, at the time o% its $onstitution, the amount o% P100,000 in urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas. he rule, ho*ever, is not absolute. he Aamil" 3ode, in %a$t, expressl" provides %or the %ollo*in# ex$eptions: 0rti$le 155. he %amil" home shall be exempt %rom exe$ution, %or$ed sale or atta$hment ex$ept: 814 824 Aor non?pa"ment o% taxes6 Aor debts in$urred prior to the $onstitution o% the %amil" home6

360 814 8)4 Aor debts se$ured b" a mort#a#e on the premises be%ore or a%ter su$h $onstitution6 and Aor debts due to laborers, me$hani$s, ar$hite$ts, builders, materialmen and others *ho have rendered servi$e or %urnished material %or the $onstru$tion o% the buildin#.

200) Go.e/ vs. 5ta. "es G.R. No. 132530, *cto+er 14, 2005 Facts: 'n June 1:, 19@H, ,ar" Josephine 3. <ome= and 7u#enia (o$orro 3. <ome=?(al$edo %iled a $omplaint %or dama#es be%ore the R 3 o% Pasi# a#ainst ,arietta dela 3ru= (ta. Ines alle#in# that the" are the $hildren o% the de$eased Puri%i$a$ion dela 3ru= <ome= *ho, durin# her li%etime, entrusted her ri$e land *ith an area o% 25,0@: s>uare meters lo$ated at Ca"ombon#, 9ueva Bi=$a"a, to ,arietta, to#ether *ith the rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 8 3 4 9o. ):0@2 $overin# said land, %or the latter to mana#e and supervise. ,ar" Josephine and (o$orro %urther alle#ed that the" have demanded %or an a$$ountin# o% the produ$e o% said ri$e land *hile under the mana#ement o% ,arietta, and %or the return o% the 3 to the propert", but the latter re%used, thus $ompellin# the sisters to %ile a $ivil $ase be%ore the Pasi# R 3. 'n Januar" 2), 19@9, the trial $ourt rendered Gud#ment a#ainst ,arietta orderin# her to deliver to ,ar" Josephine and (o$orro the o*ner-s $op" o% 3 9o. ):0@2 and to pa" P)0,000.00 as moral dama#es, P20,000.00 as a$tual or $ompensator" dama#es, P10,000.00 as exemplar" or $orre$tive dama#es, and P15,000.00 as attorne"-s %ees. 0%ter said Gud#ment be$ame %inal and exe$utor", a *rit o% exe$ution *as issued b" the Pasi# R 3, b" virtue o% *hi$h, a par$el o% land 8*ith improvements4 lo$ated in Ca"ombon#, 9ueva Bi=$a"a, *ith an area o% )12 s>uare meters, $overed b" 3 9o. ?5511) re#istered in the name o% ,arietta dela 3ru= (ta. Ines, *as levied upon b" Alaviano Cal#os, Jr., then Provin$ial (heri%% o% 9ueva Bi=$a"a, to satis%" the dama#es a*arded in the $ivil $ase. (aid propert" *as sold at a publi$ au$tion on 0u#ust 25, 1992 to ,ar" Josephine as the hi#hest bidder. he sale *as re#istered

36) *ith the Re#ister o% Deeds o% 9ueva Bi=$a"a on (eptember 1:, 1992. 'n Jul" 12, 1991, a $omplaint %or annulment o% said sale *as %iled be%ore the R 3 o% Ca"ombon#, 9ueva Bi=$a"a, b" .inahon (ta. Ines to#ether *ith 9oel, Roel, and Jannette, all named (ta. Ines, husband and $hildren o% ,arietta, respe$tivel", a#ainst ,ar" Josephine and (heri%% Alaviano Cal#os, Jr. on the #round that said house and lot sold durin# the publi$ au$tion is their %amil" residen$e, and is thus exempt %rom exe$ution under (e$tion 128a4, Rule 19 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, and under 0rti$le 155 o% the Aamil" 3ode. ss!e: Whether or not the sale o% the levied propert" is valid5 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 155 o% the Aamil" 3ode, the %amil" home shall be exempt %rom exe$ution, %or$ed sale, or atta$hment ex$ept %or, amon# other thin#s, debts in$urred prior to the $onstitution o% the %amil" home. In the $ase at bar, the house and lot o% respondents *as not $onstituted as a %amil" home, *hether Gudi$iall" or extraGudi$iall", at the time ,arietta in$urred her debts. Fnder prevailin# Gurispruden$e, it is deemed $onstituted as su$h onl" upon the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@, thus, the debts *ere in$urred be%ore the $onstitution o% the %amil" home. 20)) 2a"acop vs. (A G.R. No. 104)05, Nove.+er 13, 1992 Facts: (ometime in ,ar$h 19:2, Alorante ,ana$op and his *i%e 7ua$eli pur$hased a residential lot *ith a bun#alo* lo$ated in Kue=on 3it". he petitioner %ailed to pa" the sub?$ontra$t $ost pursuant to a deed o% assi#nment si#ned bet*een petitioner-s $orporation and private respondent AA 3ru= P 3o. he latter %iled a $omplaint %or the re$over" %or the sum o% mone" *ith a pra"er %or preliminar" atta$hment a#ainst the %ormer. 3onse>uentl", the $orrespondin# *rit %or the provisional remed" *as issued *hi$h tri##ered the atta$hment o% a par$el o% land in Kue=on 3it" o*ned b" the petitioner. he latter insists that the atta$hed propert" is a

369 %amil" home havin# been o$$upied b" him and his %amil" sin$e 19:2 and is there%ore exempt %rom atta$hment. ss!e: Whether or not, the subGe$t propert" is exempted %rom atta$hment. R!li"#: he residential house and lot o% petitioner be$ame a %amil" home b" operation o% la* under 0rti$le 151 o% the Aamil" 3ode. (u$h provision does not mean that said arti$le has a retroa$tive e%%e$t su$h that all existin# %amil" residen$es, petitioner-s in$luded, are deemed to have been $onstituted as %amil" homes at the time o% their o$$upation prior to the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode and hen$e%orth, are exempt %rom exe$ution %or the pa"ment o% obli#ations in$urred be%ore the e%%e$tivit" o% the Aamil" 3ode on 0u#ust 1, 19@@. (in$e petitioner in$urred debt in 19@:, it pre$eded the e%%e$tivit" o% the 3ode and his propert" is there%ore not exempt %orm atta$hment. 209) $a"eo vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 10)532, 2arc' 9, 1999 Facts: 'n (eptember 1@, 19)1, the subGe$t lands *ere sold to Pablito aneo *ho *as the %ather o% the petitioner. 'n Jul" 19, 1951, private respondent 0bdon <ili# %iled a $ivil $ase a#ainst petitioner %or re$over" o% propert" *herein the R 3 ruled in %avor o% <ili#. C" virtue o% the said de$ision, the said properties *ere sold at publi$ au$tion *here <ili# *as de$lared the hi#hest bidder. (heri%%s 3erti%i$ate o% (ale *as then exe$uted and *hi$h it *as re#istered in the Re#ister o% Deeds. he petitioners %ailed to redeem the said properties *ithin the re#lementar" period6 hen$e, Ainal Deed o% 3onve"an$e *as exe$uted in %avor o% <ili#. Fn/no*n to <ili#, petitioner $onstituted the house in >uestion as a %amil" home6 it *as then notari=ed and re#istered in the Re#ister o% Deeds. Petitioner also applied %or a %ree patent on the subGe$t land. ss!e: Whether or not, the subGe$t house *hi$h *as $onstituted as %amil" home is exempt %rom exe$ution.

300 R!li"#: In the $ase at bar, the appli$able la* is the 3ivil 3ode *here re#istration o% the de$laration o% a %amil" home is a prere>uisite. 9onetheless, the la* provides $ertain instan$es *here the %amil" home is not exempted %rom exe$ution, %or$ed sale or atta$hment. he trial $ourt %ound that on ,ar$h :, 19H), Pablo aneo $onstituted the house in >uestion, ere$ted on the land o% Plutar$o Ba$alares, as the %amil" home. he instrument $onstitutin# the %amil" home *as re#istered onl" on Januar" 2), 19HH. he mone" Gud#ment a#ainst Pablo aneo *as rendered on Januar" 2), 19H). hus, at that time *hen the IdebtI *as in$urred, the %amil" home *as not "et $onstituted or even re#istered. 3learl", petitionersN alle#ed %amil" home, as $onstituted b" their %ather is not exempt as it %alls under the ex$eption o% 0rti$le 2)1 824. 2)0) Fortale/a vs. Lapita" G.R. No. 10)2)), A!#!st 15, 2012 Facts: Petitioner spouses 3harlie and '%elia Aortale=a obtained a loan %rom spouses Rolando and 0mparo +apitan. 0s se$urit", spouses Aortale=a exe$uted on Januar" 2@, 199@ a Deed o% Real 7state ,ort#a#e over their residential house and lot. When spouses Aortale=a %ailed to pa" the indebtedness in$ludin# the interests and penalties, the $reditors applied %or extraGudi$ial %ore$losure o% the Real 7state ,ort#a#e be%ore the '%%i$e o% the 3ler/ o% 3ourt and 7x?'%%i$io (heri%%. he publi$ au$tion sale *as set on ,a" 9, 2001. 0t the sale, the $reditors- son Dr. Raul +apitan and his *i%e Rona emer#ed as the hi#hest bidders. hen, the" *ere issued a 3erti%i$ate o% (ale that *as re#istered *ith the Re#istr" o% Deeds o% 3alamba 3it". he one?"ear redemption period expired *ithout the spouses Aortale=a redeemin# the mort#a#e. hus, spouses +apitan exe$uted an a%%idavit o% $onsolidation o% o*nership and the re#istration o% the subGe$t propert" in their name. Despite o% this, the spouses Aortale=a re%used spouses +apitan-s %ormal demand to va$ate and surrender possession o% the subGe$t propert". ss!e: Whether or not, the 3ourt 0ppeals #ravel" erred in not holdin# that thepetitioners o% *ere

301 prevented b" the respondent %rom exer$isin# their ri#ht o% redemption over the%ore$losed propert" b" demandin# a redemption over the %ore$losed propert" b" demandin# aredemption pri$e o% a hi#hl" e>uitable and more than double the amount o% the %ore$losed propert", espe$iall" that the %ore$losed mort#a#ed propert" is the %amil" home o% petitioners and their$hildren5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt held that 0rti$le 155814 o% the Aamil" 3ode expli$itl" allo*s the %or$edsale o% a %amil" home I%or debts se$ured b" mort#a#es on the premises be%ore or a%ter su$h$onstitution.I In this $ase, there is no doubt that spouses Aortale=a voluntaril" exe$uted on Januar" 2@, 199@ a deed o% Real 7state ,ort#a#e over the subGe$t propert", *hi$h *as even notari=ed b" their ori#inal $ounsel o% re$ord. 0nd assumin# that the propert" is exempt %rom %or$ed sale, spousesAortale=a did not set up and prove to the (heri%% su$h exemption %rom %or$ed sale be%ore it *as soldat the publi$ au$tion. 2)1) De Asis vs. (A G.R. No. 12050), Fe+r!ar4 15, 1999 Facts: Bir$el 0ndres as le#al #uardian o% <len 3amil 0ndres de 0sis, %iled an a$tion %or maintenan$e and support a#ainst the alle#ed %ather ,anuel De 0sis *ho %ailed to provide support and maintenan$e despite repeated demands. Bir$el later on *ithdre* the $omplaint %or the reason that ,anuel denied paternit" o% the said minor and due to su$h denial6 it seems useless to pursue the said a$tion. he" mutuall" a#reed to move %or the dismissal o% the $omplaint *ith the $ondition that ,anuel *ill not pursue his $ounter $laim. .o*ever in 1995, Bir$el %iled a similar $omplaint a#ainst the alle#ed %ather, this time as the minor-s le#al #uardian. ,anuel interposed maxim o% res Gudi$ata %or the dismissal o% the $ase. .e maintained that sin$e the obli#ation to #ive support is based on existen$e o% paternit" bet*een the $hild and putative parent, la$/ thereo% ne#ates the ri#ht to $laim support.

302 ss!e: Whether or not, the ri#ht to re$eive support o% the respondent?minor *as barred *hen the %irst $omplaint %or maintenan$e and support *as *ithdre*. R!li"#: he ri#ht to #ive support $annot be renoun$ed nor $an it be transmitted to a third person. he ori#inal a#reement bet*een the parties to dismiss the initial $omplaint *as in the nature o% a $ompromise re#ardin# %uture support *hi$h is prohibited b" la*. With respe$t to ,anuel-s $ontention %or the la$/ o% %ilial relationship bet*een him and the $hild and a#reement o% Bir$el in not pursuin# the ori#inal $laim, the 3ourt held that existen$e o% la$/ thereo% o% an" %ilial relationship bet*een parties *as not a matter *hi$h the parties must de$ide but should be de$ided b" the 3ourt itsel%. While it is true that in order to $laim support, %iliation or paternit" must be %irst sho*n bet*een the parties, but the presen$e or la$/ thereo% must be Gudi$iall" established and de$laration is vested in the 3ourt. It $annot be le%t to the *ill or a#reement o% the parties. .en$e, the %irst dismissal $annot bar the %ilin# o% another a$tion as/in# %or the same relie% 8no %or$e and e%%e$t4. Aurthermore, the de%ense o% res Gudi$ata $laimed b" ,anuel *as untenable sin$e %uture support $annot be the subGe$t o% an" $ompromise or *aiver. 2)2) Fer"a"%e/ vs. Fer"a"%e/ G.R. No. 143256, A!#!st 2), 2001 Facts: Fpon the death o% their $hild, (pouses Dr, Jose Aernande= and <enerosa De Bene$ia adopted petitioner, Rodol%o Aernande=. 'n Jul" 20, 19@2, Dr. Aernande= died leavin# his estate to his *i%e and petitioner. In 19@9, petitioner and De Bene$ia divided and allo$ated the said estate throu#h Deed o% 7xtra?Gudi$ial Partition. 'n the same da", De Bene$ia exe$uted a Deed o% 0bsolute (ale to petitioner-s son, 7ddie Aernande=. Fpon learnin# the transa$tions, respondent %iled %or an a$tion to de$lare the transa$tion void. he R 3 then rendered in %avor o% the respondents and de$lared the said partition and sale null and void based on their %indin#s that petitioner Rodol%o *as neither a le#itimate nor a le#all" adopted $hild o% the spouses. +i/e*ise, the 30 a%%irmed rial 3ourt-s de$ision.

