Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Valdez v. Republic (Presumption of Death)

    Uploaded by

    Roberts Sam
    79 views1 page
    - Petitioner Angelita Valdez sought a declaration of presumptive death of her first husband Sofio so that her second marriage to Virgilio Reyes would be considered valid. - The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that Angelita did not prove that she had a well-grounded belief that Sofio was dead. - The Supreme Court reversed, finding that under the Civil Code which governed at the time of Angelita's marriages, Sofio was presumed dead after 7 years of absence and thus Angelita's capacity to marry Virgilio was not impaired, making their marriage valid. Retroactively applying the stricter standards of the Family Code would go against its objectives.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    - Petitioner Angelita Valdez sought a declaration of presumptive death of her first husband Sofio so that her second marriage to Virgilio Reyes would be considered valid. - The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that Angelita did not prove that she had a well-grounded belief that Sofio was dead. - The Supreme Court reversed, finding that under the Civil Code which governed at the time of Angelita's marriages, Sofio was presumed dead after 7 years of absence and thus Angelita's capacity to marry Virgilio was not impaired, making their marriage valid. Retroactively applying the stricter standards of the Family Code would go against its objectives.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    79 views1 page

    Valdez v. Republic (Presumption of Death)

    Uploaded by

    Roberts Sam
    - Petitioner Angelita Valdez sought a declaration of presumptive death of her first husband Sofio so that her second marriage to Virgilio Reyes would be considered valid. - The RTC dismissed the petition, finding that Angelita did not prove that she had a well-grounded belief that Sofio was dead. - The Supreme Court reversed, finding that under the Civil Code which governed at the time of Angelita's marriages, Sofio was presumed dead after 7 years of absence and thus Angelita's capacity to marry Virgilio was not impaired, making their marriage valid. Retroactively applying the stricter standards of the Family Code would go against its objectives.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    180863 September 8, 2009


    Angelita Valdez v. Repbli! o" t#e $#ilippine%
    &A'(S)

    Petitioner married Sofio in Jan 11,1971 wherein the former gave birth to their only
    child , Nancy. Petitioner states that she and Sofio argue constantly because of
    the latters unemloyment and did not bring home any money. !ventually, Sofio
    left their con"ugal dwelling. # years have assed that etitioner did have any
    $nowledge of Sofios whereabouts until %ct, 197& , Sofio showed u and they
    tal$ed and agreed to searate and e'ecuted a document to that effect. (hey
    didnt see each other anymore after that.
    etitioner believing that Sofio was dead, married )irgilio *eyes on June +,,
    19-&. .ue to the denial of )irgilios alication for naturali/ation in the 0S
    deartment of 1omeland Security because of the subsisting marriage of
    etitioner with Sofio, Petitioner filed a etition before *(2 see$ing declaration of
    resumtive death.
    R('3 dismissed etition for lac$ of merit and held that 4ngelita was not able to
    rove a well grounded belief that Sofio was already dead 54rt 61, 728. 7urther
    stating that she did not e'ert any effort in finding her husband anymore.
    Petitioner filed a motion for recon arguing that 2ivil 2ode rovisions aly in this
    case and not 7amily 2ode. 9ecause marriage was celebrated on Jan 11, 1971
    long before 7amily 2ode too$ effect. 7urther arguing that she ac:uired a vested
    right under the 2ivil 2ode and stricter rovisions in the 72 should not alied
    against her 5 4rt. #-6 and #9,8 (o aly it would imair etitioner rights ac:uired
    under the 2ivil 2ode. *(2 denied ;otion for *econ. 1ence this etition.
    *SS+,) <%N *(2 erred in alying 72 and holding that etitioner needed to rove a
    well= founded belief that Sofio was already dead>
    -,./) ?!S. *(2 is wrong. Petitioner was caacitated to marry )irgilio at the time their
    marriage was celebrated in 19-& and said marriage is legal and valid.
    2ourt dismissed the etitioner since no decree of resumtion of Sofios death
    can be granted under the 2ivil 2ode. Since death is resumed to have ta$en
    lace by the seventh year of absence. Sofio is to be resumed dead starting
    %ctober 19-+.
    2onse:uently, at the time of etitioners marriage to )irgilio, there e'isted no
    imediment to etitioners caacity to marry, and the marriage is valid under
    aragrah + of 4rticle -# of the 2ivil 2ode. Petitioner could not have been
    e'ected to comly with this re:uirement since the 7amily 2ode was not yet in
    effect at the time of her marriage to )irgilio. (he enactment of the 7amily 2ode in
    19-- does not change this conclusion. (o rectroactively aly rovision of the
    7amily 2ode would go against the ob"ectives that 7amily 2ode wishes to
    achieve.

    You might also like