You are on page 1of 29

Persons and Family Relations Case Digest

Bruce Rivera


Article 40
Morigo v. People
GR No. 145226 (2004) | Article 40
Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates
for four years then they lost contact with each other. After a
few years, Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia
from Singapore. He replied and after an exchange of letters,
they became sweethearts. Lucia returned to the Philippines
but left again for Canada to work there. Then after four years,
Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to appellant
to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married, thus they
were married at Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work in
Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind. Lucia filed with the
Ontario Court a petition for divorce against appellant which
was granted by the court. Then Lucio married Maria Jececha
Lumbago. He filed a complaint for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground that no marriage ceremony
actually took place. Appellant was charged with bigamy. The
trial court discounted petitioner’s claim that his first marriage
to Lucio was null and void ab inito. The trial court ruled that
“want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a
charge of bigamy. The parties to a marriage should not be
allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be
the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the
nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry
again.” (Domingo v. CA). Petitioner filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court affirmed the
decision of the trial court.
Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of
his marriage with Barrete before his second marriage in order
to be free from the bigamy case.

No. The Supreme court ruled that Morigo does not need to
file a declaration for nullity of his marriage with Barrete
before his second marriage in order to be free from the
bigamy case.
The trial court found that there was no actual marriage
ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a
solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere
signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court thus held
that the marriage is void ab initio, in accordance with Articles
3 and 4 of the Family Code.
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally
contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage
without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of
In the case at bar, no marriage ceremony at all was
performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. They
merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere
private act of signing a marriage contract bears no
semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot
be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for
which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he
first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he
contracts a subsequent marriage.
Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that
petitioner has not committed bigamy.
Wiegel vs Sempio-Diy
G.R. No. L-53703/ 143 SCRA 449 | Article 40

Arce, Cuartero, Grimares, Loredo, Manalili, Marciano, Masculino, Mella, Paralejas, Quitco, Sotto, Tinsay


Persons and Family Relations Case Digest
Bruce Rivera


Karl Heinz Wiegel was married to Lilia Olivia Wiegel on
July 1978. Lilia was married with a certain Eduardo Maxion in
1972. Karl then filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Lilia on the ground of latter’s former marriage. She
contends that the first marriage is null and void having been
allegedly forced to enter said marital union. Lilia likewise
alleged that Maxion was married to another woman before
their marriage.
 Whether or not Lilia’s marriage with Maxion is void
 Whether or not Lilia’s marriage with Karl is void
Lilia’s marriage with Maxion is NOT void, but merely
voidable (Art. 85, Civil Code), and therefore valid until
annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear
that when Lilia married Karl she was still validly married to
Maxion, consequently, her marriage to Karl is VOID.
 The presence of force committed against both parties
(Lilia and Maxion) only makes the marriage voidable,
not void (Article 85, Civil Code). Thus, the marriage is
valid until annulled. There is likewise no need of
introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage
of Maxion at the time they married each other, for
then such a marriage though void still needs a judicial
declaration of such fact.
 Article 40 of the Family Code provides that “the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void.”
Since there was no final judgment declaring Lilia’s first

marriage void, then she was still validly marriage to
Maxion. Thus, her marriage to Karl is void.
Terre vs Terre
211 SCRA 6 | Article 40
Dorothy Terre while married to Merlito Bercenillo, her first
cousin, was being courted by Atty. Jordan Terre. After a while
of persuasive courting, respondent successfully convinced
Dorothy that her marriage with her first cousin was void ab
initio for the reason of public policy and that they are free to
contract marriage without the need for any judicial decision
for her previous marriage being void. They got married in
1977 where repondent wrote single under Dorothy’s status
against her better judgement. After getting Dorothy
pregnant, Atty. Terre disappeared but was still continuously
supported by complainant after a few years respondent
subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina
Malicdem in 1986 which Dorothy eventually found out. Atty.
Terre was charged with abandonment of minor and bigamy.
Respondent’s Contention:
Claims that he believed on good faith that his marriage
to the complainant was void and that no judicial decision was
needed since it was void ab initio
Whether or not, Atty. Terre’s marriage with Dorothy is null
and void.
Dorothy’s first marriage is indeed void ab initio considering
that Merlito is her first cousin thereby against public policy.
However, she did not file any declaration for the nullity of
their marriage before she contracted her marriage with Atty.

Arce, Cuartero, Grimares, Loredo, Manalili, Marciano, Masculino, Mella, Paralejas, Quitco, Sotto, Tinsay


Article 40 states that the absolute nullity of a former marriage may be invoked for the purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other. They were directed to start the proceedings on the liquidation of their common properties based on Article 147 and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50. Terre thus. 1992 pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code in the RTC of Quezon City. People vs Proceso Aragon G. During her absence. Under this property regime. Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with a certain Maria Gorrea in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu. The CFI of Cebu held that. 1971 and had 5 children. and Angela will be free to choose which parent they want to stay with. ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime shall be governed by the rules of ownership. Masculino. even in the absence of an express provision in Act No. Aragon contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C. defendant could not Arce. 147. The rule also applies on the side of Atty. No. Maria Faicol suffered injuries in her eyes caused by physical maltreatment of Aragon and was sent to Iloilo to undergo treatment. property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. Cuartero. 1925. so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage. he contracted a subsequent marriage in Iloilo city with Maria Faicol under the name of Proceso Aragon. Mella. and 52 and asserted that the Family Code does not have any provisions about the liquidation of common property in unions without marriage. Maglasang in Sibonga. the accused brought Maria Faicol to Cebu City in 1940. Marciano. where she worked as a teacher-nurse.R. 51. Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification regarding the provisions of Article 50. 3613 authorizing the filing of an action for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage void ab initio. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court correctly applied the law and that the property relations between the two will be governed by the provisions of Article 147/ RATIO: Co-ownership applies when a man and a woman. Manalili. The trial court granted the petition on June 29. Terre which will make his marriage to Dorothy be deemed valid since no judicial decision has been made on the contrary of such validity. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. Upon the death of Maria Gorrea in Cebu city. Tinsay |3 . Valdez sought for a declaration of nullity of marriage on June 22. While his marriage with Gorrea was subsisting. of the Family Code. Cebu. 05. Valdez v RTC 260 SCRA 221 | Article 40 FACTS: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on Jan. 51. Loredo. Sotto. L-10016 (1957) | Article 40 FACTS: On September 28. 1994 on the ground of their psychological incapacity to comply with their marital obligations. Paralejas. Stella and Joaquin were placed and the custody of their mother and Carlos. Quitco. Antonio. her second marriage is void. The trial court ruled that the property regime of the parties shall be governed by the rules of ownership pursuant to Art. and 52. CFI of Cebu ruling: Appelant was found guilty of bigamy.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. Grimares.