303

ss!e: Whether or not, petitioner has the ri#hts to the $onGu#al properties o% the de$eased spouses Aernande=5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt a#rees *ith the respondent $ourt *hen it %ound that petitioner Rodol%o %ailed to prove his %iliation *ith the de$eased spouses Aernande=. (u$h is a %a$tual issue *hi$h has been thorou#hl" passed upon and settled both b" the trial $ourt and the appellate $ourt. Aa$tual %indin#s o% the 3ourt o% 0ppeals are $on$lusive on the parties and not revie*able b" this 3ourt and the" $arr" even more *ei#ht*hen the 3ourt o% 0ppeals a%%irms the %a$tual %indin#s o% the trial $ourt. he 3ourt a$$ordin#l" %inds no $o#ent reason to disa#ree *ith the respondent $ourtNs evaluation o% the eviden$e presented. 3onsiderin# its %indin#s, petitioner Rodol%o is not a $hild b" nature o% the spouses Aernande= and not a le#al heir o% Dr. Jose Aernande=, thus the subGe$t deed o% extra?Gudi$ial settlement o% the estate o% Dr. Jose Aernande= bet*een <enerosavda. de Aernande= and Rodol%o is null and void inso%ar as Rodol%o is $on$erned pursuant to 0rt. 1105 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode *hi$h states: 0 partition *hi$h in$ludes a person believed to be an heir, but *ho is not, shall be void onl" *ith respe$t to su$h person.I 2)3) (o"cepcio" vs. (A GR No. 123450, A!#!st 31, 2005 Facts: <erardo 3on$ep$ion, the petitioner, and ,a. heresa 0lmonte, private respondent, *ere married in De$ember 19@9, and be#otten a $hild named Jose <erardo in De$ember 1990. he husband %iled on De$ember 1991, a petition to have his marria#e annulled on the #round o% bi#am" sin$e the *i%e married a $ertain ,ario <opiao sometime in De$ember 19@0, *hom a$$ordin# to the husband *as still alive and livin# in +o"ola .ei#hts, K3. rial $ourt ruled that the son *as an ille#itimate $hild and the $ustod" *as a*arded to the *i%e *hile <erardo *as #ranted visitation ri#hts. heresa ar#ued that there *as nothin# in the la* #rantin# visitation ri#hts in %avor o% the putative %ather o% an ille#itimate $hild!. (he %urther *anted to have the surname o% the son

304 $han#ed %rom 3on$ep$ion to 0lmonte!, her maiden name, sin$e an ille#itimate $hild should use his mother-s surname. 0%ter the re>uested oral ar#ument, trial $ourt reversed its rulin# and held the son to be not the son o% <erardo but o% ,ario. .en$e, the $hild *as a le#itimate $hild o% heresa and ,ario. ss!e: Whether or not, the petitioner has the ri#ht to impu#n the le#itima$" o% private respondent-s $hild5 R!li"#: 3onsiderin# that heresa-s marria#e *ith <erardo *as void ab initio, the latter never be$ame the %ormer-s husband and never a$>uired an" ri#ht to impu#n the le#itima$" o% the $hild. heresa-s $ontention *as to have his son be de$lared as not the le#itimate $hild o% her and ,ario but her ille#itimate $hild *ith <erardo. In this $ase, the mother has no ri#ht to disavo* a $hild be$ause maternit" is never un$ertain. .en$e, she is not permitted b" la* to >uestion the son-s le#itima$". Fnder 0rti$le 1H: o% the Aamil" 3ode, the $hild shall be $onsidered le#itimate althou#h the mother ma" have de$lared a#ainst its le#itima$" or ma" have been senten$ed as an adulteress!. .avin# the best interest o% the $hild in mind, the presumption o% his le#itima$" *as upheld b" the 3ourt. 0s a le#itimate $hild, the son shall have the ri#ht to bear the surnames o% ,ario and heresa, in $on%ormit" *ith the provisions o% 3ivil 3ode on surnames. <erardo $annot then impose his surname to be used b" the $hild, sin$e in the e"es o% the la*, the $hild is not related to him in an" *a". 2)4) A"#eles vs. 2a#la4a G.R. No. 15309), 5epte.+er 2, 2005 Facts: Petitioner Celen 0n#eles is the present *i%e o% de$eased, Aran$is$o 0n#eles, *ho died intestate, *hile respondent 0leli 0n#eles is the $hild o% the de$eased in his *i%e. Respondent see/s administration o% the estate o% de$eased but opposed b" the petitioner alle#in# that respondent is an ille#itimate $hild o% the de$eased. the the %irst the the

305 ss!e: Whether or not, the respondent is ille#itimate $hild o% the de$eased6 thus pre$ludin# her to be$ome the administratrix o% the intestate estate o% her %ather5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held thatrespondent is not ille#itimate $hild o% the de$eased. Fnder 0rti$le 1H) o% the Aamil" 3ode, it states that $hildren $on$eived or born durin# the marria#e o% the parents are le#itimate.! he issue o% le#itima$" $annot be atta$/ed $ollaterall". It also $orroborated b" the provision under 0rti$le 1:2 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h provides that %iliation o% le#itimate $hildren is established b": 14 the re$ord o% birth appearin# in the $ivil re#ister or a %inal Gud#ment6 or 24 an admission o% le#itimate %iliation in a publi$ do$ument or a private hand*ritten instrument and si#ned b" the parent $on$erned.In the absen$e o% the %ore#oin# eviden$e, the le#itimate %iliation shall be proved b":14 the open and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% a le#itimate $hild6 or 24 b" other means allo*ed b" the Rules o% 3ourt and spe$ial la*s. 2)5) 3ao vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. L749162, 3!l4 2), 19)0 Facts: 'n 2@ '$tober 19H@, petitioner Jani$e ,arie Jao, then a minor, represented b" her mother and #uardian? ad,litem 0rlene (al#ado, %iled a $ase %or re$o#nition and support a#ainst private respondent Peri$o B. Jao. he latter denied paternit" so the parties a#reed to a blood #roupin# test *hi$h *as in due $ourse $ondu$ted b" the 9ational Cureau o% Investi#ation 89CI4 upon order o% the trial $ourt. he result o% the blood #roupin# test indi$ated that Jani$e $ould not have been the possible o%%sprin# o% Peri$o B. Jao and 0rlene (. (al#ado. he trial $ourt initiall" %ound the result o% the tests le#all" $on$lusive but upon petitioner-s se$ond motion %or re$onsideration, it ordered a trial on the merits, a%ter *hi$h, Jani$e *as de$lared the $hild o% Jao, thus entitlin# her to his monthl" support. Respondent Jao appealed to the 3ourt o% 0ppeals, >uestionin# the trial $ourt-s %ailure to appre$iate the result o% the blood #roupin# tests. 0s there *as no sho*in# *hatsoever that there *as an" irre#ularit" or mista/e in the $ondu$t o% the tests, respondent %urther ar#ued that the result o%

306 the tests should have been $on$lusive and indisputable eviden$e o% his non?paternit". ss!e: Whether or not, the a$t o% respondent Jao o% $ohabitin# *ith the petitioner-s mother is tantamount to the %ormer-s re$o#nition5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that the mere a$ts o% the respondent in $ohabitin# *ith the petitioner-s mother, the attention #iven to her durin# her pre#nan$" and the %inan$ial assistan$e extended to her $annot over$ome the result o% the blood #roupin# test. .is a$ts $annot be evaluated as re$o#ni=in# the unborn petitioner as his o*n as the possession o% su$h status $annot be %ounded on $onGe$tures and presumptions, espe$iall" so that, respondent re%used to a$/no*led#e petitioner a%ter the latter-s birth. Respondent $annot be $ompelled to re$o#ni=ed petitioner based on para#raph 2 o% 0rti$le 2@1 in relation to 0rti$le 2@9 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode *hi$h provides: IWhen the $hild is in $ontinuous possession o% status o% a $hild o% the alle#ed %ather b" the dire$t a$ts o% the latter. 9or $an there be $ompulsor" re$o#nition under para#raphs 1 or ) o% said arti$le *hi$h states: xxx 814 When the $hild *as $on$eived durin# the time *hen the mother $ohabited *ith the supposed %ather6 8)4 When the $hild has in his %avor an" eviden$e or proo% that the de%endant is his %ather xxx. 2)6) 1a+iera vs. (atotal G.R. No. 13)493, 3!"e 15, 2000 Facts: Presenta$ion C. 3atotal %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% +anao del 9orte, Cran$h II, Ili#an 3it", a petition %or the $an$ellation o% the entr" o% birth o% eo%ista Cabiera in the 3ivil Re#istr" o% Ili#an 3it". Presenta$ion asserted that she is the onl" survivin# $hild o% the late spouses 7u#enio Cabiera and .ermo#ena 3ari;osa, *ho died on ,a" 2H, 199H and Jul" H, 1990 respe$tivel". Presenta$ion alle#ed that a bab" #irl *as delivered b" a Vhilot- on (eptember 20, 199H on, in the house o% the spouses, b" their housemaid Alora <uinto,*ho *ithout the /no*led#e o% the parents o% the petitioner, $aused the re#istrationLre$ordin# o% the %a$ts o% birth o% her $hild, b" simulatin# that she *as the $hild o%

300 the spouses 7u#enio, then H5 "ears old and .ermo#ena, then 5) "ears old, and made .ermo#ena Cabiera appear as the mother b" %or#in# her si#nature. Presenta$ion, *ho *as then %i%teen, said that she *itnessed the livebirth. eo%ista <uinto %iled a motion to dismiss on the #rounds that Nthe petition states no $ause o% a$tion, it bein# an atta$/ on the le#itima$" o% the respondent as the $hild o% the spouses 7u#enio Cabiera and .ermo#ena 3ari;osa Cabiera6 that plainti%% has no le#al $apa$it" to %ile the instant petition pursuant to 0rti$le 1:1 o% the Aamil" 3ode6 and %inall" that the instant petition is barred b" pres$ription in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 1:0 o% the Aamil" 3ode.N ss!es: 14 Whether or not the Presenta$ion has no le#al $apa$it" to %ile instant petition pursuant to arti$le 1:1 o% the Aamil" $ode5 24 Whether or not the spe$ial pro$eedin# on appeal improper and is barred b" pres$ription in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 1:05 R!li"#: he $ourt held that the respondent has the re>uisite standin# to initiate the present a$tion. (e$tion 2, Rule 1 o% the Rules o% 3ourt, provides that a real part" in interest is one I*ho stands to be bene%ited or inGured b" the Gud#ment in the suit, or the part" entitled to the avails o% the suit. 0rti$le 1:1 o% the Aamil" 3ode is not appli$able to the present $ase. 0 $lose readin# o% this provision sho*s that it applies to instan$es in *hi$h the %ather impu#ns the le#itima$" o% his *i%e-s $hild. he provision, ho*ever, presupposes that the $hild *as the undisputed o%%sprin# o% the mother. he present $ase alle#es and sho*s that .ermo#ena did not #ive birth to petitioner. In other *ords, the pra"er herein is not to de$lare that petitioner is an ille#itimate $hild o% .ermo#ena, but to establish that the %ormer is not the latterNs $hild at all. Beril", the present a$tion does not impu#n petitioner-s %iliation to (pouses 7u#enio and .ermo#ena Cabiera, be$ause there is no blood relation to impu#n in the %irst pla$e. he present a$tion involves the $an$ellation o% petitioner-s Cirth 3erti%i$ate6 it does not impu#n her le#itima$". hus, the pres$riptive period set %orth in 0rti$le 1:0 o% the Aamil" 3ode does not appl". Beril", the a$tion to nulli%" the Cirth 3erti%i$ate does not pres$ribe, be$ause it *as alle#edl" void ab initio.

30)

2)0) Li4ao, 3r. vs. $a"'oti7Li4ao GR No. 13)961, 2arc' 0, 2002 Facts: 3ora=on <ar$ia is le#all" married to but livin# separatel" %rom Ramon ,. Mulo %or more than 10 "ears at the time o% the institution o% the said $ivil $ase. 3ora=on $ohabited *ith the late William +i"ao %rom 19H5 up to the time o% William-s untimel" demise. he" lived to#ether in the $ompan" o% 3ora=on-s t*o $hildren %rom her subsistin# marria#e. 3ora=on #ave birth to William +i"ao, Jr. Durin# her three da" sta" at the hospital, William +i"ao visited and sta"ed *ith her and the ne* born bab", William, Jr. 8Cill"4. 0ll the medi$al and hospital expenses, %ood and $lothin# *ere paid under the a$$ount o% William +i"ao. William +i"ao even as/ed his $on%idential se$retar" to se$ure a $op" o% Cill"-s birth $erti%i$ate. .e li/e*ise instru$ted 3ora=on to open a ban/ a$$ount %or Cill" *ith the 3onsolidated Can/ and rust 3ompan" and #ave *ee/l" amounts to be deposited therein. William +i"ao *ould brin# Cill" to the o%%i$e, introdu$e him as his #ood loo/in# son and had their pi$tures ta/en to#ether. Respondents, on the other hand, painted a di%%erent pi$ture o% the stor". ss!e: Whether or not petitioner ma" impu#n his o*n le#itima$" to be able to $laim %rom the estate o% his supposed %ather William +i"ao5 R!li"#: 0 $hild born and $on$eived durin# a valid marria#e is presumed to be le#itimate. he presumption o% le#itima$" o% $hildren does not onl" %lo* out %rom a de$laration $ontained in the statute but is based on the broad prin$iples o% natural Gusti$e and the supposed virtue o% the mother. he presumption is #rounded in a poli$" to prote$t inno$ent o%%sprin# %rom the odium o% ille#itima$". (3 %inds no reason to dis$uss the su%%i$ien$" o% the eviden$e presented b" both parties on the petitioner-s $laim o% alle#ed %iliation *ith the late William +i"ao. In an" event, there is no $lear, $ompetent and positive eviden$e presented b" the petitioner that his alle#ed %ather had admitted or re$o#ni=ed his paternit".

309

2))) De 3es!s vs. ,state o- 3!a" Ga.+oa Di/o" G.R. No. 142)00, *cto+er 2, 2001 Facts: Danilo C. de Jesus and 3arolina 0ves de Jesus #ot married on 0u#ust 21, 19H) and durin# this marria#e, herein petitioners, Ja$>ueline 0. de Jesus and Jin/ie 3hristie 0. de Jesus *ere born. Jin/ie and Ja$>ueline are the le#itimate $hildren o% spouses Danilo and 3arolina. .o*ever, the" *ere a$/no*led#ed as ille#itimate $hildren b" Juan in a notari=ed do$ument. (ubse>uentl", on the %ollo*in# "ear, Juan <. Di=on died intestate leavin# behind a $onsiderable amount o% assets. hus, on the stren#th o% his notari=ed a$/no*led#ment, herein petitioners %iled a $omplaint %or Partition *ith Inventor" and 0$$ountin# o% the Di=on estate. 'n the other hand, herein respondents, the survivin# spouse and le#itimate $hildren o% the de$edent Juan <. Di=on, in$ludin# the $orporations o% *hi$h the de$eased *as a sto$/holder, sou#ht the dismissal o% the $ase. ss!e: Whether or not the petitioners are the a$/no*led#ed ille#itimate $hildren o% Juan5 R!li"#: he 3ourt held that the" are not the a$/no*led#ed ille#itimate $hildren o% Juan. he issue *hether the petitioners are indeed the a$/no*led#ed ille#itimate $hildren o% Juan $annot be adGudi$ated *ithout an a$tion havin# been %irst instituted to impu#n their le#itima$" as bein# the $hildren o% Danilo and 3arolina in a valid marria#e. Cased on the re$ords presented, the" sho*ed that petitioners *ere born durin# the marria#e o% their parents. he $erti%i$ates o% live birth *ould also identi%" Danilo de Jesus as bein# their %ather. 2)9. $i8i"# et al. vs. (o!rt o- Appeals GR No. 125901, 2arc' ), 2001 Facts: Petitioners are husband and *i%e. he" have six $hildren. he "oun#est is 7d#ardo iGin#, Jr., *ho *as born on 0pril 2:, 19@9, at the $lini$ o% mid*i%e and re#istered nurse +ourdes

3)0 Bas>ue= in (ta. 0na, ,anila. Petitioner Cienvenida served as the laundr"*oman o% private respondent 0n#elita Diamante, then a resident o% ondo, ,anila. In 0u#ust 19@9, 0n#elita *ent to her house to %et$h her %or an ur#ent laundr" Gob. (in$e Cienvenida *as on her *a" to do some mar/etin#, she as/ed 0n#elita to *ait until she returned. (he also le%t her %our?month old son, 7d#ardo, Jr., under the $are o% 0n#elita as she usuall" let 0n#elita ta/e $are o% the $hild *hile Cienvenida *as doin# laundr". When Cienvenida returned %rom the mar/et, 0n#elita and 7d#ardo, Jr., *ere #one. (pouses iGin# %iled a petition %or habeas $orpus in order to re$over their lost son %rom 0n#elita Diamante. he" presented *itnesses to substantiate their petition. Diamante, on the other hand, $laimed that she is the natural mother o% the $hild. ss!e: Whether or not (pouses iGin# $an %ile a petition %or habeas $orpus a#ainst 0n#elita5 R!li"#: he *rit o% habeas $orpus is the proper le#al remed" to enable parents to re#ain the $ustod" o% a minor $hild even i% the latter be in the $ustod" o% a third person o% his o*n %ree *ill. It is prose$uted %or the purpose o% determinin# the ri#ht o% $ustod" over a $hild. 0 $lose s$rutin" o% the re$ords o% this $ase reveals that the eviden$e presented b" Cienvenida is su%%i$ient to establish that John homas +ope= is a$tuall" her missin# son, 7d#ardo iGin#, Jr. .en$e, the spouses $an %ile a petition %or habeas $orpus to re#ain the $ustod" o% their minor $hild. 290) (a+ata"ia vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 124)14, *cto+er 21, 2004 Facts: Aloren$ia testi%ied that she *as the mother o% private respondent *ho *as born on (eptember 9, 19@2 and that she *as the one supportin# the $hild. (he re$ounted that a%ter her husband le%t her in the earl" part o% 19@1, she *ent to 7s$alante, 9e#ros '$$idental to loo/ %or *or/ and *as eventuall" hired as petitioner-s household help. It *as *hile *or/in# there as a maid that, on Januar" 2, 19@2, petitioner brou#ht her to Ca$olod 3it" *here the" $he$/ed in at the Bisa"an ,otel and had sexual inter$ourse. Petitioner promised to support her i% she #ot

3)1 pre#nant. hus, a petition %or re$o#nition and support *as %iled b" Aloren$ia Re#odos in behal% o% her minor son, private respondent 3amelo Re#odos. .o*ever, petitioner 3abatania denied the alle#ations and testi%ied that durin# the $ourse o% her emplo"ment, she *ould o%ten #o home to her husband in the a%ternoon and return to *or/ the %ollo*in# mornin#. Aloren$ia even told petitioner-s *i%e that the bab" *as b" her husband. ss!e: Whether or not 3amelo Re#odos is entitled to re$o#nition and support b" 3abatania5 R!li"#: he 3ourt has ruled that a hi#h standard o% proo% is re>uired to establish paternit" and %iliation. 0n order %or re$o#nition and support ma" $reate an un*holesome situation or ma" be an irritant to the %amil" or the lives o% the parties so that it must be issued onl" i% paternit" or %iliation is established b" $lear and $onvin$in# eviden$e. he %iliation o% le#itimate $hildren is established b" an" o% the %ollo*in#: 814 he re$ord o% birth appearin# in the $ivil re#ister or a %inal Gud#ment6 or 824 0n admission o% le#itimate %iliation in a publi$ do$ument or a private hand*ritten instrument and si#ned b" the parent $on$erned. In the absen$e o% the %ore#oin# eviden$e, the le#itimate %iliation shall be proved b": 814 he open and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% a le#itimate $hild6 or 824 0n" other means allo*ed b" the Rules o% 3ourt and spe$ial la*s. 0 $erti%i$ate o% live birth, as presented b" 3amelo Re#odos, purportedl" identi%"in# the putative %ather is not $ompetent eviden$e o% paternit" *hen there is no sho*in# that the putative %ather had a hand in the preparation o% said $erti%i$ate. he lo$al $ivil re#istrar has no authorit" to re$ord the paternit" o% an ille#itimate $hild on the in%ormation o% a third person. 0side %rom Aloren$ia-s sel%?servin# testimon" that petitioner rented a house %or her in (in#$an#, Ca$olod 3it", private respondent %ailed to present su%%i$ient proo% o% voluntar" re$o#nition.

291) ,ceta vs. ,ceta

3)2 G.R. No. 150030, 2a4 20, 2004 Facts: Petitioner Rosalina P. Bda. De 7$eta *as married to Isaa$ 7$eta sometime in 192H. Durin# the subsisten$e o% their marria#e, the" be#ot a son, Bi$ente. he $ouple a$>uired several properties, amon# *hi$h is the disputed propert". Isaa$ died in 19H: leavin# behind Rosalina and Bi$ente as his $ompulsor" heirs. In 19::, Bi$ente died. Durin# his li%etime, ho*ever, he sired ,aria heresa, an ille#itimate dau#hter. hus at the time o% his death, his $ompulsor" heirs *ere his mother, Rosalina, and ille#itimate $hild, ,aria heresa. In 1991, ,aria heresa %iled a $ase be%ore the R 3 o% Kue=on 3it" %or IPartition and 0$$ountin# *ith Dama#esI a#ainst Rosalina alle#in# that b" virtue o% her %ather-s death, she be$ame Rosalina-s $o?heir and $o?o*ner o% the propert". In her ans*er, Rosalina alle#ed that the propert" is paraphernal in nature and thus belon#ed to her ex$lusivel". ss!e: Whether or not the admission made b" Rosalina that heresa *as her #randdau#hter is enou#h to prove the %iliation *ith the de$eased5 R!li"#: he due re$o#nition o% an ille#itimate $hild in a re$ord o% birth, a *ill, a statement be%ore a $ourt o% re$ord, or in an" authenti$ *ritin# is, in itsel%, a $onsummated a$t o% a$/no*led#ement o% the $hild6 no %urther $ourt a$tion is re>uired. In %a$t, an" authenti$ *ritin# is treated not Gust a #round %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition6 it is in itsel% a voluntar" re$o#nition that does not re>uire a separate a$tion %or Gudi$ial approval. .o*ever, *hat *as tried be%ore the trial $ourt and 30 *as %or partition and a$$ountin# o% dama#es onl". he %iliation or $ompusolr" re$o#nition b" Bi$ente o% heresa *as never put in issue. In %a$t both a#reed in the trial $ourt-s pre trial order that heresa *as Rosalina-s #randdau#hter. he de$eased establishin# a$/no*led#ement o% his paternit" over heresa nevertheless si#ned the dul" authenti$ated birth $erti%i$ate sho*n b" the latter. .en$e, the 3ourt #ranted 1L@ share o% the land to heresa.

3)3

292) Al+erto vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. )6639, 3!"e 2, 1994 Facts: 'n (eptember 1@, 1951, a $hild named ,a. heresa 0lberto *as born out o% *edlo$/ to one 0urora Reniva *ith Juan ,. 0lberto as the alle#ed %ather. 0$$ordin#l", she used I0lbertoI as her surname in all her s$hool re$ords and $orresponden$es. 'n (eptember 1@, 19H:, Juan ,. 0lberto, %elled b" a bullet %rom an assassin-s #un, died intestate. .is *ido*, Molanda R. 0lberto, %iled a petition %or the administration o% his estate on Januar" 10, 19H@. 0%ter the publi$ation o% noti$es, she *as appointed as the administratrix o% the estate. 'n (eptember 15, 19:@, ,a. heresa 0lberto %iled a motion %or leave to intervene as oppositor and to re?open the pro$eedin#s pra"in# that she be de$lared to have a$>uired the status o% a natural $hild and as su$h, entitled to share in the estate o% the de$eased. ss!e: Whether or not ,a. heresa 0lberto is in $ontinuous possession o% the status o% a natural $hild o% the de$eased5 R!li"#: Provided under 0rt. 2@1824 o% the 3ivil 3ode, the %ather is obli#ed to re$o#ni=e the $hild as his natural $hild *hen the $hild is in $ontinuous possession o% status o% a $hild o% the alle#ed %ather b" the dire$t a$ts o% the latter or his %amil". While Juan did $ontra$t marria#e subse>uentl" *ith another *oman, it *as onl" too $lear that he had no intentions o% $losin# de%initivel" that $hapter in his li%e *hen he be#ot his %irst?born. Fnder 0rt. 2@5, the a$tion %or the re$o#nition o% natural $hildren ma" be brou#ht onl" durin# the li%etime o% the presumed parents. .o*ever, it is an ex$eption that i% the %ather or mother died durin# the minorit" o% the $hild, in *hi$h $ase the latter ma" %ile the a$tion be%ore the expiration o% %our "ears %rom the attainment o% his maGorit". Juan ,. 0lberto died durin# the minorit" o% petitioner, that is, on (eptember 1@, 19H: O the da" petitioner turned %ourteen. 0s su$h, petitioner had %our "ears %rom the time she rea$hed t*ent"?

3)4 one on (eptember 1@, 19:), *hi$h *as then the a#e o% maGorit", *ithin *hi$h to brin# the a%oresaid a$tion. hus, petitioner had until (eptember 1@, 19:@ *ithin *hi$h to %ile the a$tion %or re$o#nition, *hi$h *as %iled three da"s be%ore the expiration o% the %our?"ear period.

293) Rivero vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 141203, 2a4 10, 2005 Facts: Clinded b" his promises and assuran$es o% his love %or her, (hirle" a#reed to an amorous relationship *ith Cenito, (r. rue to his *ord, Cenito, (r. then provided her *ith a residential house and lot lo$ated in 3anaman, 3amarines (ur, *here the" $ohabited and resided6 he also %inan$ed her $olle#e edu$ation in mid*i%er". 'n '$tober 5, 1995, ICenedi$/ 0revalo D" 3hiao, Jr.,I the plainti%%, *as born, the produ$t o% the amorous relationship, *hom Cenito, (r. a$/no*led#ed as his son. .e also $ontinued to #ive (hirle" and their son %inan$ial and moral support. It *as also alle#ed that the D" 3hiao siblin#s re$o#ni=ed Cenedi$/ as the ille#itimate son o% their %ather. 'n 0u#ust 2:, 199H, Cenedi$/ 0revalo %iled a 3omplaint a#ainst ,ar" Jane D" 3hiao?De <u=man, Cenito D" 3hiao, Jr., and Censon D" 3hiao, in the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 34 o% 9a#a 3it", %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition as the ille#itimate $hild o% their %ather, Cenito D" 3hiao, (r., and %or the administration and partition o% his estate as the latter had died intestate on Jul" 2:, 1995. Cenedi$/ %iled a ,otion %or the appointment o% ,ar" Jane as #uardian ad litem o% her brothers. Cenedi$/ and ,ar" Jane later on %iled a I3ompromise 0#reement,I re$o#ni=in# Cenedi$/ as the ille#itimate son o% the latter-s de$eased %ather Cenito D" 3hiao, (r. ss!e: Whether or not ,ar" Jane $an re$o#ni=e Cenedi$/ as the ille#itimate son o% Cenito D" 3hiao, (r.5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 2015814 o% the 9e* 3ivil 3ode provides that no $ompromise upon the $ivil status o% persons shall be valid. 0s

3)5 su$h, paternit" and %iliation, or the la$/ o% the same, is a relationship that must be Gudi$iall" established, and it is %or the $ourt to determine its existen$e or absen$e. It $annot be le%t to the *ill or a#reement o% the parties. he $ompromise a#reement exe$uted b" ,ar" Jane and Cenedi$/, re$o#ni=in# the latter as the ille#itimate son o% the de$eased %ather, is null and void. (u$h re$o#nition, ho*ever, is ine%%e$tual, be$ause under the la*, the re$o#nition must be made personall" b" the putative parent and not b" an" brother, sister or relative.