Father Arthur Baur on October 10 of the same year in a religious rites at the Sacred Heart Church. Vincent Mercado committed bigamy even he filed for the declaration of nullity of his first marriage and got it void only after the petition against him was filed. a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed against Dr. Cebu City and latter got his first married null and void. The Supreme Court held that a subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from its performance. HELD: No. Their marriage brought them two children. Cuartero. Rivas. For the second time around Dr. HELD: The court held that the Petitioner was guilty of the act of bigamy. but after. Vincent got married. ISSUE: Whether or not Dr. Paralejas. Unlike voidable marriages which are considered valid until set aside by a competent court. Maglasang without the dissolution of his marriage to Maria Faicol. the last marriage was a valid one and appellant's prosecution for contracting this marriage cannot prosper. After a year.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. Grimares. Vincent because his second marriage is been celebrated even without the Declaration of Nullity of his first marriage. It is also to be noted that the action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife. The marriage between Proceso Aragon and Jesusa Maglasang was valid. Victorino A. either by the death of the latter or by the judicial declaration of the nullity of such marriage. Vincent G. Mercado vs. Quitco. as distinguished from mere annullable marriages. Tan-Mercado 337SCRA122 | Article 40 Absolute Nullity of Previous Marriage FACTS: Dr. Sotto. Thus. Marciano. ISSUE: Whether the accused committed bigamy when he married for the third time. After the bigamy case was filed he did then file an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his first wife in RTC Br. this time with Consuelo Tan-Mercado (Respondent-Appellee) on June 27. 1976 which was solemnized by Judge Canares in Cebu City and latter blessed by Rev. Mercado (Petitioner) and Ma Thelma Olivia got married on April 10. as minimum of his indeterminate Arce. Tinsay |4 . he argues that a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all and concludes that there is no first marriage to speak of. whose marriage with the appellant was not renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage was entered into. Loredo. Their marriage bought them a child. legally contract marriage with Jesusa C. the final judgment declaring his first marriage null and void came not before the celebration of the second marriage. four months and fifteen days of prison correctional. 1. PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: That he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Manalili. 1991 before the MTCCBacolod City celebrated by Judge Gorgonio and followed by a Church ceremony after two days officiated by Msgr. thereby rendering it void ab initio. when the case for bigamy was already tried in court. The court renders judgment imposing upon him a prison term of three years. The fact that he declared in the contract of his second marriage that he is single without even acquiring a declaration of nullity of marriage for his past marriage made the crime consummated. Hence. Masculino. Mella. Cebu City. It means that at the time of the second marriage he is still validly married to his first wife. and no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity.

in a bar in England during one of his ship's port calls. to eight years and twenty-one days of prison mayor. Republic vs. Manalili. as maximum. sentence. unless: (a) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved. Loredo. Masculino." The petitioner was convicted of bigamy under Article 349 of the RPC because all of these elements of bigamy were present: [1. [3. Paralejas. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or. which provided: “Illegal marriages. From that chance meeting onwards. in Catholic rites officiated by Fr.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. the subject of the instant petition is a criminal prosecution. Antique on 19 November 1980 after his seaman's contract expired. Nolasco G. [2]. 94053 |Article 41 Declaration of Presumptive Death FACTS: Respondent. VITUG. Gregorio Nolasco was a seaman and that he had first met Janet Monica Parker.”   In Mendoza and Aragon. Arce. RATIO:  A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. and that Article 40 of the Family Code has been meant and intended to refer only to marriages declared void under the provisions of Articles 35. Tinsay |5 . According to Vitug. Marciano. Henry van Tilborg in the Cathedral of San Jose. J DISSENTING OPINION: Vitug expressed disagreement with the majority opinion of the court.R. On 15 January 1982. or the absentee being generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage. the marriage as contracted being valid in either case until declared null and void by a competent court. the Family Code did not have the effect of overturning the rule in criminal law and related jurisprudence. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as “void.] That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage. (b) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code. a British subject. 38 and 53 thereof. Sotto.] That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. No. [4. not a civil case. — Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance. Mella. the Court relied on Section 29 of Act No. respondent married Janet Monica Parker in San Jose. In fine. in case his or her spouse is absent. plus accessory penalties provided by law. Quitco.] That the offender has been legally married. Janet Monica Parker lived with respondent Nolasco on his ship for six (6) months until they returned to respondent's hometown of San Jose. Antique. 3613 (Marriage Law). Grimares. Cuartero. 37. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. 36.

On 5 August 1988. Petitioner’s Contention (Republic): That the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's finding that there existed a well-founded belief on the part of Nolasco that Janet Monica Parker was already dead. RTC Ruling: The trial court granted the respondent’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Tinsay |6 . Cuartero. Masculino. Allerton. Grimares.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. HELD: No. hence. Respondent’s Contention: That all of the requisites for a petition for presumptive death are present in this case. the respondent filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker. Janet Monica Parker. Sotto. his petition should be granted. The marriage of the respondent and Janet Monica Parker is still valid. Arce. he obtained another employment contract as a seaman and left his wife with his parents in San Jose. CA Ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. is already dead. The respondent failed to prove that there is a wellfounded belief that his wife. the address of the bar where he and Janet Monica first met. Loredo. Hence. England. Mella. Janet Monica Parker. respondent received a letter from his mother informing him that Janet Monica had given birth to his son. which would bear the issuance of the declaration of presumptive death of his wife. is dead. holding that respondent had sufficiently established a basis to form a belief that his absent spouse had already died. that the marriage be declared null and void. Respondent claimed he then immediately asked permission to leave his ship to return home. Marciano. Paralejas. 38 Ravena Road. The same letter informed him that Janet Monica had left Antique. Liverpool. Quitco. while working overseas. He also claimed that he inquired from among friends but they too had no news of Janet Monica. were all returned to him. invoking Article 41 of the Family Code. Antique. He also stated that all the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No. Respondent further testified that his efforts to look for her himself whenever his ship docked in England proved fruitless. in the alternative. He arrived in Antique in November 1983. Respondent further testified that after the marriage celebration. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has a well-founded belief that his wife. Manalili. Sometime in January 1983. RATIO: There are four (4) requisites for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code: "1. The petition prayed that respondent's wife be declared presumptively dead or.