294) &eople vs. 1a4a"i G.R. No. 120)94, *cto+er 3, 1996 Facts: 9ieto $har#ed the (#t. ,oreno Ca"ani, a member o% the Philippine 9ational Poli$e 8P9P4, *ith the $rime o% rape. 'n or about the 2@th da" o% June, 1992, in the 3it" o% +aoa#, Philippines, the a$$used ,oreno Ca"ani, b" means o% %or$e and intimidation *ith the point o% a #un, did then and there *il%ull", unla*%ull" and %eloniousl" have $arnal /no*led#e o% the $omplainant ,aria 7lena 9ieto, a#ainst her *ill. 0s su$h, (#t. ,oreno Ca"ani, see/s the reversal o% the Re#ional rial 3ourt, %indin# him #uilt" be"ond reasonable doubt o% the $rime o% rape and senten$in# him to su%%er the penalt" o% re$lusion perpetua, *ith all the a$$essor" penalties provided b" la*6 to indemni%" $omplainant ,aria 7lena 9ieto in the amount o% Ai%t" housand 8P50,000.004 Pesos, *ithout subsidiar" imprisonment in $ase o% insolven$"6 and to pa" the $osts. ss!e: Whether or not Ca"ani should re$o#ni=e and support his o%%sprin# *ith ,arie 7lena 9ieto5 R!li"#: he a$$used has indisputabl" admitted his paternit" o% the $omplainant-s $hild. 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode $on%ers parental authorit" over ille#itimate $hildren on the mother, and li/e*ise provides %or their entitlement to support in $on%ormit"

3)6 *ith the Aamil" 3ode. 0s su$h, there is no %urther need %or the prohibition a#ainst a$/no*led#ment o% the o%%sprin# b" an o%%ender *ho is married *hi$h *ould vest parental authorit" in him. here%ore, under arti$le 1)5 o% the Revised Penal 3ode, the o%%ender in a rape $ase *ho is married $an onl" be senten$ed to indemni%" the vi$tim and support the o%%sprin#, i% there be an". In the instant $ase then, the a$$used should also be ordered to support his ille#itimate o%%sprin#, ra$" Jhuen 9ieto, *ith ,arie 7lena 9ieto, but in li#ht o% 0rti$le 201 o% the Aamil" 3ode, the amount and terms thereo% to be determined b" the trial $ourt onl" a%ter due noti$e and hearin#. 295) &eople vs. 2a"a'a" G.R. No. 12), 150, 5epte.+er 29, 1999 Facts: he a$$used ,anuel ,anahan alias ,anin# *as $har#ed and $onvi$ted o% the $rime o% rape be%ore the R 3 and *as ordered to indemni%" the vi$tim, eresita ibi#ar a$/no*led#e and support ,elanie ibi#ar, the o%%sprin# o% his indis$retion. 0$$used denied havin# raped eresita and $laimed that the" *ere lovers. ,anuel %urther interposed as a de%ense that the prose$ution %ailed to prove his #uilt be"ond reasonable doubt and reiterates that he and the $omplainin# *itness *ere lovers, and that their sexual $on#ress *as $onsensual. ss!e: Whether or not ,anahan is $ompelled to re$o#ni=e the o%%sprin# o% the $rime5 R!li"#: In the instant $ase, the $omplainin# *itness ma" not have even %iled the rape $har#e had she not be$ome pre#nant. his 3ourt has ta/en $o#ni=an$e o% the %a$t that man" o% the vi$tims o% rape never $omplain or %ile $riminal $har#es a#ainst the rapists. he" pre%er to bear the i#nomin" in pain%ul silen$e rather than reveal their shame to the *orld and ris/ the rapists- ma/in# #ood their threats to /ill or hurt their vi$tims. 'n the matter o% a$/no*led#ment and support o% the $hild, a $orre$tion o% the vie* o% the $ourt a >uo is in order. 0rti$le 1)5 o% he Revised Penal 3ode provides that persons #uilt" o% rape shall also be senten$ed to Ia$/no*led#e the o%%sprin#, unless the la*

3)0 should prevent him %rom doin# so,I and Iin ever" $ase to support the o%%sprin#.I In the $ase be%ore us, $ompulsor" a$/no*led#ment o% the $hild ,elanie ibi#ar is not proper there bein# a le#al impediment in doin# so as it appears that the a$$used is a married man. 0s pronoun$ed b" this 3ourt in People v. <uerrero, Ithe rule is that i% the rapist is a married man, he $annot be $ompelled to re$o#ni=e the o%%sprin# o% the $rime, should there be an", as his $hild, *hether le#itimate or ille#itimate.I In an" $ase, *e sustain that part orderin# the a$$used to support the $hild as it is in a$$ordan$e *ith la*. 296) Nepo.!ce"o vs. Lope/ G.R. No. 1)125), 2arc' 1), 2010 Facts: Corn on June @, 1999, 0rhben$el $laimed to have been be#otten out o% an extramarital a%%air o% petitioner *ith 0ra$eli6 that petitioner re%used to a%%ix his si#nature on her 3erti%i$ate o% Cirth6 and that, b" a hand*ritten note dated 0u#ust :, 1999, petitioner nevertheless obli#ated himsel% to #ive her %inan$ial support in the amount o%P1,500 on the 15th and 10th da"s o% ea$h month be#innin# 0u#ust 15, 1999. 0r#uin# that her %iliation to petitioner *as established b" the hand*ritten note, 0rhben$el pra"ed that petitioner be ordered to: 814 re$o#ni=e her as his $hild, 824 #ive her support pendente lite in the in$reased amount o% P@,000 a month, and 814 #ive her ade>uate monthl" %inan$ial support until she rea$hes the a#e o% maGorit". ss!e: Whether or not the note *ould be su%%i$ient %or %iliation o% an ille#itimate $hild5 R!li"#: 9o. he note does not $ontain an" statement about 0rhben$el-s %iliation to petitioner. It is, there%ore, not $overed b" 0rti$le 1:2824 in relation to 0rti$le 1:5 o% the Aamil" 3ode *hi$h admits as $ompetent eviden$e o% ille#itimate %iliation an admission o% %iliation in a private hand*ritten instrument si#ned b" the parent $on$erned. 290) Rivera vs. @eirs o- Ro.!al%o <illa"!eva

3)) 496 5(RA 135 Facts: Petitioners? hal% brothers, hal% sister and $hildren o% the hal% brother o% the de$eased, Pa$ita <on=ales. Respondents are the .eirs o% Billanueva, represented b" ,el$hor. he" *ere allo*ed to be substitute %or Billanueva upon his death. he remainin# respondents are 0n#elina and her husband Bi$torino, are alle#edl" the dau#hter and son?in?la* o% the late Billanueva. Arom 192: until 19@0, <on=ales $ohabited *ith Billanueva *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e be$ause the latter *as married to 0manda ,usn#i *ho died in 19H1. In the $ourse o% their $ohabitation, the" a$>uired several properties in$ludin# the properties $ontested in this $ase. <on=ales died *ithout a *ill. In 19@0, Billanueva and 0n#elina exe$uted a deed o% extraGudi$ial partition *ith sale, that is, an extraGudi$ial settlement o% <on=alesestate $omprisin# a number o% the a%orementioned properties. In this do$ument, Billanueva, %or the amount o% P10,000, $onve"ed his interests in the estate to 0n#elina. +ater on, the Petitioners %iled a $ase %or partition o% <on=ales- estate and annulment o% titles and dama#es *ith the R 3 o% (to. Domin#o, 9ueva 7$iGa. ss!e: Whether or not respondent 0n#elina *as the ille#itimate dau#hter o% the de$edent <on=ales5 R!li"#: 9o. It *as held that a re$ord o% birth is merel" a prima %a$ie eviden$e o% the %a$ts $ontained therein. It is not $on$lusive eviden$e o% the truth%ulness o% the statements made there b" the interested parties. Respondent 0n#elina and her $o?de%endants in (D?@5: should have addu$ed eviden$e o% her adoption, in vie* o% the $ontents o% her birth $erti%i$ate. he re$ords, ho*ever, are bere%t o% an" su$h eviden$e. It *as not su%%i$ientl" established that respondent 0n#elina *as <on=ales- biolo#i$al dau#hter, nor even her adopted dau#hter. hus, she $annot inherit %rom <on=ales. 29)) (r!/ vs. (risto+al G.R. No. 140422, A!#!st 0, 2006

3)9 Facts: Petitioners 8,er$edes 3ristobal, 0nselmo 3ristobal, the heirs o% the de$eased (o$orro 3ristobal, and 7lisa 3ristobal?(i/at4 $laim that the" are the le#itimate $hildren o% Cuenaventura 3ristobal durin# his %irst marria#e to I#na$ia 3ristobal. 'n the other hand, private respondents 89orberto, Aloren$io, 7u%rosina and Jose, all surnamed 3ristobal4 are also the $hildren o% Cuenaventura 3ristobal resultin# %rom his se$ond marria#e to Donata 7nri>ue=. 'n 1@ June 192H, Cuenaventura 3ristobal pur$hased a par$el o% land *ith an area o% 515 s>uare meters lo$ated at 19) P. Parada (t., (ta. +u$ia, (an Juan, ,etro ,anila, $overed b" rans%er 3erti%i$ate o% itle 8 3 4 9o. 10@:@?2 8the subGe$t propert"4. (ometime in the "ear 1910, Cuenaventura 3ristobal died intestate. Petitioners sou#ht the annulment o% the Deed o% Partition exe$uted b" respondents on 2) Aebruar" 19)@. ss!e: Whether or not the ille#itima$" has been proven5 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 1:2 o% the Aamil" 3ode, he %iliation o% le#itimate $hildren is established b" an" o% the %ollo*in#: 14 re$ord o% birth appearin# in the $ivil re#ister or a %inal Gud#ment6 admission o% %iliation in a publi$ do$ument or a private hand*ritten instrument and si#ned b" the parent $on$erned6 or, in the absen$e o% an" o% the above, the open and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% a le#itimate or ille#itimate $hild, or an" other means allo*ed b" the Rules o% 3ourt and spe$ial la*s6 I0n" other means allo*ed b" the Rules o% 3ourt and (pe$ial +a*s,I ma" $onsist o% the $hild-s baptismal $erti%i$ate, a Gudi$ial admission, a %amil" bible in *hi$h the $hild-s name has been entered, $ommon reputation respe$tin# the $hild-s pedi#ree, admission b" silen$e, the testimon" o% *itnesses, and other /inds o% proo% o% admission under Rule 110 o% the Rules o% 3ourt. In the present $ase, the baptismal $erti%i$ates o% 7lisa, 15 0nselmo, 1H and the late (o$orro 1: *ere presented. Captismal $erti%i$ate is one o% the a$$eptable do$umentar" eviden$e to prove %iliation in a$$ordan$e *ith the Rules o% 3ourt and Gurispruden$e. In the $ase o% ,er$edes, *ho *as born on 11 Januar" 1909, she produ$ed a $erti%i$ation 1@ issued b" the '%%i$e o% the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% (an Juan, ,etro ,anila, attestin# to

390 the %a$t that re$ords o% birth %or the "ears 1901, 1909, 1912 to 1919, 19)0, 19)1, and 19)@ *ere all destro"ed due to ordinar" *ear and tear. Petitioners li/e*ise presented 7ster (antos as *itness *ho testi%ied that petitioners enGo"ed that $ommon reputation in the $ommunit" *here the" reside as bein# the $hildren o% Cuevaventura 3ristobal *ith his %irst *i%e. estimonies o% *itnesses *ere also presented to prove %iliation b" $ontinuous possession o% the status as a le#itimate $hild 299) &erla vs. 1ari"# G.R. No. 102401, Nove.+er 12, 2012 Facts: Respondent ,irasol Carin# 8,irasol4 and her then minor son, Rand" 8$olle$tivel" respondents4, %iled be%ore the R 3 a 3omplaintH %or support a#ainst 0ntonio. he" alle#ed in said 3omplaint that ,irasol and 0ntonio lived to#ether as $ommon?la* spouses %or t*o "ears. 0s a result o% said $ohabitation, Rand" *as born on 9ovember 11, 19@1. .o*ever, *hen 0ntonio landed a Gob as seaman, he abandoned them and %ailed to #ive an" support to his son. Respondents thus pra"ed that 0ntonio be ordered to support Rand". .o*ever, 0ntonio, *ho is no* married and has a %amil" o% his o*n, denied havin# %athered Rand". 0lthou#h he admitted to havin# /no*n ,irasol, he averred that she never be$ame his $ommon?la* *i%e nor *as she treated as su$h. ss!e: Whether or not Rand" is entitled to 0ntonio-s support5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt reiterated the eviden$e re>uired to prove %iliation o% le#itimate or ille#itimate $hildren, as stated in 0rti$le 1:5 in relation to 0rti$le 1:2 o% the Aamil" 3ode. hese are an" o% the %ollo*in#: 14 re$ord o% birth appearin# in the $ivil re#ister or a %inal Gud#ment6 admission o% %iliation in a publi$ do$ument or a private hand*ritten instrument and si#ned b" the parent $on$erned6 or, in the absen$e o% an" o% the above, the open and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% a le#itimate or ille#itimate $hild, or an" other means allo*ed b" the Rules o% 3ourt and spe$ial la*s, su$h as D90 testin#. he 3erti%i$ate o% +ive Cirth o% Rand" identi%"in# 0ntonio as the %ather has no

391 probative value to establish Rand"-s %iliation to 0ntonio sin$e the latter had not si#ned the same. Respondents %ailed to establish Rand"-s ille#itimate %iliation to 0ntonio. .en$e, the order %or 0ntonio to support Rand" has no basis. 300) $i8i"# vs. (o!rt o- Appeals GR No. 125901, 2arc' ), 2001 Facts: Petitioners are husband and *i%e. he" have six $hildren. he "oun#est is 7d#ardo iGin#, Jr., *ho *as born on 0pril 2:, 19@9, at the $lini$ o% mid*i%e and re#istered nurse +ourdes Bas>ue= in (ta. 0na, ,anila. Petitioner Cienvenida served as the laundr"*oman o% private respondent 0n#elita Diamante, then a resident o% ondo, ,anila. In 0u#ust 19@9, 0n#elita *ent to her house to %et$h her %or an ur#ent laundr" Gob. (in$e Cienvenida *as on her *a" to do some mar/etin#, she as/ed 0n#elita to *ait until she returned. (he also le%t her %our?month old son, 7d#ardo, Jr., under the $are o% 0n#elita as she usuall" let 0n#elita ta/e $are o% the $hild *hile Cienvenida *as doin# laundr". When Cienvenida returned %rom the mar/et, 0n#elita and 7d#ardo, Jr., *ere #one. (pouses iGin# %iled a petition %or habeas $orpus in order to re$over their lost son %rom 0n#elita Diamante. he" presented *itnesses to substantiate their petition. Diamante, on the other hand, $laimed that she is the natural mother o% the $hild. ss!e: Whether or not the spouses the $ustod" o% the $hild5 iGin# are entitled to re#ain

R!li"#: In this $ase, the minor-s identit" is $ru$ial in determinin# the propriet" o% the *rit sou#ht. hus, it must be resolved %irst *hether the 7d#ardo iGin#, Jr., $laimed b" Cienvenida to be her son, is the same minor named John homas +ope=, *hom 0n#elita insists to be her o%%sprin#. We must %irst determine *ho bet*een Cienvenida and 0n#elita is the minor-s biolo#i$al mother. 7viden$e must ne$essaril" be addu$ed to prove that t*o persons, initiall" thou#ht o% to be distin$t and separate %rom ea$h other, are indeed one and the same. (pouses iGin# *ere able to provide stron# pie$es o% eviden$e, establishin# that the minor in *hose behal% the

392 appli$ation %or the *rit is made is the person upon *hom the" have ri#ht%ul $ustod". It *as %ound that 0n#elita and omas +ope= *ere no lon#er $apable o% sirin# a son. ,oreover, the %a$ilit" and expertise in usin# D90 test %or identi%i$ation and parenta#e testin# ma" no* be utili=ed. he anal"sis is based on the %a$t that the D90 o% a $hildLperson has t*o $opies, one $op" %rom the mother and the other %rom the %ather. he D90 %rom the mother, the alle#ed %ather and $hild are anal"=ed to establish parenta#e. 7ventuall", as the appropriate $ase $omes, $ourts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibilit" o% D90 eviden$e. 301) A#!sti" vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 162501, 3!"e 15, 2005 Facts: In their $omplaint, respondents alle#ed that 0rnel $ourted Ae, a%ter *hi$h the" entered into an intimate relationship. 0rnel supposedl" impre#nated Ae on 9ovember 10, 1999. Despite 0rnel-s insisten$e on abortion, Ae de$ided other*ise and #ave birth to their $hild out o% *edlo$/ on 0u#ust 11, 2000. he bab"-s birth $erti%i$ate *as purportedl" si#ned b" 0rnel as the %ather. 0rnel shouldered the pre?natal and hospital expenses but later re%used Ae-s repeated re>uests %or ,artin-s support despite his ade>uate %inan$ial $apa$it" and even su##ested to have the $hild $ommitted %or adoption. 0rnel also denied havin# %athered the $hild. 'n Januar" 19, 2001, *hile Ae *as $arr"in# %ive?month old ,artin at the 3apitol .ills <ol% and 3ountr" 3lub par/in# lot, 0rnel sped o%% in his van, *ith the open $ar door hittin# Ae-s le#. his in$ident *as reported to the poli$e. In Jul" 2001, Ae *as dia#nosed *ith leu/emia and has, sin$e then, been under#oin# $hemotherap". 'n ,ar$h 5, 2002, Ae and ,artin sued 0rnel %or support. ss!e: Whether or not, D90 paternit" testin# $an be ordered in a pro$eedin# *ithout violatin# petitioner-s $onstitutional ri#ht to priva$" and ri#ht a#ainst sel%?in$rimination5 R!li"#: 0s enun$iated in iGin# v. 3ourt o% 0ppeals, the 3ourt opened the possibilit" o% admittin# the D90 as eviden$e in

393 parenta#e. (i#ni%i$antl", in People v. Matar, the $onstitutionalit" o% $ompulsor" D90 testin# has been upheld and admitted thereo% as eviden$e. In this $ase, there is no #rave abuse o% dis$retion on the part o% the publi$ respondent %or upholdin# the orders o% the trial $ourt *hi$h both denied the petitioner-s motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himsel% %or D90 testin#. 302) @errera vs. Al+a G.R. No. 14)220, 3!"e 15, 2005 Facts: In ,a" 199@, 0rmi 0lba, mother o% respondent?minor Rosendo 0lba %iled a suit a#ainst petitioner Rosendo .errera in order %or the latter to re$o#ni=e and support Rosendo as his biolo#i$al son. .errera denied 0rmi-s alle#ations. In 2000, the trial $ourt ordered the parties to under#o a 8deox"ribonu$lei$ a$id4D90 testin# to establish *hether or not .errera is indeed the biolo#i$al %ather o% Rosendo 0lba. .o*ever, .errera >uestioned the validit" o% the order as he $laimed that D90 testin# has not "et #arnered *idespread a$$eptan$e hen$e an" result there%rom *ill not be admissible in $ourt6 and that the said test is un$onstitutional %or it violates his ri#ht a#ainst sel%?in$rimination. ss!e: Whether or not, the D90 testin# is valid probative tool in this Gurisdi$tion to determine %iliation5 R!li"#: In 199:, the (upreme 3ourt ruled in Pe +im vs 30 that D90 testin# is not "et re$o#ni=ed in the Philippines and at the time *hen he >uestioned the order o% the trial $ourt, the prevailin# do$trine *as the Pe +im $ase6 ho*ever, in 2002 there is alread" no >uestion as to the a$$eptabilit" o% D90 test results as admissible obGe$t eviden$e in Philippine $ourts. his *as the de$isive rulin# in the $ase o% People vs BalleGo 820024. In the BalleGo 3ase, the (upreme 3ourt re$o#ni=ed D90 anal"sis as admissible eviden$e. 'n the other hand, as to determinin# the *ei#ht and probative value o% D90 test results, the (upreme 3ourt provides, *hi$h is no* /no*n as the BalleGo <uidelines. In assessin# the probative value o% D90 eviden$e, there%ore, $ourts should $onsider, amon# other thin#s, the %ollo*in# data: ho* the samples *ere $olle$ted, ho* the" *ere

394 handled, the possibilit" o% $ontamination o% the samples, the pro$edure %ollo*ed in anal"=in# the samples, *hether the proper standards and pro$edures *ere %ollo*ed in $ondu$tin# the tests, and the >uali%i$ation o% the anal"st *ho $ondu$ted the tests. In this $ase, the (upreme 3ourt de$lared that in %iliation $ases, be%ore paternit" in$lusion $an be had, the D90 test result must state that there is at least a 99.9W probabilit" that the person is the biolo#i$al %ather. .o*ever, a 99.9W probabilit" o% paternit" does not immediatel" result in the D90 test result bein# admitted as over*helmin# eviden$e. It does not automati$all" be$ome a $on$lusive proo% that the alle#ed %ather, in this $ase .errera, is the biolo#i$al %ather o% the $hild 80lba4. (u$h result is still disputable or re%utable eviden$e *hi$h $an be brou#ht do*n i% the BalleGo <uidelines are not $omplied *ith. 303) &eople vs. <alle8o G.R. No. 144656, 2a4 9, 2002 Facts: BalleGo *as $har#ed *ith rape *ith homi$ide. he prose$ution submitted D90 eviden$e #athered %rom the bod" o% the vi$tim *hi$h mat$hed the D90 pro%ile o% BalleGo. .e assailed the D90 anal"sis, $laimin# that it %ailed to sho* that the samples submitted %or D90 testin# *ere not $ontaminated a%ter havin# been soa/ed in smir$h" *ater be%ore bein# submitted to the laborator". ss!e: Whether or not, D90 anal"sis $an be validl" admitted as eviden$e in the 3ourt5 R!li"#: In this $ase, the (upreme 3ourt re$o#ni=ed D90 anal"sis as admissible eviden$e. he 3ourt also sets %orth #uidelines to determinin# the *ei#ht and probative value o% D90 test results. In assessin# the probative value o% D90 eviden$e, there%ore, $ourts should $onsider, amon# other thin#s, the %ollo*in# data: ho* the samples *ere $olle$ted, ho* the" *ere handled, the possibilit" o% $ontamination o% the samples, the pro$edure %ollo*ed in anal"=in# the samples, *hether the proper standards and

395 pro$edures *ere %ollo*ed in $ondu$tin# the tests, and the >uali%i$ation o% the anal"st *ho $ondu$ted the tests. 304) ,state o- *"# vs. Dia/ G.R. No. 101013, Dece.+er 10, 2000 Facts: In 9ovember 1991, Jin/", mother and #uardian o% respondent?minor, and Ro#elio #ot a$>uainted. his developed into %riendship and later blossomed into love. 0t this time, Jin/" *as alread" married to a Japanese national, .ase#a*a Jatsuo. Arom Januar" 199) to (eptember 199@, Jin/" and Ro#elio $ohabited and lived to#ether. Arom this live?in relationship, the" be#ot a $hild, respondent?minor Joanne RodGin Dia=, *hen Joanne *as born6 Ro#elio brou#ht Jin/" to the hospital and too/ minor Joanne and Jin/" home a%ter deliver". Ro#elio paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and provided %or all o% minor Joanne-s needs & re$o#ni=in# the $hild as his. .o*ever, in (eptember 199@, Ro#elio abandoned minor Joanne and Jin/", and stopped supportin# minor Joanne, %alsel" alle#in# that he is not the %ather o% the $hild. Despite Jin/"-s remonstran$e, Ro#elio %ailed and re%used and $ontinued %ailin# and re%usin# to #ive support %or the $hild and to a$/no*led#e her as his dau#hter, thus leadin# to the %ilin# o% the $omplaint. Durin# the penden$" o% the $ase, Ro#elio died and *as substituted in the $ase b" 7state o% Ro#elio 'n#. ss!e: Whether or not, the D90 anal"sis $an still be done to prove the %iliation o% respondent?minor despite the death o% Ro#elio5 R!li"#: he 3ourt ruled that throu#h D90 testin#, it $an be determine *ith reasonable $ertaint" the %iliation o% the $hild. Death o% the %ather does not ipso %a$to ne#ate the appli$ation o% D90 testin# %or as lon# as there are appropriate existin# biolo#i$al samples o% D90. ICiolo#i$al sampleI means an" or#ani$ material ori#inatin# %rom a personNs bod", even i% inanimate obGe$ts that is sus$eptible to D90 testin#. his in$ludes blood, saliva, and other bod" %luids, tissues, hairs and bones. he death o% Ro#elio $annot bar the $ondu$t o% D90 testin#. 0n" ph"si$al residue o% the lon# dead parent $ould be resorted to.

396

305) G!4 vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 163000, 5epte.+er 15, 2006 Facts: 'n '$tober 29, 1992, (ima Wei a/a Ru%ino <u" (usim died intestate leavin# an estate $onsistin# o% real and personal properties *orth Php 10,000,000.00. .is /no*n heirs are his survivin# spouse, (hirle" <u", and his $hildren, 7m", Jeanne, <eor#e and ,i$hael, all surnamed <u". 'n June 21, 199:, private respondent?minors Jaren and Jamille'anes Wei, the ille#itimate $hildren o% the de$edent and represented b" their mother Remedios 'anes, %iled a petition %or letters o% administration %or the intestate estate o% (ima Wei. 'n the other hand, petitioner and his $o?heirs pra"ed %or the dismissal o% the petition on the #rounds that private respondent-s $laim o% the de$edent-s estate had been paid, *aived, abandoned or other*ise extin#uished b" the si#nin# o% Remedios o% Release and Waiver o% 3laim. he R 3 denied the motion to dismiss o% the petitioner. 0lso, the 30 denied petitioner-s motion %or re$onsideration. ss!e: Whether or not, the ri#ht o% private respondent to see/ re$o#nition has pres$ribed5 R!li"#: In Bernabe v. Ale#o, ille#itimate $hildren, *ho *ere still minors at the time the Aamil" 3ode too/ e%%e$t and *hose putative parent died durin# their minorit", are #iven the ri#ht to see/ re$o#nition %or a period o% up to %our "ears %rom attainin# maGorit" a#e. his vested ri#ht *as not impaired or ta/en a*a" b" the passa#e o% the Aamil" 3ode. Fnder the Aamil" 3ode, *hen %iliation o% an ille#itimate $hild is established b" a re$ord o% birth appearin# in the $ivil re#ister or a %inal Gud#ment, or an admission o% %iliation in a publi$ do$ument or a private hand*ritten instrument si#ned b" the parent $on$erned, the a$tion %or re$o#nition ma" be brou#ht b" the $hild durin# his or her li%etime. .o*ever, i% the a$tion is based upon open and $ontinuous possession o% the status o% an ille#itimate $hild, or an" other means allo*ed b" the rules or spe$ial la*s, it ma" onl" be brou#ht durin# the li%etime o% the alle#ed parent.

390 It is $lear there%ore that the resolution o% the issue o% pres$ription depends on the t"pe o% eviden$e to be addu$ed b" private respondents in provin# their %iliation. .o*ever, it *ould be impossible to determine the same in this $ase as there has been no re$eption o% eviden$e "et. 306) 2arB!i"o vs. "ter.e%iate Appellate (o!rt G.R. No. 0200), 3!"e 20, 1994 Facts: Respondent Cibiana %iled a$tion %or Judi$ial De$laration o% Ailiation, 0nnulment o% Partition, (upport and Dama#es a#ainst 7uti>uio. Cibiana *as born on De$ember 192H alle#edl" o% 7uti>uio and in that time *as sin#le. It *as alle#ed that the ,ar>uino %amil" personall" /ne* her sin$e she *as hired as domesti$ helper in their household at Duma#uete. (he li/e*ise re$eived %inan$ial assistan$e %rom them hen$e6 she enGo"ed $ontinuous possession o% the status o% an a$/no*led#ed natural $hild b" dire$t and une>uivo$al a$ts o% the %ather and his %amil". he ,ar>uinos denied all these. Respondent *as not able to %inish presentin# her eviden$e sin$e she died on ,ar$h 19:9 but to sue %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition *as done *hile 7usti>uio *as still alive. .er heirs *ere ordered to substitute her as parties? plainti%%s. Petitioners, le#itimate $hildren o% 7uti>uio, assailed de$ision o% respondent $ourt in holdin# that the heirs o% Cibiana, alle#edl" a natural $hild o% 7uti>uio, $an $ontinue the a$tion alread" %iled b" her to $ompel re$o#nition and the death o% the putative parent *ill not extin#uish su$h a$tion and $an be $ontinued b" the heirs substitutin# the said de$eased parent. ss!e: Whether or not, the ri#ht o% a$tion %or a$/no*led#ment as a natural $hild be transmitted to the heirs5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt ruled that ri#ht o% a$tion %or the a$/no*led#ment as a natural $hild $an never be transmitted be$ause the la* does not ma/e an" mention o% it in an" $ase, not even as an ex$eption. he ri#ht is purel" a personal one to the natural $hild. he death o% putative %ather in an a$tion %or re$o#nition o% a natural $hild $annot be $ontinued b" the heirs o%