Respondent said he had lost these returned letters. Republic GR No. but to no avail. Marciano. She tried looking for him. that remedy can be invoked if the purpose is to seek the declaration of death of the husband. Antique after learning of Janet Monica's departure. The same can be said of the loss of the alleged letters respondent had sent to his wife which respondent claims were all returned to him. The Court also views respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her personal background even after she had married respondent too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her." The Supreme Court contends that the third requisite is not present. She seeks for the declaration that she is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years. Civil Code. Manalili. Sotto. Cuartero. ISSUE: Arce. Paralejas. instead of seeking the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy. and 4. On the same year. Mella. L-8492 (1956) | Article 41-42 FACTS: Lourdes Lukban was married to Francisco Chuidian in 1933. but. The Court considers that the investigation allegedly conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts is too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead. A petition for judicial declaration that petitioner's husband is presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law. a vast city of many millions of inhabitants. Masculino. Since respondent failed to satisfy the clear requirements of the law. Quitco. to look for her there. Respondent’s Contention (NLRC & de Guzman): The declaration Lourdes is seeking for is not authorized by law. to establish a presumption of death. he secured another seaman's contract and went to London. The law does not view marriage like an ordinary contract. much less can the court determine the status of petitioner as a widow since this matter must of necessity depend upon the fact of death of the husband Petitioner’s contention (Lourdes Lukban): She contends that a special proceeding is "an application or proceeding to establish the status or right of a party. his petition for a judicial declaration or presumptive death must be denied. as already said. Tinsay |7 . Francisco left Lourdes because of a violent quarrel. and not. 2. 3. Lourdes intends to marry again. Loredo. When he arrived in San Jose. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead. Lucban v. Grimares. or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article 391. Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code provides that an absent spouse may be declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. That the present spouse wishes to remarry. under unspecified circumstances. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. as in the present case.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. or a particular fact". Furthermore. which is the reason why she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under the law.

Respondent Marietta opposed the petition. cannot reach the stage of finality or become final Armas v. Calisterio GR No. Paralejas. being a presumption juris tantum only. without Marietta having priorly secured a court declaration that James was presumptively dead. Quitco. Masculino. On 1996. without bond. Loredo. She prayed that her son be appointed administrator. Contending to be the surviving spouse of Teodorico. It is for that reason that it cannot be the subject of a judicial pronouncement or declaration. subject to contrary proof. if it is the only question or matter involved in a case. Sotto. of the estate of the deceased and that the inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled. Marietta stated that her first marriage with James Bounds had been dissolved due to the latter's absence. for her to remarry HELD: The court cannot grant her such relief RATIO:   A judicial pronouncement to that effect. Marietta appealed the decision of the trial court to CA and one of the allegations is that the trial court erred in holding that the marriage between Marietta and Teodorico is bigamous for failure of the former to secure a decree of the presumptive death of her first spouse. It is still disputable. Mella. of the intestate estate of Teodorico. his whereabouts being unknown. she sought priority in the administration of the estate of the decedent. the sole surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio. herein respondent Marietta Calisterio. the lower court decided in favor of petitioner Antonia that she be declared as the sole heir of the estate of Teodorico. the marriage between the latter and respondent Marietta Espinosa Calisterio being allegedly bigamous and thereby null and void. filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition claiming to be inter alia. even if final and executory. the trial court issued an order appointing jointly Antonia’s son and Marietta administrator and administratrix. CA reversed and set aside the lower court’s decision and declared that Marietta and Teodorico’s marriage is still valid. 136467 | Article 41-42 FACTS: On April 1992. for more than eleven years before she contracted her second marriage with Teodorico. Cuartero. or upon which a competent court has to pass   a judicial declaration that a person is presumptively dead. because he had been unheard from in seven years. Grimares. Whether or not the court can declare her status a widow. a surviving sister of Teodorico. would still be a prima facie presumption only. Teodorico and Marietta were married on May 1958. Petitioner Antonia Armas y Calisterio. Arce. Manalili. On 1993. which declares that his husband has died. Tinsay |8 . Marciano. Teodorico was survived by his wife. Teodorico Calisterio died intestate. leaving several parcels of land. James Bounds disappeared without a trace on 1947. Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who had previously been married to James William Bounds. respectively.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty.

Lea arrived home late in the evening and he berated her for being always out of their house. He told her that if she enjoyed the life of a single person. Cuartero. it would be better for her to go back to her parents. should thus be deemed valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial declaration of presumptive death of James Bounds. it remained undisputed that FACTS: Alan Alegro (respondent) adduced evidence that he and Lea were married. Loredo. who promised to help him locate his wife. the following conditions must concur. and (c) there is. He also inquired from his friends of Lea's whereabouts but to no avail. Alan thought that Lea merely went to her parents' house. However. 1995. a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration. but he was informed by Janette's brother-in-law. Lea did not return to their house anymore.R. unlike the old rule. Lea did not reply. or two years where there is danger of death under the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance. Alan sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat. Lea was nowhere to be found. but when he arrived home later in the day. In the case at bar.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party must have been absent for four consecutive years.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. He also went to the house of Lea's friend. Arce. Tinsay |9 . Nelson Abaenza. Masculino. ISSUE: Whether or not a judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is necessary in this case respondent Marietta's first husband. having been contracted during the regime of the Civil Code. The last condition is consistent and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent marriages as so provided in Article 41. that Janeth had left for Manila. (b) the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead. 159614. He testified that. Sotto. RATIO: Under the 1988 Family Code. he learned from his father-in-law that Lea had been to their house but that she left without notice. When Alan went back to the house of his parents-in-law. Callejo (Allegro:respondent) G. in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be considered valid. Mella. he went to the house of Lea's parents to see if she was there. but he was told that she was not there. had been absent or had disappeared for more than eleven years before she entered into a second marriage in 1958 with the deceased Teodorico Calisterio. on February 6. Marciano. viz. of the Family Code. on February 14. Alan further testified that. (2005) | Article 41-42 HELD: NO. Janeth Bautista. Alan narrated that. James William Bounds. Paralejas. Manalili. in relation to Article 40. Lea was still in the house. This second marriage. when he reported for work the following day. Grimares. Quitco. No. Republic vs. 1995. after his work. A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met.

Alegro failed to prove that he had a well-founded belief that Lea was already dead. respondent reported his wife's disappearance to the local police and also to the NBI only after the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the petition.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera He decided to go to Manila to look for Lea. Tinsay | 10 . The police authorities issued an Alarm Notice. Grimares. He returned to Catbalogan and again looked for his wife but failed. The law does not define what is meant by a well-grounded belief. was. Loredo. Quitco. The OSG pointed out that the Atty. The petitioner avers that. Masculino. When asked where Lea was. he would look for Lea in the malls but still to no avail. It averred that the respondent failed to exercise reasonable and diligent efforts to locate his wife. HELD: No. He went to a house in Navotas where Janeth. as gleaned from the evidence. petitioner) filed a petition for review on certiorari of the CA's decision alleging that respondent Alan B. Lea's friend. Alan decided to work as a part-time taxi driver. so far as it tends to explain or characterize their disappearance or throw light on their intentions. He declared that Alan inquired from him if Lea passed by his house and he told Alan that she did not. Alan then left for Manila. habits. burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage. However. Belief is a state of the mind or condition prompting the doing of an overt act. Cuartero. Marciano. hoping that Lea may come home for the fiesta. The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. competence evidence on the ultimate question of his death. told him that he did not know where Lea was. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of death of the absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring before and after the Arce. Sotto. Alan also reported Lea's disappearance to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). prosperity and objects of life which usually control the conduct of men. was staying. Barangay Captain Juan Magat corroborated the testimony of Alan. to elucidate the inquiry or assist to a determination probably founded in truth. The respondent even admitted that Lea's father told him that Lea had been to their house but left without notice. Lea's father. but his mother asked him to leave after the town fiesta of Catbalogan. who was his compadre and the owner of Radio DYMS. He had not seen Lea in the barangay ever since. conditions. On his free time. He failed to find out Lea's whereabouts despite his repeated talks with Janeth. Mella. Manalili. thus. Janeth told him that she had not seen her. Contention of the Republic: The OSG (Republic. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Alan Alegro ha a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead. Lea did not show up. Alan agreed. attachments. The trial court rendered judgment granting the petition and declared Rosalia Julaton presumptively dead. Any fact or circumstance relating to the character. even in a slight degree. and are the motives of their actions. Alan also told him that Lea had disappeared. It may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence which may tend. the respondent did not really want to find and locate Lea. The spouse present is. Paralejas. Alan reported Lea's disappearance to the local police station.