39) the %ormer sin$e the part" in the best position to oppose the same is the putative parent himsel%. 300) $a4a# vs. $a4a#7Gallor G.R. No. 1046)0, 2arc' 24, 200) Facts: 'n (eptember :, 2000, Ismael a"a#, alle#ed %ather o% respondent and the husband o% the petitioner, died intestate, leavin# behind t*o 824 real propertiesand a motor vehi$le. Petitioner alle#edl" promised to #ive respondent and her brothers P100,000.00 ea$h as their share in the pro$eeds o% the sale. .o*ever, petitioner onl" #ave ea$h o% them hal% the amount she promised. 'n Januar" 15, 2001, respondent a"a#?<allor, %iled a petition %or the issuan$e o% letters o% administration over the estate o% Ismael a"a#. Respondent alle#ed in the petitionthat she is one o% the three 814 ille#itimate $hildren o% the late Ismael a"a# and 7ster 3. 0n#eles. Respondent %urther averred petitioner has $aused the annotation o% a%%idavit exe$uted b" Ismael a"a# de$larin# the properties to be the paraphernal properties o% petitioner. he latter alle#edl" intends to dispose o% these properties to the respondent-s and her brotherspreGudi$e.Petitioner opposed the petition, assertin# that she pur$hased the properties subGe$t o% the petition usin# her o*n mone". Petitioner there%ore pra"ed %or the dismissal o% the suit be$ause respondent %ailed to state a $ause o% a$tion. ss!e: Whether or not, respondent ille#itimate %iliation $annot be established be$ause o% Ismael a"a#-s death5 R!li"#: In this $ase, respondent had not been #iven the opportunit" to present eviden$e to sho* *hether she had been voluntaril" re$o#ni=ed and a$/no*led#ed b" her de$eased %ather be$ause o% petitioner-s opposition to her petition and motion %or hearin# on a%%irmative de%enses. here is no *a" to determine i% her petition is a$tuall" one to $ompel re$o#nition *hi$h had alread" been %ore$losed b" the death o% her %ather, or *hether indeed she has a material and dire$t interest to maintain the suit b" reason o% the de$edent-s voluntar" a$/no*led#ment or

399 re$o#nition o% her ille#itimate %iliation. here%ore, the alle#ation that respondent is an ille#itimate $hild o% the de$edent su%%i$es even *ithout %urther statin# that she has been so re$o#ni=ed or a$/no*led#ed. 0 motion to dismiss on the #round o% %ailure to state a $ause o% a$tion in the $omplaint h"potheti$all" admits the truth o% the %a$ts alle#ed therein. 0ssumin# the %a$t alle#ed to be true, i.e., that respondent i s the de$edent-s ille#itimate $hild, her interest in the estate as su$h *ould de%initel" be material and dire$t. he appellate $ourt *as, there%ore, $orre$t in allo*in# the pro$eedin#s to $ontinue, rulin# that, respondent still has the dut" to prove the alle#ation 8that she is an ille#itimate $hild o% the de$edent4, Gust as the petitioner has the ri#ht to disprove it, in the $ourse o% the settlement pro$eedin#s.! 30)) 1rio"es vs. 2i#!el G.R. No. 156343, *cto+er 1), 2004 Facts: Joe" Criones 8petitioner4 a%%irmed that the minor ,i$hael Jevin Pineda is his ille#itimate son *ith respondent +oreta ,i#uel. .e *as born in Japan on (eptember 1:, 199H as eviden$ed b" his Cirth 3erti%i$ate. +oreta is no* married to a Japanese national and is presentl" residin# in Japan. 'n 9ovember ), 199@ he $aused the minor $hild to be brou#ht to the Philippines so that he $ould ta/e $are o% him and send him to s$hool. In the s$hool "ear 2000?2001, the petitioner enrolled him at the nurser" s$hool o% Clessed 0n#els +.0. ($hool, In$. in 3aloo$an 3it", *here he %inished the nurser" $ourse. .is parents, *ho are both retired and re$eivin# monthl" pensions, assisted him in ta/in# $are o% the $hild. 'n ,a" 2, 2001, respondents ,ari$el and Aran$is$a ,i#uel $ame to the house o% the petitioner in 3aloo$an 3it" on the pretext that the" *ere visitin# the minor $hild and re>uested that the" be allo*ed to brin# the said $hild %or re$reation at the (, Department store. he" promised him that the" *ill brin# him ba$/ in the a%ternoon, to *hi$h the petitioner a#reed. .o*ever, the respondents did not brin# him ba$/ as promised b" them. .e *ent several times to respondent ,ari$el at an=a, u#ue#arao 3it" but he *as in%ormed that the $hild is *ith the latter-s mother

400 at Catal .ei#hts, (antia#o 3it". When he *ent there, respondent Aran$is$a told him that ,i$hael Jevin is *ith her dau#hter at u#ue#arao 3it". .e then sou#ht the assistan$e o% the poli$e and the Department o% (o$ial Wel%are to lo$ate his son and to brin# him ba$/ to him, but all his e%%orts *ere %utile. .en$e, on ,ar$h 5, 2002, he %iled a Petition %or .abeas 3orpus a#ainst the ,i#uels, to obtain $ustod" o% his minor $hild. Issue: Whether or not Joe", as the natural %ather, ma" be denied the $ustod" and parental $are o% his o*n $hild in the absen$e o% the mother *ho is a*a"5 Rulin#: .avin# been born outside a valid marria#e, the minor is deemed an ille#itimate $hild o% petitioner and Respondent +oreta. 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines expli$itl" provides that Iille#itimate $hildren shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authorit" o% their mother, and shall be entitled to support in $on%ormit" *ith this 3ode.I his is the rule re#ardless o% *hether the %ather admits paternit". here is thus no >uestion that Respondent +oreta, bein# the mother o% and havin# sole parental authorit" over the minor, is entitled to have $ustod" o% him. (he has the ri#ht to /eep him in her $ompan". (he $annot be deprived o% that ri#ht, and she ma" not even renoun$e or trans%er it Iex$ept in the $ases authori=ed b" la*.I 9ot to be i#nored in 0rti$le 211 o% the Aamil" 3ode is the $aveat that, #enerall", no $hild under seven "ears o% a#e shall be separated %rom the mother, ex$ept *hen the $ourt %inds $ause to order other*ise. 'nl" the most $ompellin# o% reasons, su$h as the mother-s un%itness to exer$ise sole parental authorit", shall Gusti%" her deprivation o% parental authorit" and the a*ard o% $ustod" to someone else. In the past, the %ollo*in# #rounds have been $onsidered ample Gusti%i$ation to deprive a mother o% $ustod" and parental authorit": ne#le$t or abandonment, unemplo"ment, immoralit", habitual drun/enness, dru# addi$tion, maltreatment o% the $hild, insanit", and a%%li$tion *ith a $ommuni$able disease. Cearin# in mind the *el%are and the best interest o% the minor as the $ontrollin# %a$tor *e hold that the 30 did not err in a*ardin#

401 $are, $ustod", and $ontrol o% the $hild to Respondent +oreta. here is no sho*in# at all that she is un%it to ta/e $har#e o% him. 309) Rep!+lic vs. A+a%illa G.R. No. 133054, 3a"!ar4 2), 1999 Facts: <erson 0badilla and +u=viminda 3elestino have been livin# to#ether as husband and *i%e *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e. Durin# their $ohabitation, +u=viminda be#ot t*o $hildren, 7merson and Ra%ael. In the 3erti%i$ates o% Cirth o% these t*o $hildren, the" *ere re#istered *ith the surname 0badilla! and the name o% their %ather *as entered as .erson! 0badilla. ,oreover, the entr" in the date and pla$e o% marria#e o% the $hildren-s parents appeared as June 19, 19@: at Din#ras, Ilo$os 9orte. herea%ter, an 0mended Petition %or 3orre$tionL3an$ellation o% 7ntries dated Aebruar" 5, 199: *as %iled b" <erson 0badilla, +u=viminda 3elestino and their t*o minor $hildren, 7merson and Ra%ael, *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt o% +aoa# 3it", Cran$h H5, see/in# to have the %ollo*in# $orre$tions made in the 3erti%i$ates o% Cirth o% 7merson and Ra%ael: x x x x x x x x x a. orderin# that the entries as to the date and pla$e o% marria#e o% petitioner <7R('9 R. 0C0DI++0 and +FEBI,I9D0 ,. 37+7( I9' appearin# in the $erti%i$ates o% birth o% 7merson 3. 0badilla and Ra%ael 3. 0badilla be deleted6 b. orderin# that the entr" as to the %irst name o% petitioner <erson 3. 0badilla appearin# in the $erti%i$ates o% birth o% 8si$4 7merson 3. 0badilla and Ra%ael 3. 0badilla be $orre$ted as <7R('96 xxx xxx x x x! Durin# the hearin# o% the petition, both <erson 0badilla and +u=viminda 3elestino testi%ied that the" are not "et married to ea$h other despite bearin# t*o $hildren. ss!e: Whether or not the $hildren $an use the surname o% their %aher5

402

R!li"#: here is no dispute that 7merson 3. 0badilla and Ra%ael 3. 0badilla are ille#itimate $hildren, their parents, (pouses .erson and +u=viminda not bein# married to ea$h other even up to no*. Durin# the birth o% 7merson and Ra%ael, the Aamil" 3ode *as alread" the #overnin# la* and 0rti$le 1:H o% *hi$h expli$itl" provides as %ollo*s that ille#itimate $hildren shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authorit" o% their mother, and shall be entitled to support in $on%ormit" *ith the Aamil" 3ode. he le#itime o% ea$h ille#itimate $hild shall $onsist o% one hal% o% the le#itime o% a le#itimate $hild.! hus, as ille#itimate $hildren, 7merson and Ra%ael should bear the surname o% their mother, +u=viminda 3elestino. Resultin#l", *ith the $orre$tion o% the entries in their birth $erti%i$ates *hi$h deleted the entr" in the date and pla$e o% marria#e o% parents, the $orrespondin# $orre$tion *ith respe$t to their surname should have also been made and $han#ed to 3elestino, their mother-s surname. 310) <erceles vs. &osa%a G.R. No. 1590)5, April 20, 2000 Facts: (ometime in 19@H, ,aria 3larissa Posada met a $lose %amil" %riend, eo%isto I. Ber$eles, ,a"or o% Pandan. .e subse>uentl" o%%ered 3larissa a Gob, *hi$h the latter a$$epted and she *or/ed as a $asual emplo"ee in the ma"or-s o%%i$e startin# on (eptember 1, 19@H. (he a$$ompanied Ber$eles, *ith %our other $ompanions to +e#aspi 3it" to attend a seminar on to*n plannin# %rom 9ovember 10 to 15, 19@H. 'n 9ovember 11, 19@H, at around 11:00 a.m., Ber$eles %et$hed 3larissa %rom I," Crother-s Pla$eI *here the seminar *as bein# held on the pretext that the" *ould have lun$h at ,a"on .otel *ith their $ompanions *ho had #one ahead. When the" rea$hed the pla$e her $ompanions *ere no*here. 0%ter petitioner ordered %ood, he started ma/in# amorous advan$es on her. (he pani$/ed, ran and $loseted hersel% inside a $om%ort room *here she sta"ed until someone /no$/ed. 0%raid, she /ept the in$ident to hersel%.

403 'n De$ember 22, 19@H, she *ent to Bira$, 3atanduanes, to %ollo* up %unds %or barangay proGe$ts. 0t around 11:00 a.m. the same da", she *ent to 3atanduanes .otel on instru$tions o% Ber$eles *ho as/ed to be brie%ed on the pro#ress o% her mission. he" met at the lobb" and he led her upstairs be$ause he said he *anted the brie%in# done at the restaurant at the upper %loor. Instead, ho*ever, he opened a hotel room door, led her in, and suddenl" embra$ed her, as he told her that he *as unhapp" *ith his *i%e and *ould Idivor$eI her an"time. .e also $laimed he $ould appoint her as a muni$ipal development $oordinator. (he su$$umbed to his advan$es. Cut a#ain she /ept the in$ident to hersel%. (ometime in Januar" 19@:, *hen she missed her menstruation, she said she *rote petitioner that she %eared she *as pre#nant. ss!e: Whether or not the %iliation o% Berna 0i=a Posada as the ille#itimate $hild o% petitioner *as proven5 R!li"#: 0 perusal o% the 3omplaint be%ore the R 3 sho*s that althou#h its $aption states IDama#es $oupled *ith (upport Pendente -ite,I 3larissa-s averments therein, her meetin# *ith petitioner, his o%%er o% a Gob, his amorous advan$es, her sedu$tion, their tr"sts, her pre#nan$", birth o% her $hild, his letters, her demand %or support %or her $hild, all $learl" establish a $ase %or re$o#nition o% paternit". We have held that the due re$o#nition o% an ille#itimate $hild in a re$ord o% birth, a *ill, a statement be%ore a $ourt o% re$ord, or in an" authenti$ *ritin# is, in itsel%, a $onsummated a$t o% a$/no*led#ement o% the $hild, and no %urther $ourt a$tion is re>uired. In %a$t, an" authenti$ *ritin# is treated not Gust a #round %or $ompulsor" re$o#nition6 it is in itsel% a voluntar" re$o#nition that does not re>uire a separate a$tion %or Gudi$ial approval. 311) &eople vs. Gla+o G.R. No. 12924), Dece.+er 0, 2001 Facts: 'ne a%ternoon in '$tober, 1991, 21?"ear old vi$tim ,ila +obri$o, a mental retardate, and her 11?"ear old sister, Judith, *ere summoned b" Justiniano <labo, their maternal un$le, to his

404 house. .e told them to *ash the $lothes o% his *i%e. 0%ter the t*o sisters %inished their $hore, he ordered Judith to *ash the dishes in the nearb" $ree/, about 200 meters a*a" %rom his house. When Judith *as #one, he dra##ed ,ila %rom the "ard, *here she *as han#in# the *ashed $lothes, into the house. .e pushed her to the %loor and made her lie do*n. .e undressed the vi$tim, and then he inserted his penis into her private or#an and made push and pull motions. ,ila *as overpo*ered b" his brute stren#th. (he shouted %or help, but there *ere no nei#hbors nearb". (uddenl", it started to rain hard, so Judith had to run ba$/ to the house %or shelter. (he *ent dire$tl" under the house, *hi$h *as elevated 1 %eet above the #round. While underneath the house, she heard someone $r"in# on the %loor above. (he loo/ed up throu#h the bamboo %loor and sa* her un$le on top o% her elder sister. Coth *ere na/ed. Judith *ent to the /it$hen, and she sa* his penis as he stood up and raised his brie%s. he t*o #irls *ent home silentl". he" did not sa" a *ord about the in$ident. .o*ever, the vi$tim be$ame pre#nant as a result o% the rape, and a%ter six months her $ondition $ould no lon#er be $on$ealed. (everino +obri$o, ,ila-s %ather, $on%ronted her, but she said nothin#. It *as her sister, Judith, *ho told their %ather that their un$le raped ,ila. (everino brou#ht ,ila to the poli$e and %iled a $omplaint %or rape be%ore the ,uni$ipal rial 3ourt. ss!e: Whether or not the a$$used should be made to re$o#ni=e and support his o%%sprin# *ith the rape vi$tim5 R!li"#: 3on$ernin# the a$/no*led#ement and support o% the o%%sprin# o% rape, 0rti$le 1)5 o% the Revised Penal 3ode provides %or three /inds o% $ivil liabilit" that ma" be imposed on the o%%ender: a4 indemni%i$ation, b4 a$/no*led#ement o% the o%%sprin#, unless the la* should prevent him %rom so doin#, and $4 in ever" $ase to support the o%%sprin#. With the passa#e o% the Aamil" 3ode, the $lassi%i$ation o% a$/no*led#ed natural $hildren and natural $hildren b" le#al %i$tion *as eliminated and the" no* %all under the spe$ie o% ille#itimate $hildren. (in$e parental authorit" is vested b" 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode upon the

405 mother and $onsiderin# that an o%%ender senten$ed to reclusion perpetua automati$all" loses the po*er to exer$ise parental authorit" over his $hildren, no %urther positive a$t is re>uired o% the parent as the la* itsel% provides %or the $hild-s status.! .en$e, a$$used?appellant should onl" be ordered to indemni%" and support the vi$tim-s $hild. .o*ever, the amount and terms o% support shall be determined b" the trial $ourt a%ter due noti$e and hearin# in a$$ordan$e *ith 0rti$le 201 o% the Aamil" 3ode. 312) $o"o# vs. (A G.R. No. 122906, Fe+r!ar4 0, 2002 Facts: In 19@9, Dinah C. ono# #ave birth to <ardin Aaith Celarde ono#, her ille#itimate dau#hter *ith 7d#ar B. Da#uimol. 0 "ear a%ter the birth o% <ardin, Dinah le%t %or the F(0 *here she %ound a *or/ as a re#istered nurse. <ardin *as le%t in the $are o% her %ather and paternal #randparents. 7d#ar %iled a petition %or #uardianship over <ardin in the R 3 o% Kue=on 3it". In ,ar$h 1992, the $ourt #ranted the petition and appointed 7d#ar as le#al #uardian o% <ardin. In ,a" 1992, Dinah %iled a petition %or relie% %rom Gud#ment. (he averred that she learned o% the Gud#ment onl" on 0pril 1, 1992. he trial $ourt set aside its ori#inal Gud#ment and allo*ed Dinah to %ile her opposition to 7d#arNs petition. 7d#ar, in turn, %iled a motion %or re$onsideration. In 1991, Dinah %iled a motion to remand $ustod" o% <ardin to her. In 199), the trial $ourt issued a resolution den"in# 7d#arNs motion %or re$onsideration and #rantin# DinahNs motion %or $ustod" o% <ardin. Dinah moved %or the immediate exe$ution o% the resolution. 7d#ar, thus, %iled a petition %or $ertiorari be%ore the 3ourt o% 0ppeals. he 30 dismissed the petition %or la$/ o% merit. Fpon motion %or re$onsideration, 30 modi%ied its de$ision and let <ardin remain in the $ustod" o% 7d#ar until other*ise adGud#ed. Dinah appealed to the (upreme 3ourt, $ontendin# that she is entitled to the $ustod" o% the minor, <ardin, as a matter o% la*. Airst, as the mother o% <ardin Aaith, the la* $on%ers parental authorit" upon her as the mother o% the ille#itimate minor. (e$ond, <ardin $annot be separated %rom her sin$e she had not, as o% then, attained the a#e o% seven. 7mplo"in# simple

406 arithmeti$ ho*ever, it appears that <ardin Aaith is no* t*elve "ears old. ss!e: Who is entitled to the temporar" $ustod" o% the $hild pendin# the #uardianship pro$eedin#5 R!li"#: In $ustod" disputes, it is axiomati$ that the paramount $riterion is the *el%are and *ell?bein# o% the $hild. (tatute sets $ertain rules to assist the $ourt in ma/in# an in%ormed de$ision. Inso%ar as ille#itimate $hildren are $on$erned, 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that ille#itimate $hildren shall be under the parental authorit" o% their mother. +i/e*ise, 0rti$le 211 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that RnSo $hild under seven "ears o% a#e shall be separated %rom the mother, unless the $ourt %inds $ompellin# reasons to order other*ise.! It *ill be observed that in both provisions, a stron# bias is $reated in %avor o% the mother. his is espe$iall" evident in 0rti$le 211 *here it ma" be said that the la* presumes that the mother is the best $ustodian. 0s explained b" the 3ode 3ommission: he #eneral rule is re$ommended in order to avoid man" a tra#ed" *here a mother has seen her bab" torn a*a" %rom her. 9o man $an sound the deep sorro*s o% a mother *ho is deprived o% her $hild o% tender a#e. he ex$eption allo*ed b" the rule has to be %or $ompellin# reasons! %or the #ood o% the $hild. Aor these reasons, even a mother ma" be deprived o% the $ustod" o% her $hild *ho is belo* seven "ears o% a#e %or $ompellin# reasons.! Instan$es o% unsuitabilit" are ne#le$t, abandonment, unemplo"ment and immoralit", habitual drun/enness, dru# addi$tion, maltreatment o% the $hild, insanit", and a%%li$tion *ith a $ommuni$able illness. I% older than seven "ears o% a#e, a $hild is allo*ed to state his pre%eren$e, but the $ourt is not bound b" that $hoi$e. he $ourt ma" exer$ise its dis$retion b" disre#ardin# the $hild-s pre%eren$e should the parent $hosen be %ound to be un%it, in *hi$h instan$e, $ustod" ma" be #iven to the other parent, or even to a third person. In the $ase at bar, *e are bein# as/ed to rule on the temporar" $ustod" o% the minor, <ardin Aaith, sin$e it appears that the pro$eedin#s %or #uardianship be%ore the trial $ourt have not been

400 terminated, and no pronoun$ement has been made as to *ho should have %inal $ustod" o% the minor.

313) 2osses#el% vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 111455, Dece.+er 23, 199) Facts: 'n De$ember 2, 19@9, petitioner ,arissa 0l%aro ,osses#eld, sin#le, 11 "ears o% a#e, #ave birth to a bab" bo" at the ,edi$al 3it" <eneral .ospital, ,andalu"on#, ,etro ,anila. It *as the third time that she delivered a $hild. he presumed %ather, one 7lea=ar (iriban 3alasan, )2 "ears old, a la*"er, married, and a resident o% @H12 (an Jose (t. <uadalupe 9uevo, ,a/ati, ,etro ,anila, si#ned the birth $erti%i$ate o% the $hild as the in%ormant, indi$atin# therein the $hild-s %irst name as Jonathan, middle name as ,osses#eld, and last name as 3alasan. Coth the presumed %ather, 7lea=ar (. 3alasan and the mother ,arissa 0. ,osses#eld, a$$omplished the dorsal side o% the $erti%i$ate o% live birth statin# that the in%ormation $ontained therein *ere true and $orre$t. In addition, la*"er 3alasan exe$uted an a%%idavit admittin# paternit" o% the $hild. 'n De$ember H, 19@9, due to the re%usal o% the person in $har#e at the hospital to pla$in# the presumed %ather-s surname as the $hild-s surname in the $erti%i$ate o% live birth, petitioner himsel% submitted the $erti%i$ate to the o%%i$e o% the lo$al $ivil re#istrar o% ,andalu"on#, %or re#istration. 'n De$ember 2@, 19@9, the muni$ipal treasurer o% ,andalu"on#, as o%%i$er in $har#e o% the o%%i$e o% the lo$al $ivil re#istrar, reGe$ted the re#istration on the basis o% 3ir$ular 9o. ), dated '$tober 11, 19@@, o% the 3ivil Re#istrar <eneral, providin# that under 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines, ille#itimate $hildren born on or a%ter 0u#ust 1, 19@@, shall use the surname o% their mother. 'n 9ovember :, 1990, la*"er 7lea=ar (. 3alasan %iled *ith the Re#ional rial 3ourt, Pasi#, Cran$h H9, a petition %or mandamus to $ompel the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar o% ,andalu"on#, ,etro ,anila, to

40) re#ister the $erti%i$ate o% live birth o% his alle#ed ille#itimate son usin# his surname. ss!e: Whether or not mandamus lies to $ompel the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar to re#ister a $erti%i$ate o% live birth o% an ille#itimate $hild usin# the alle#ed %ather-s surname *here the latter admitted paternit"5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode o% the Philippines provides that ille#itimate $hildren shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authorit" o% their mother, and shall be entitled to support in $on%ormit" *ith the Aamil" 3ode.! his is the rule re#ardless o% *hether or not the %ather admits paternit". 3onse>uentl", the +o$al 3ivil Re#istrar $orre$tl" re%used to re#ister the $erti%i$ate o% live birth o% petitioner-s ille#itimate $hild usin# the surname o% the alle#ed %ather, even *ith the latter-s $onsent. '% $ourse, the putative %ather, thou#h a mu$h married man, ma" le#all" adopt his o*n ille#itimate $hild. In $ase o% adoption, the $hild shall be $onsidered a le#itimate $hild o% the adopter, entitled to use his surname. he Aamil" 3ode has e%%e$tivel" repealed the provisions o% 0rti$le 1HH o% the 3ivil 3ode o% the Philippines #ivin# a natural $hild a$/no*led#ed b" both parents the ri#ht to use the surname o% the %ather. he Aamil" 3ode has limited the $lassi%i$ation o% $hildren to le#itimate and ille#itimate, thereb" eliminatin# the $ate#or" o% a$/no*led#ed natural $hildren and natural $hildren b" le#al %i$tion. 3onse>uentl", *e rule that mandamus *ill not lie to $ompel the lo$al $ivil re#istrar to re#ister the $erti%i$ate o% live birth o% an ille#itimate $hild usin# the %ather-s surname, even *ith the $onsent o% the latter. Mandamus does not lie to $ompel the per%orman$e o% an a$t prohibited b" la*. 314) 5ilva vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 114042, 3!l4 10, 1990

409

Facts: 3arlitos 7. (ilva, a married businessman, and (u=anne . <on=ales, an unmarried lo$al a$tress, $ohabited *ithout the bene%it o% marria#e. he union sa* the birth o% t*o $hildren: Ramon 3arlos and Ri$a 9atalia. 9ot ver" lon# a%ter, a ri%t in their relationship sur%a$ed. It be#an, a$$ordin# to (ilva, *hen <on=ales de$ided to resume her a$tin# $areer over his vi#orous obGe$tions. he assertion *as >ui$/l" re%uted b" <on=ales *ho $laimed that she, in %a$t, had never stopped *or/in# throu#hout their relationship. 0t an" rate, the t*o eventuall" parted *a"s. he instant $ontrovers" *as spa*ned, in Aebruar" 19@H, b" the re%usal o% <on=ales to allo* (ilva, in apparent $ontravention o% a previous understandin#, to have the $hildren in his $ompan" on *ee/ends. (ilva %iled a petition %or $ustodial ri#hts over the $hildren be%ore the Re#ional rial 3ourt 8R 3!4, Cran$h :@, o% Kue=on 3it". he petition *as opposed b" <on=ales *ho averred that (ilva o%ten en#a#ed in I#amblin# and *omani=in#I *hi$h she %eared $ould a%%e$t the moral and so$ial values o% the $hildren. ss!e: Whether or not (ilva $an have visitation ri#hts over his $hildren5 R!li"#: here is, despite a dearth o% speci-ic le#al provisions, enou#h re$o#nition on the i"'ere"t and "at!ral ri#'t o% parents over their $hildren. 0rti$le 150 o% the Aamil" 3ode expresses that I8%4amil" relations in$lude those x x x 824 8b4et*een parents and $hildren6 x x x.I 0rti$le 209, in relation to 0rti$le 220, o% the 3ode states that it is t'e "at!ral ri#'t a"% %!t4 o- pare"ts and those exer$isin# parental authorit" to, amon# other thin#s, /eep $hildren in their $ompan" and to #ive them love and a%%e$tion, advi$e and $ounsel, $ompanionship and understandin#. he 3onstitution itsel% spea/s in terms o% the N"at!ral a"% pri.ar4 ri#'tsO o% parents in the rearin# o% the "outh. here is nothin# $on$lusive to indi$ate that these provisions are meant to solel" address themselves to le#itimate relationships. Indeed, althou#h in var"in# de#rees, the la*s on support and su$$essional ri#hts, b" *a" o% examples, $learl" #o be"ond the le#itimate members o% the %amil" and so expli$itl"

410 en$ompass ille#itimate relationships as *ell. hen, too, and most importantl", in the de$laration o% "!llit4 o% marria#es, a situation that presupposes a void or inexistent marria#e, 0rti$le )9 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides %or appropriate visitation ri#hts to parents *ho are not #iven $ustod" o% their $hildren. here is no doubt that in all $ases involvin# a $hild, his interest and *el%are is al*a"s the paramount $onsideration. he 3ourt shares the vie* o% the (oli$itor <eneral, *ho has re$ommended due $ourse to the petition, that a %e* hours spent b" petitioner *ith the $hildren, ho*ever, $ould not all be that detrimental to the $hildren. (imilarl", *hat the trial $ourt has observed is not entirel" *ithout merit6 thus: I he alle#ations o% respondent a#ainst the $hara$ter o% petitioner, even assumin# as true, $annot be ta/en as su%%i$ient basis to render petitioner an un%it %ather. he %ears expressed b" respondent to the e%%e$t that petitioner shall be able to $orrupt and de#rade their $hildren on$e allo*ed to even temporaril" asso$iate *ith petitioner is but the produ$t o% respondentNs un%ounded ima#ination, %or no man, bere%t o% all moral persuasions and #oodness, *ould ever ta/e the trouble and expense in institutin# a le#al a$tion %or the purpose o% seein# his ille#itimate $hildren. It $an Gust be ima#ined the deep sorro*s o% a %ather *ho is deprived o% his $hildren o% tender a#es.I he 3ourt appre$iates the apprehensions o% private respondent and their *ell?meant $on$ern %or the $hildren6 nevertheless, it seems unli/el" that petitioner *ould have ulterior motives or undue desi#ns more than a parent-s natural desire to be able to $all on, even i% it *ere onl" on brie% visits, his o*n $hildren. he trial $ourt, in an" $ase, has seen it %it to understandabl" provide this pre$autionar" measure, i.e., Iin no $ase 8$an petitioner4 ta/e out the $hildren *ithout the *ritten $onsent o% the mother.I 315) Davi% vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No. 1111)0, Nove.+er 16, 1995 Facts: Daisie David *or/ed as a (e$retar" o% businessman Ramon Billar, the latter is a married man and has %our $hildren. Daisie and Billar had an intimate relationship *hi$h had resulted