the respondent failed to present a witness other than Barangay Captain Juan Magat. petitioner filed a petition seeking declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. Since death is presumed to have taken place by the seventh year of absence. Manalili. the presumption of death is established by law[19] and no court declaration is needed for the presumption to arise. In March 1972. Valdez vs. Angelita and Virgilio Reyes wedded in June 1985. Cuartero. Believing that Sofio was already dead. Paralejas. the respondent admitted that when he returned to the house of his parents-in-law. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972. It was the final time they saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Mella. his father-in-law told him that Lea had just been there but that she left without notice. 180863. Marciano. Angelita Valdez and Sofio got married on January 1971. Petition was DENIED. the husband left the house. Quitco. Angelita gave birth to a baby daughter named Nancy. Grimares. On the other hand. Tinsay | 11 . petitioner was capacitated to marry Virgilio and their marriage is legal and valid. He did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC. in March 2007. It is also the maxim that "men readily believe what they wish to be true. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. RATIO: It can be gleaned that. Hence. Sofio is to be presumed dead starting October Arce. There were constant fights between the married couple because the husband was unemployed and did not bring home any money. Loredo.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries made by present spouse. Masculino. Sotto. and then they decided to go back to her parent’s home." In this case. 3 years passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975 when he showed up and they agreed to go their separate ways and executed a document to that effect. The respondent did report and seek the help of the local police authorities and the NBI to locate Lea. It is so worrisome is that. Although testimonial evidence may suffice to prove the wellfounded belief of the present spouse that the absent spouse is already dead. Republic GR No. (2009) | Article 41-42 FACTS: Atty. the respondent failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding Lea's whereabouts before filing his petition in the RTC. under the Civil Code. The respondent even failed to present Janeth Bautista or Nelson Abaenza or any other person from whom he allegedly made inquiries about Lea to corroborate his testimony. Thus. the Court warned against collusion between the parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds through existing legal means. but it was only an afterthought. It could have enhanced the credibility of the respondent had he made inquiries from his parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts considering that Lea's father was the owner of Radio DYMS. HELD: The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of Sofio’s death is necessary because Civil Code governs during 1971 and not Family Code where at least 7 consecutive years of absence is only needed. Virgilio’s application for naturalization in US got denied because petitioner’s marriage with Sofio was subsisting.

Manalili. That prior to their marriage on 4 December 1953. Marciano. he paid court to her. RATIO: Arce. Cuartero. Tinsay | 12 . also prayed for the annulment of the marriage and for moral damages. and pretended to shower her with love and affection not because he really felt so but because she merely happened to be the first girl available to marry so he could evade marrying the close relative of his whose immediate members of her family were threatening him to force him to marry her (the close relative) RTC Ruling: dismissed both the complaint of Fernando and Anaya. 256. Paralejas. Quitco. Sotto. The enactment of the Family Code in 1988 does not change this conclusion. and that "the nondivulgement to her of the aforementioned pre-marital secret on the part of defendant constituted 'FRAUD'. This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. at the time of petitioner’s marriage to Virgilio. Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment. Masculino. Fernando counterclaimed for damages for the malicious filing of the suit. considering that it is the Civil Code that applies.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera 1982. Loredo. 4 of Article 85 of the Civil Code". Grimares. that defendant Fernando filed an action for annulment of the marriage on 7 January 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and intimidation. there existed no impediment to petitioner’s capacity to marry. within the contemplation of No. The Family Code itself states: Art. in obtaining her consent. Petitioner’s contention: Fernando had divulged to Aurora that several months prior to their marriage he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. on the other hand. Plaintiff-appellant contends that the lower court erred in ignoring these allegations in her reply. Petitioner could not have been expected to comply with this requirement since the Family Code was not yet in effect at the time of her marriage to Virgilio. Anaya. Defendant’s contention: Fernando denied the allegation of the complaint and denied having had pre-marital relationship with a close relative. proof of “well-founded belief” is not required. ISSUE: Whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage HELD: NO. Palaroan 36 SCRA 97 | Article 45-46 FACTS: Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married on 4 December 1953. Also. and the marriage is valid under paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code. The court realized that Aurora's allegation of the fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage Anaya alleged in her reply that defendant Fernando paid court to her without any intention of complying with his marital duties and obligations and covertly made up his mind not to live with her. Further. Mella. The SC affirmed the decision of the RTC to dismiss the complaints. Atty. Article 45-46 Anaya vs.

Grimares." There is more reason not to allow such party to allege a new and additional cause of action in the reply. it must be declared already barred. Aquino’s own brother). concealed the fact that she was pregnant by another man (her brother-in-law. And sometime in April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage. Aquino vs Delizo G. Masculino. This fraud. (3) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage. Since appellant's wedding was celebrated in December of 1953. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. Marciano. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage may not be annulled in the ground of concealment of pregnancy by a man other than his husband. Loredo. Marriage is a most sacred institution: it is the foundation on which society rests. No. Cuartero. Sotto.” This second set of averments which were made in the reply is an entirely new and additional "cause of action. Buccat 72 Phil 19 | Article 45-46 FACTS: The complainant and defendant knew each other in March 1938 and were committed after several interviews. Tinsay | 13 . as is proved in pregnant condition advanced. As there is no need to estimate the fraud that speaks the appellant.R. On the same year. In this case no such evidence. Mella. and this ground was only pleaded in 1966. L-15853/ 109 Phil 21 | Article 45-46 FACTS: Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo that at the date of his marriage with the former on December 1954. Any secret intention on the husband's part not to perform his marital duties must have been discovered by the wife soon after the marriage. “ART. Quitco. To cancel. Following this event. Buccat v. He argued for this in the sense that countries not uncommon to find people from developed abdomen. RATIO: Indeed. it is unlikely the plaintiff and appellant’s allegation that had not even suspected the serious condition of the defendant. They live together for about HELD: No. as vice of consent. Manalili. (2) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude. gave birth Arce. with this. as follows: eighty-nine days then the defendant gave birth to a child of nine months. and the penalty imposed was imprisonment for two years or more. is limited exclusively by law to those kinds or species of fraud enumerated in Article 86. inasmuch as the plaintiff was a freshman law. Paralejas. clear evidence is necessary and reliable. No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character. fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. they got married.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty. 86. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article: ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage may be annulled in the ground of concealment of pregnancy by a man other than his husband? (1) Misrepresentation as to the identity of one of the contracting parties. the petitioner left the defendant and did not do with her marital life. rank. it seems puerile to merit our consideration.

Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera to a child.” Jimenez vs Canizares L-12790. Mella. The court deemed that it is a wellknown fact that women in this country are shy and bashful and would not readily and unhesitatingly submit to a physical examination unless compelled by competent authority. whether or not she was pregnant because she was “naturally plump” and she must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs. Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco represented the state in the proceedings to prevent collusion. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with the sole testimony of the husband. HELD: The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did defend herself and as such. ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment of the wife that at the time of their marriage she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment. HELD: Yes. freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. Grimares. The court summoned the wife and gave a copy to her but the she did not file any answer. “concealment by wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage. it could hardly be expected to know merely by looking. which was affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions. the concealment of the wife that at the time of their marriage she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment. Masculino. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage. Loredo. claim of the husband cannot be convincingly concluded. Tinsay | 14 . Only Fernando Aquino testified. 45(3) is the Atty. In the following circumstances. (1960) | Article 45-46 FACTS: Joel Jimenez filed a petition for annulment for his marriage with Remedios Canizares. Conchita Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence. The only documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the parties. RATIO:  Article 45(3) provides that a marriage may be annulled if at the time of the marriage “that the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. the orifice of his wife’s vagina was too small for his male organ to penetrate her for the consummation of their marriage. would continue the case without her and render judgment in favor of the petitioner. Cuartero. she was pregnant by a man other than her husband. Marciano. The problem continued and it eventually led him to leave the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage. that his wife was impotent without medical proof. the court remanded the case for new trial and decision complained is set aside. Paralejas. Manalili. with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. Quitco. unless such party afterwards.”  Article 46(2) provides that one of the circumstances that constitutes fraud referred to in Art. The wife was also ordered to submit herself to physical examination to a competent ladydoctor and to file a medical certificate within 10 days. At this stage. Such physical examination in this case should not be considered Arce. She was given an extra 5 days to comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part. According to the petitioner. CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioner’s complaint for annulment of marriage. Sotto. During the trial.

Having Arce. Tinsay | 15 .Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera self-incriminating. Fiscal Jose Jabson only filed a manifestation stating that he found no collusion between the parties and but did not actively participate.R. She is not charged with contempt or any other offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness against herself. De Ocampo vs Florenciano G. Marciano. Paralejas. ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity for marriage may be declared even without the participation of the State in the proceedings. No. Contention (Court): The state did not participate in any of the proceedings throughout the trial. Sotto. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification. The Supreme Court states that: *The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.R. Manalili. Masculino. Cuartero. The case was remanded to trial court. Grimares. The Solicitor-General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095. Atty. They begot several children who are now living with plaintiff. Article 48-49 Sin v Sin G. Hence. 137590 | Article 48-49 FACTS: Florence and Philipp Sin. 1994. the evidence shows that the State did not participate in the case not only in the RT but also in the Court of Appeals. 1987 at Manila after a two-year engagement. 1995 the RTC dismissed Florence’s petition. to the petition. a Portugese citizen. it cannot be argued that there was a lack of participation on the part of the State. 1998. 1995 and was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 30. which will be quoted in the decision. briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition as the case may be. The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere proforma compliance. HELD: The Supreme Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court and remanded the case to the trial court for proper trial. Loredo. Other than appearing at certain hearings nothing was heard from him and neither did the presiding Judge take any step to encourage the fiscal to contribute to the proceedings. In March 1951. Impotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed and as impotence not being assumed it does not fit any of the causes for annulment with accordance to Article 45. Florence filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 19. On June 16. Quitco. Florence filed again a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals and was later denied. L-13553 (1960) | Article 48-49 FACTS: Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano were married in 1938 in nueva ecija. RATIO: Even if the trial court was able to prevent the dissolution of marriage. On September 20. were married on January 4. Florence filed with the RTC of Pasig City a complaint for declaration of nullity for marriage against Philip. plaintiff discovered on several occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit relations with one Jose Arcalas. No. Mella. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.

CFI ruling: The court of first instance of Nueva Ecija dismissed the action for legal separation by Jose de Ocampo against his wife Serafina on the ground of adultery. Sotto. he signified his intention of filing a petition for legal separation. but upon evidence presented by the plaintiff. CA ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CFI. plaintiff's failure to actively search for defendant and take her home after the latter had left him in 1952 does not constitute condonation or consent to her adulterous relations with Orzame since it was her who left him after having sinned with Arcalas and after he had discovered her dates with other men. Yes. 1955. ISSUE: WON a decree of legal separation between the spouses may be issued Atty. Tinsay | 16 . Lastly. The Court mentioned that even if the defendant desires the divorce and makes no defense. Mella. according to the evidence. since it would not be based on her confession.Agreement between husband and wife for one of them to commit. This agreement. RATIO: Collusion in divorce or legal separation . Again plaintiff discovered that the wife was going out with several other men other than Arcalas. plus condonation or consent to the adultery therefore the appellate court declared that under Art.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera found the defendant carrying marital relations with another man plaintiff sent her to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty culture. Furthermore. the decree may and should be granted. It merely prohibits a decree of separation upon a confession of judgment. legal separation could not be decreed. or to appear to commit. the Supreme Court stated that even if the statement of defendant constituted practically a confession of judgment. Marciano. Grimares. any admission or confession made by the defendant outside of the court. where she stayed for one year. Masculino. 101. Towards the end of June 1952. In this case. 101 does not exclude. holding that when she reiterated her conformity to the legal separation and admitted having had sexual relations with Nelson Orzame there was a confession of judgment. may be implied from the acts of the parties. It is a ground for denying the divorce - HELD: it has been held that collusion may not be inferred from the mere fact that the guilty party confesses to the offense and thus enables the other party to procure evidence necessary to prove it Arce. The Supreme Court granted the decree of legal separation between the spouses and ruled that Art. Cuartero. Loredo. inasmuch as there is evidence of the adultery independently of such statement. plaintiff caught his wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame. defendant had finished studying her course and left the plaintiff and since then they had lived separately. or to be represented in court as having committed. to which defendant manifested her conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in a criminal action. In June 1955. Quitco. Thereafter. Accordingly. plaintiff filed a petition for legal separation on July 5. if not express. the offense of adultery had really taken place. Paralejas. is not by itself collusion. Manalili. or to suppress evidence of a valid defense. for the purpose of enabling the other to obtain a divorce. as evidence. a matrimonial offense.

Grimares. Masculino. Mella. Eufemio counter-clained for the declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage with Carmen Lapuz-Sy. alias Ngo Hiok. making all its anticipated rights and claim to never take effect. On the scheduled date of surrebuttal. They lived their married life without children and throughout they acquired properties together. even if property rights are involved. it follows that the death of one party to the action causes the death of the action itself — actio personalis moritur cum persona. that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Carmen’s counsel duly notified the court of her Atty. Sotto. substituted her in the trial as her counsel’s move. Trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence. Respondent Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation on the grounds that the said petition was filed beyond the oneyear period provided in Article 102 of the Civil Code and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. Manalili. Article 55-56 LAPUZ-SY vs. EUFEMIO 43 SCRA 177 | Legal Separation FACTS: Carmen Lapuz-Sy (Petitioner-Appellant) on August 18. Macario Lapuz. Petitioner Carmen died in a vehicular accident on May 1969. But before the trial could be completed wherein the Respondent Eufemio was already scheduled to present surrebuttal evidence on June 9. a Chinese woman. ISSUE: Whether or not the death of Carmen before final decree. death. Cuartero. Carmen and Eufemio were civilly married on September 21.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera  In this case. Paralejas. because her story might send her to jail the moment her husband requests the Fiscal to prosecute. Quitco. In 1943 Eufemio abandoned Carmen. The father of Carmen. HELD: The death of Petitioner-Appellant (Carmen) abated the decree of legal separation at bar because it occurs unexpectedly while the trial case was still ongoing. on the ground of is prior and subsisting marriage (with Ngo Hiok). abate the action. according to the evidence. She (Carmen) then filed for the issuance of a decree of legal separation. 1934 and canonically on September 30 of that same year. Any property rights acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. Sometime in March 1949 when Carmen found out that her husband is cohabitating Go Hiok. Marciano. and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her demise. which would order the defendant Eufemio should be deprived of his share of the conjugal partnership profits. The defendant could not have falsely told the adulterous acts to the Fiscal. celebrated according to Chinese law and customs. An action for legal separation which involves nothing more than the bed-and-board separation of the spouses is purely personal.” Arce. Being personal in character. “The petition of respondent-appellee Eufemio for a declaration of nullity ab initio of his marriage to Carmen Lapuz. Tinsay | 17 . it is apparent that such action became moot and academic upon the death of the latter. in an action for legal separation. 1969. Loredo. the offense of adultery had really taking place. 1953 filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio (Respondent-Appellee). She could not have practiced deception at such a personal risk.

Masculino. ordered the payment of support pendente lite. so that all proceedings related to legal separation will have to be suspended to await conviction or acquittal for concubinage in the criminal case. On 14 November 1986. Quitco. by allowing only the innocent spouse (and no one else) to claim legal separation.  A further reason why an action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff. 79284 | Legal Separation FACTS: On 29 May 1986. private respondent also filed with the Municipal Trial Court. Hon. Gandionco vs. even if property rights are involved. provisional remedy of support pendente lite. On 13 October 1986. a complaint against petitioner for concubinage. stop or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree of legal separation already rendered. The civil action for legal separation. grounded as it is on concubinage. Teresita Gandionco.R. Froilan Gandionco. by their reconciliation. without the decree such rights do not come into existence. Manalili. death producing a more radical and definitive separation. The Supreme Court held that civil action for legal separation may proceed simultaneously with the criminal action for concubinage. Loredo. ISSUE: Whether or not Legal Separation on the grounds of concubinage of requires the petitioner of finding guilty of concubinage of the same? HELD: No. such as. it is petitioner's position that such civil action arises from. If death supervenes during the pendency of the action. Penaranda G.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera RATIO:  The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes this in its Article 100. or is inextricably tied to the criminal action for concubinage. their source being the decree itself. these claims are merely rights in expectation. Penaranda. The respondent judge. Sotto. as already stated. Marciano. should be suspended in view of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him by the private respondent. and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn. RATIO: Arce. on the ground of concubinage. No. Grimares. petitioner contends in his special civil action for certiorari that the civil action for legal separation and the incidents consequent thereto. is that these rights are mere effects of decree of separation. application for the Atty. Cuartero. In this recourse. pending a decision in the action for legal separation. on 10 December 1986. General Santos City. Tinsay | 18 . by providing that the spouses can. the application for support pendente lite. Senen C. filed a complaint against the petitioner. private respondent. Mella. with a petition for support and payment of damages. no decree can be forthcoming. The Court dismissed the petition of the petitioner. and in its Article 108. Paralejas. so that before the finality of a decree. was filed by private respondent in the civil case for legal separation. for legal separation.

when Benjamin was back in service Leonila left the house of Benjamin’s sister and stayed with her parents in Pangasinan. Tinsay | 19 . or simultaneously with. Paralejas. merely packed up and left. Loredo. After that. based on concubinage. This was dismissed in the trial court on the ground of condonation by the husband (Benjamin) of the acts of his wife. they agreed that Leonila is to stay with Benjamin’s sister. Mella. as alleged the offended spouse. such as. However. took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity imputed on her. Marciano. and disqualification from inheriting from the innocent spouse. When Benjamin reported back to duty. the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains. Bugayong v. No criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary. Such civil action is one intended to obtain the right to live separately. ISSUE: Whether or not the actions of Benjamin constitutes an act of condoning the actions of his wife RATIO:   Condonation o Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation Arce. because his said conduct comes within the restriction of Article 100 of the Civil Code FACTS: Benjamin Bugayong. Ginez GR No. custody of offsprings. Benjamin tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information he received that she had committed adultery but Leonila. Sotto. they lived at the house of Benjamin’s cousin as husband and wife (IYKWIM ) for 2 nights and a day. with the legal consequences thereof. they went to the house of Benjamin and stayed there for the night as husband and wife. support. A decree of legal separation. L-10033 (1956) | Article 55-56 HELD: Yes. Benjamin learned from his sister-in-law and other anonymous people of the infidelity of the acts of Leonila. was married to Leonila Ginez. The court agrees with the trial court that the conduct of the plaintiffhusband above narrated despite his belief that his wife was unfaithful. deprives him. Benjamin went home to Pangasinan and got his wife. instead of answering his query. may proceed ahead of. which he Respondent’s Contention (Leonila Geniz): The acts of infidelity had been condoned by the husband. on the ground of concubinage. Manalili. a US Navy serviceman. Petitioner’s contention (Benjamin Bugayong): There was no condonation on the part of the husband. among others. Benjamin filed for legal separation against Leonila. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred erroneously in granting the dismissal on the ground of condonation. Masculino. Cuartero. because said civil action is not one "to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense" even if both the civil and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense. The court held that the actions of Benjamin constitutes condonation of the acts of infidelity by his wife. Quitco. may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. a criminal action for concubinage. therefore bars the action for legal separation and adultery. Through correspondence. Grimares. of any action for legal separation against the offending wife. A civil action for legal separation.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Atty.