411 to three $hildren. hou#h the relationship be$ame /no*n to Billar-s *i%e, the $hildren *ere %reel" brou#ht to their house as the" *ere easil" a$$epted b" his le#al %amil". In the summer o% 1991, Billar as/ed Daisie to allo* 3hristopher to #o to a %amil" va$ation in Cora$a", Daisie a#reed, ho*ever a%ter the trip, Billar re%used to #ive ba$/ the $hild. Daisie then %iled a petition %or "abeas corpus on behal% o% 3hristian. he trial $ourt ruled in %avor o% Daisie ho*ever, the 3ourt o% 0ppeals reversed de$ision $ontendin# that, habeas $orpus is not proper in the $ase sin$e $ustod" o% a minor $hild $ontemplate a situation *here parents are married to ea$h other but *ere separated. ss!e: Whether or 9ot the %ather $an have the $ustod" o% the $hild5 R!li"#: hou#h 3hristopher J. is an ille#itimate $hild sin$e at the time o% his $on$eption, his %ather, private respondent Ramon R. Billar *as married to another *oman other than his mother. 0s su$h, pursuant to 0rt. 1:H o% the Aamil" 3ode, 3hristopher J. is under the parental authorit" o% his mother, the herein petitioner, *ho, as a $onse>uen$e o% su$h authorit", is entitled to have $ustod" o% him. (in$e, admittedl", petitioner has been deprived o% her ri#ht%ul $ustod" o% her $hild b" private respondent, she is entitled to issuan$e o% the *rit o% "abeas corpus. 0lso under 0rt. 211 o% the Aamil" 3ode, Ino $hild under seven "ears o% a#e shall be separated %rom the mother unless the $ourt %inds $ompellin# reasons to order other*ise. 316) De 5a"tos vs. A"#eles G.R. No. 105619, Dece.+er 12, 1995 Facts: Dr. 0ntonio De (antos married (o%ia Cona on Aebruar" :, 19)16 a dau#hter *as born out o% their union, herein Petitioner. .o*ever, their relationship be$ame strained to the brea/in# point. herea%ter %ell in love *ith a %ello* Do$tor 3on$hita ala#. 0ntonio then sou#ht a divor$e de$ree in 9evada, ho*ever, su$h is not re$o#ni=e in the Philippines. In 1959, 0ntonio then married 3on$hita in Japan *hi$h out o% their union produ$ed eleven $hildren. In 19H:, (o%ia died. ,onths +ater, 0ntonio and 3on$hita

412 $ontra$ted marria#e under Philippine +a*s. In 19@1, 0ntonio died intestate leavin# properties *ith an estimated value o% 15 million Pesos. 3on$hita then as/ed the $ourt %or the issuan$e o% letters o% 0dministaration in her %avor *ith the settlement o% her husband-s estate. .er Petition *as then #ranted. 0%ter six "ears o% intestate pro$eedin#s, petitioner %iled a motion ar#uin# that respondent-s $hildren *ere ille#itimate and that onl" natural $hildren $an be le#itimi=ed. hese *ere admitted b" respondent a%%irmin# that all her 3hildren *ith 0ntonio *ere born *hen the latter-s marria#e to (o%ia is still subsistin#. ss!e: Whether or 9ot respondent-s 3hildren *ith 0ntonio $an be +e#itimi=e5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 2H9 o% the 3ivil 3ode expressl" states that onl" natural 3hildren $an be le#itimated. 3hildren born outside *edlo$/ o% parents, *ho, at the time o% the $on$eption o% the %ormer, *ere not dis>uali%ied b" an" impediment to marr" ea$h other, are natural. .en$e, the $hild-s parents should have not dis>uali%ied %rom marr"in# ea$h other. In the $ase, all the $hildren o% 0ntonio and 3on$hita *ere born *hen the %ormer-s marria#e *ith (o%ia is still subsistin#, thus all their 3hildren are ille#itimate. It %ollo*s that the $hildren be#otten o% su$h union $annot be $onsidered natural $hildren proper %or at the time o% their $on$eption, their parents *ere dis>uali%ied %rom marr"in# ea$h other due to the impediment o% a prior subsistin# marria#e. 310) A+a%illa vs. $a+ilira" A.2. No. 2$37927016G 249 5(RA 44) Facts: 'n (eptember @, 2012, ,a. Cl"th 0badilla, the 3ler/ o% 3ourt assi#ned in Respondent-s Jud#e 3ourt, %iled a $omplaint a#ainst the latter on the #round o% #ross immoralit", de$eit%ul $ondu$t and $orruption o% unbe$omin# a Gud#e. In the veri%ied $omplaint, petitioner $ontends that respondent Gud#e abiliran $ontra$ted marria#e to one Pris$illa Ca"ba"an *hile le#all" married to eresita Can=uela, hen$e Ci#amous. abiliran also %alsel" represented himsel% as sin#le in the 3ontra$t o% marria#e and invo/e that he $ohabited *ith Ca"ba"an %or Aive "ears.

413 7arlier, his *i%e %iled a $omplaint %or abandonin# his %amil" and $ohabited *ith another *oman named +eonora Pillarion. It *as also alle#ed in the $omplaint that he $aused to re#ister his three ille#itimate $hildren *ith Pris$illa Ca"ba"an to be +e#itimate and amon# others. ss!e: Whether or 9ot the +e#itimation o% his three $hildren is valid5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 2H9 o% the 3ivil 3ode provides that onl" natural $hildren $an be le#itimated in 3ondition *here these $hildren are born outside o% the *edlo$/ *here their parents has no impediment in marr"in# ea$h other. In the $ase, the three $hildren *ere born *hen respondent-s marria#e to eresita is still subsistin#. 0nd even to the subse>uent marria#e o% 0ntonio to Pris$illa in 19@H, these three $hildren $annot be le#itimated nor in an" *a" be $onsidered le#itimate sin$e at the time the" *ere born, there *as an existin# valid marria#e bet*een respondent and his %irst *i%e, eresita C. abiliran. 31)) Rep!+lic vs. (o!rt o- Appeals G.R. No.100)35, *cto+er 26, 1993 Facts: 9atural born F( 3iti=en James 0nthon" .u#hes married +enita ,abuna" .u#hes *ho *as later naturali=ed in that $ountr". 'n June 29, 1990, the spouses Gointl" %iled a petition to adopt three nie$e and nephe* o% +enita all surnamed ,abuna" *ho had been livin# *ith them. he Parents o% the 3hildren $onsented to the adoption. he R 3 #ranted the petition. Petitioner then %iled a petition %or revie* on 3ertiorari on the alle#ed #round that private respondents are not allo*ed to adopt under Philippine +a*. ss!e: Whether or 9ot Private respondents are allo*ed to adopt under Philippine +a*5 R!li"#: Fnder 0rti$le 1@) o% the Aamil" 3ode, James 0nthon" .u#hes is not allo*ed to adopt, *hile +enita is allo*ed. .o*ever, in the $ase at ben$h, the petition %iled states that the spouse Gointl" *ished to adopt. .o*ever, 0rti$le 1@5 is appli$able solel"

414 on the *ord Gointl" b" the husband and *i%e. .o*ever, this must be in $on#ruen$e *ith arti$le 1@). Cut 0rti$le 29 o% Presidential De$ree H01 provides that i% one o% the spouses is an alien husband and *i%e ma" Gointl" adopt, other*ise, the adoption shall not be allo*ed. he la* is ho*ever silent *hen both spouses *ere aliens.

319) Rep!+lic vs. $ole%a"o G.R. No. 94140, 3!"e ), 1994 Facts: 0lvin 3louse a natural born $iti=en o% F( married 7vel"n, a Ailipino in 'lon#apo 3it" in June ), 19@1. 7vel"n therea%ter be$ame a 9aturali=ed 3iti=en o% F( in <uam. 'n Aebruar" 21, 1990, spouses 0lvin and 7vel"n 3louse %iled a petition to adopt (olomon Joseph 0l$ala, the "oun#er brother o% 7vel"n. (olomon and her ,other both $onsented %or the adoption. he petition *as later #ranted. he '(< then %iled a revie* $ontendin# that (pouses 3louse is not allo*ed to adopt under Philippine +a*. ss!e: Whether or 9ot (pouses are allo*ed to adopt under Philippine +a*5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 1@) para#raph 1, provides that 0lien are not allo*ed to adopt, ex$ept that he is a %ormer Ailipino $iti=en *ho see/s to adopt a relative b" $onsan#uinit", 'ne *ho see/s to adopt the le#itimate $hild o% his or her Ailipino spouse and 'ne *ho is married to a Ailipino $iti=en and see/s to adopt Gointl" *ith his or her spouse a relative b" $onsan#uinit" o% the latter, thus the (pouses are barred %rom adoptin# sin$e there $an be no >uestion that private respondent 0lvin 0. 3louse is not >uali%ied to adopt (olomon Joseph 0l$ala under an" o% the ex$eptional $ases in the provision o% 0rti$le 1@) par. 1. In the %irst pla$e, he is not a %ormer Ailipino $iti=en but a natural born $iti=en o% the Fnited (tates o% 0meri$a. In the se$ond pla$e, (olomon Joseph 0l$ala is neither his relative b" $onsan#uinit" nor the le#itimate $hild o% his spouse. In the third pla$e, *hen private respondents spouses 3louse Gointl" %iled the petition to adopt (olomon Joseph 0l$ala on

415 Aebruar" 21, 1990, private respondent 7vel"n 0. 3louse *as no lon#er a Ailipino $iti=en. (he lost her Ailipino $iti=enship *hen she *as naturali=ed as a $iti=en o% the Fnited (tates in 19@@. 320) Rep!+lic vs. Alarco" <er#ara G.R. No. 95551, 2arc' 20, 1990 Facts: (amuel is 9atural 3iti=en o% F( and a member o% 0ir Aor$e based in 3lar/ Pampan#a. .is *i%e Rosalina is a Ailipino *ho be$ame a naturali=ed 0meri$an 3iti=en. 'n June 25, 1990, (pouses (amuel and Rosalina Due D"e %iled a petition to adopt the minors 0lvin and ,ari$el Due, the "oun#er siblin#s o% Rosalina. he lo*er $ourt #ranted the petition, ho*ever the petitioner %iled a petition to revie* $ontendin# that the spouses are dis>uali%ied %rom adoptin#. ss!e: Whether or 9ot the spouse are >uali%ied to 0dopt under Philippine +a*s5 R!li"#: 0rti$le 1@) para#raph 1, provides that 0lien are not allo*ed to adopt, ex$ept that 8a4 he is a %ormer Ailipino $iti=en *ho see/s to adopt a relative b" $onsan#uinit", 8b4 'ne *ho see/s to adopt the le#itimate $hild o% his or her Ailipino spouse and 8$4 'ne *ho is married to a Ailipino $iti=en and see/s to adopt Gointl" *ith his or her spouse a relative b" $onsan#uinit" o% the latter. In the $ase, (amuel Robert D"e, Jr. *ho is an 0meri$an and, there%ore, an alien is dis>uali%ied %rom adoptin# the minors ,ari$el and 0lvin Due be$ause he does not %all under an" o% the three a%ore>uoted ex$eptions laid do*n b" the la*. .e is not a %ormer Ailipino $iti=en *ho see/s to adopt a relative b" $onsan#uinit". 9or does he see/ to adopt his *i%eNs le#itimate $hild. 0lthou#h he see/s to adopt *ith his *i%e her relatives b" $onsan#uinit", he is not married to a $ilipino citi!en, %or Rosalina *as alread" a naturali=ed 0meri$an at the time the petition *as %iled, thus ex$ludin# him %rom the $overa#e o% the ex$eption. he la* here does not provide %or an alien *ho is married to a former $ilipino citi!en see/in# to adopt Gointl" *ith his or her spouse a relative b" $onsan#uinit", as an ex$eption to the #eneral rule that aliens ma" not adopt. 0rti$le 1@5 also is inappli$able sin$e

416 Rosalina D"e $annot adopt her brother and sister %or the la* mandates Goint adoption b" husband and *i%e, subGe$t to ex$eptions. 321) " Re= A%optio" o- 2ic'elle a"% 2ic'ael Li. G.R. No. 16)992, 2a4 21, 2009 Facts: ,inona +im,an 'ptometrist b" Pro%ession married Primo +im on June 21, 19:), the" *ere $hildless. When a $ertain +u$ia 0"uban entrusted t*o $hildren t*o them, the" re#istered them to be their 3hildren usin# the (urname +im. 'n 9ovember 2@, 199@, Primo +im died. In 2000, ,inona married 0n#el 'lario, an 0meri$an 3iti=en. In 2002, ,inona %iled a petition to adopt ,i$helle *ho *as then 25 "ears old and married and ,i$hael *ho *as then 1@ "ears old, availin# the amnest" provided b" Republi$ 0$t @552 to those *ho simulated the birth o% a $hild. he trial $ourt dismissed petition $ontendin# that sin$e petitioner had remarried, petitioner should have %iled a petition Gointl" *ith her ne* husband sin$e se$tion : o% arti$le III o% R.0. @552 and 0rti$le 1@5 o% the Aamil" 3ode provides that Goint adoption o% .usband and Wi%e is mandator" and that mere $onsent o% husband *ould not su%%i$e the re>uirements provided b" la* in adoption. ss!e: Whether or 9ot petitioner *ho remarried $an validl" adopt the $hildren5 R!li"#: he (upreme 3ourt dis$ussed that at the time the petitions %or adoption *ere %iled, petitioner had alread" remarried. (he %iled the petitions b" hersel%, *ithout bein# Goined b" her husband 'lario. he re$ourse then is to a%%irm the trial $ourt-s de$ision in den"in# the petitions %or adoption. (in$e it is in violation o% 0rti$le 1@5 and se$tion : o% 0rti$le 1 o% R.0. @552 *hi$h provides that Goint adoption b" the husband and the *i%e is mandator". his is in $onsonan$e *ith the $on$ept o% Goint parental authorit" over the $hild *hi$h is the ideal situation. 0s the $hild to be adopted is elevated to the level o% a le#itimate $hild, it is but natural to re>uire the spouses to adopt Gointl". 0nd that 0n#el 'lario must $ompl" *ith the %ollo*in# re>uirements to su%%i$e the adoption su$h as: 814 he must prove that his $ountr"

410 has diplomati$ relations *ith the Republi$ o% the Philippines6 824 he must have been livin# in the Philippin