and that reconciliation between her and Pacete was impossible since he evidently preferred to continue living with Clarita. . Pacete and Clarita. the lower court granted the motion but only for twenty (20) days to be counted from. and with the knowledge or belief on the part of the injured party of its commission. Masculino. that she learned of such marriage only 1979. the defendants filed a second motion for an extension of another thirty (30) days from 20 December 1979." that Pacete ignored overtures for an amicable settlement. On October 1979. she averred that she was married to Pacete on 1938 before the Justice of the Peace of Cotabato. as well as for legal separation (between Alanis and Pacete). will amount to conclusive evidence of condonation   Single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation o Article 58 Pacete v. as first extension had expired. The defendants were each served with summons on 15 November 1979. marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion. Cariaga 231 SCRA 321 | Article 58 FACTS: Petitioners. Mella. that Pacete subsequently contracted (in 1948) a second Atty. Pacete and one Clarita de la Concepcion. after the commission of the offense. Loredo. accounting and separation of property. that he fraudulently placed the several pieces of property either in his name and Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita and other "dummies. that they had a child named Consuelo. In her complaint. They filed a motion for an extension of twenty (20) days from 30 November 1979 within which to file an answer. The following day the court denied this last motion on the ground that it was "filed after the original period given ." ISSUE: Whether or not CFI of Cotabato gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for extension of time to file their answer on the decree of legal separation. Marciano. On 07 January 1980. by a husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has committed   American jurisprudence is that any cohabitation with the guilty party. The court granted the motion. Sotto. Paralejas. fishponds and several motor vehicles. Arce. the latter acquired vast property consisting of large tracts of land.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera conditional forgiveness or remission. filed for certiorari for the CFI of Cotabato’s alleged grave abuse of its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for extension of time to file their answer in its decision on Legal separation between Pacete and Alanis and the marriage if the former to Clarita as null and void. . Manalili. Concepcion Alanis filed with the court a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between her erstwhile husband Enrico L. Grimares. On 18 December 1979. Defendants were still aware of the order so they then again filed another motion for an extension of "fifteen (15) days counted from the expiration of the 30-day period previously sought" within which to file an answer. that during her marriage to Pacete. Quitco. Cuartero. Tinsay | 20 .

Cuartero. Loredo. RATIO: Article 103 of the Civil Code. Marciano. Masculino. particularly the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal community of property. Paralejas. The special prescriptions on actions that can put the integrity of marriage to possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than the State's interest in the marriage relation and its avowed intention not to leave the matter within the exclusive domain and the vagaries of the parties to alone dictate. Mella. FACTS: Arce. Sotto. When she returned to Davao. No." obviously in order to provide the parties a "cooling-off" period. the spouses moved to Mawab. Petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim. or even when it is properly declared. she learned of the illicit affairs of her estranged husband. In this interim. Manalili. A petition for certiorari is allowed when the default order is improperly declared. Davao del Norte where. They were blessed with six children. CA G. From a humble buy-andsell business and sari-sari store operation in Davao City. L-38287. the court should take steps toward getting the parties to reconcile. ordered the legal separation of plaintiff and the defendant. now Article 58 of the Family Code. Quitco. Private respondent filed a petition for appointment of administrator. through hard work and good fortune. where grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration. their small business grew and expanded into merchandising. to administer the estate of the conjugal partnership pending the termination of the case. Private respondent a complaint for legal separation in the Court of First Instance of Davao. In the case at bench. Respondent Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang and petitioner Antonio Macadangdang contracted marriage in 1946 after having lived together for two years. Grimares. real estate and others. Article 63 Macadangdang vs. rice and corn mill business. In these exceptional instances. Married life for them became so intolerable that they separated in 1965 when private respondent left for Cebu for good. Then and there. transportation. abaca stripping. Trial court handed down its decision and. (1981) | Article 63 Atty.R. Petitioner opposed the aforesaid petition. the physical and spiritual aspects became shaky. Tinsay | 21 . Both accused each other of indulging in extramarital relations. With their established businesses and accumulated wealth. trucking. the special civil action of certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is available.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera HELD: YES. she decided to take the initial action. their once simple life became complicated and their relationship started to suffer setbacks. the default order unquestionably is not legally sanctioned. While the economic or material aspect of their marriage was stabilized. or what under the old law was separation from bed and board with all the legal effects attendant thereto. further mandates that an action for legal separation must "in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.

HELD: Private respondent. and to prohibit him from treating. moved for a resolution of this case although she believes that petitioner's death has posed new intervening circumstances that would affect the entire Whether or not the decision of the trial court finding petitioner guilty of concubinage and decreeing legal separation between him and his wife Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang had already become final and executory long before the herein petition was filed. Legal problems do not cease simply because one of the parties dies. through a notice of death and motion to dismiss. and declare null and void the orders of respondent Judge. private respondent agrees with petitioner's counsel that her husband's death has rendered the instant petition moot and academic. regarding and construing his decision as being "final and executory" as well as from enforcing the same in any manner whatsoever. Masculino. Cuartero. purpose in filing the same. Loredo. consequently. Petitioner’s Contention: Petitioner had averred that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that respondent Judge's incomplete decision had become final and executory and that the same Court committed an error in holding that the appointment of an administrator in the case below was proper. Respondent Judge denied the aforesaid second motion for reconsideration Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Respondent’s Contetnion: Private respondent. this case have become moot and academic. informed the Court that petitioner Antonio Macadangdang died and as a consequence thereof. has always maintained among others that — the decision had become final and executory when the petitioner failed to appeal therefrom within the reglementary period of 30 days from receipt thereof. Mella. Quitco. despite the non-issuance of a supplemental decision regarding the division of the conjugal properties The Court of Appeals ruled that the questioned decision of the lower court had become final and. this Court feels bound to meet said issues frontally and come out with a decisive resolution of the same. the appointment of an administrator was valid and that the petition was not sufficient in substance. Considering also the farreaching significance and implications of a pronouncement on the very important issues involved. set aside. ISSUE: Counsel for petitioner. since the applicable law and jurisprudence afford the petitioner no valid cause to impugn the three questioned orders. Manalili.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer that he be allowed to continue administering the conjugal properties in accordance with law. Paralejas. Petitioner filed his second motion for reconsideration praying therein that the orders be reconsidered by not proceeding with the appointment of an administrator of the conjugal properties of the parties. Sotto. Said petition sought to review. Tinsay | 22 . the same problems may come up again in another case of similar magnitude. upon the other hand. Yes. Atty. Arce. Grimares. when required to comment on the aforesaid motion. to prohibit respondent Judge from carrying out and executing the aforecited orders. Marciano. In effect. The appellate court accordingly dismissed the petition.

This procedure involves details which properly pertain to the lower court. The decree of legal separation shall have the following effects. the decision of the trial court decreeing the legal separation between then spouses Antonio Macadangdang and Filomena Gaviana Macadangdang had long become final and executory and the division of the conjugal property in a "supplemental decision" is a mere incident of the decree of legal separation. The clear mandate of Article 106 of the Civil Code. "2) The conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute conjugal community of property shall be dissolved and liquidated. the judgment decreeing legal separation — for the purpose of determining the share of each spouse in the conjugal assets. but the marriage bonds shall not be severed. Thus. Marciano. Masculino. as an inevitable incident of. without prejudice to the provisions of Article 176. Cuartero. Quitco. 139808. Article 68 Potenciano vs. Generally speaking. Loredo. 139789. Atty. The death of herein petitioner who was declared the guilty spouse by the trial court. 106. Upon the liquidation and distribution conformably with the law governing the effects of the final decree of legal separation. Paralejas. and that any attempted reservation of such questions for future determination is improper and error. before the liquidation of the conjugal property is effected. Mella. the law on intestate succession should take over in the disposition of whatever remaining properties have been allocated to petitioner.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera The Court do not find merit in petitioner's submission that the questioned decision had not become final and executory since the law explicitly and clearly provides for the dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains of the absolute community of property as among the effects of the final decree of legal separation. shall be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestate succession. Grimares. but the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the profits earned by the partnership or community. Tinsay | 23 . Such dissolution and liquidation are necessary consequences of the final decree. Sotto. Article 106 of the Civil Code thus reads: "Art. the purpose as to the disposition of property is concerned is to fix and make certain the property rights and interests of the parties and it has been held also that the provisions of the decree should definitely and finally determine the property rights and interests of the parties. poses a new problem which can be resolved simply by the application of the rules on intestate succession with respect to the properties of the deceased petitioner. "1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other. This legal effect of the decree of legal separation ipso facto or automatically follows. (2001) | Article 68 Arce. Manalili. The properties that may be allocated to the deceased petitioner by virtue of the liquidation of the conjugal assets. the rules on dissolution and liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains under the aforecited provisions of the Civil Code would be applied effective when the decree of legal separation became final. CA GR No. The aforequoted provision mandates the dissolution and liquidation of the property regime of the spouses upon finality of the decree of legal separation.

No. observe mutual love. 11263 | Article 68 FACTS: Jose Campos Rueda. Lin and Sylvia were the ones controlling the corporations. respect and fidelity.R. Marital union is a two-way process. Since the plaintiff cannot Arce. filed a petition with the CA for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband in consortium which got dismissed on May 2000 for lack of merit and granted the petition to nullify the CA ruling giving visitation rights to Erlinda. there was absence of empathy between Erlinda and Potenciano having separated from bed and board since 1972. Cuartero.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera FACTS: In March 1999. It is for two loving adults who view the relationship with respect. What the law provides is that “husband and wife are obliged to live together. mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order to enforce consortium. A conference was set on September 2000 to determine the propriety and relevance of a physical and medical examination of Potenciano and how it will be conducted. the matriarch who was lovingly inseparable (as in Like. Ilusorio. Erlinda’s contention: She did not compel Potenciano to live with her in consortium and that Potenciano' s mental state was not an issue. Just refusals of the plaintiff exasperated the defendant and induced him to maltreat her by word and deed. super in love sila) from her husband some years ago. The sanction thereof is the “spontaneous. the root cause of the entire petition is her desire to have her husband's custody daw!! Clearly. she would logically assume his position and control. Empathy as defined by SC is a “shared feeling between husband and wife experienced not only by having spontaneous sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion”. HELD: Erlinda’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED. Paralejas. asserting that he never refused to see her. Yet. sacrifice and a continuing commitment to togetherness. she cannot deny that she wanted Potenciano to live with her.. one month after he had contracted marriage with the Eloisa Goitia. Erlinda K. Masculino. This case before SC is Erlinda’s motion to reconsider the decision made. Manalili. demanded of her that she perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. She claimed that her two children were using their sick and frail father to sign away Potenciano and Erlinda' s property to companies controlled by Lin and Sylvia. Grimares. conscious of its value as a sublime social institution Goitia vs Campos-Rueda G. Erlinda’s motion to have Potenciano be medically examined by a team of medical experts appointed by the Court was denied with finality in March 2001. One reason why Erlinda sought custody of her husband was that respondents Lin and Sylvia were illegally restraining Potenciano to fraudulently deprive her of property rights out of pure greed. that the plaintiff spurned the obscene demands of the defendant and refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation. Marciano. Mella. Loredo. Atty. Quitco. She also argued that since Potenciano retired as director and officer of Baguio Country Club and Philippine Oversees Telecommunications. Lin and Sylvia appealing from the order giving visitation rights to his wife. the defendant. ISSUE: Whether a court can validly issue an order compelling the husband to live together and observe mutual love. respect and fidelity”. Tinsay | 24 . This case was consolidated with another case filed by Potenciano and his kids. Sotto. the plaintiff. Evidently.

Sotto. Private respondent filed a civil case praying that his marriage to petitioner be Arce. same with the church wedding for lack of consent of the parties. Ty in ceremonies officiated by the judge of the City Court of Pasay. Loredo. and live with each other. When a marriage is once formed. Edgardo M.The consorts. The complaint of the wife which alleges unbearable conduct and treatment on the part of the husband is sufficient to constitute a cause of action for separate maintenance. who is forced to leave the conjugal abode by her husband without fault on her part. Under the facts alleged in the complaint. Then they had a church wedding. Grimares. RATIO: Articles 143 and 149 of the Civil Code are as follows: "ART.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera stop defendant from inflicting physical injuries upon her and desist from his repugnant desires. notwithstanding the provisions of article 149 of the Civil Code giving the person who is obliged to furnish support the option to satisfy it either by paying a fixed pension or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the one having the right to the same. The mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife." Article 152 of the Civil Code gives the instances when the obligation to give support shall cease. Quitco. and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement but upon the law. either by paying the pension that may be fixed or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the person having the right to the same. HELD: YES. Even before the decree was issued nullifying his marriage to Anna Maria. the latter appealed. 127406 | Article 68 FACTS: Private respondent. Cuartero. They also had a church wedding. Masculino. 143. Reyes. The failure of the wife to live with her husband is not one of them. the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City declared their marriage null and void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license. after few years. This is an action by the wife against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile.The following are obliged to support each other reciprocally to the whole extent specified in the preceding article. xxx xxx xxx "1. Atty. (149) 49. Mella. Ty v. "ART. she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take refuge in the home of her parents. at his option. the wife is legally still within the conjugal domicile. support. married Anna Maria Regina Villanueva in a civil ceremony. may maintain an action against the husband for separate maintenance when he has no other remedy. The wife. a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change by agreement. The spouses must be faithful to. private respondent wed Ofelia P. From a judgment sustaining the defendants demurrer upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action.The person obliged to give support may. Marciano. However. followed by an order dismissing the case after the plaintiff declined to amend. Manalili. Tinsay | 25 . Paralejas. assist. ISSUE: Whether or not the wife can claim support outside of the conjugal domicile. satisfy it. CA GR No.

Marciano. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. he stayed with Erlinda in Antipolo City for about five months. No. 1997. as legitimate wife. She submitted their Marriage License. Sotto. He is married to Erlinda Kalaw Ilusorio. 139789 | Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife FACTS: Potenciano Ilusorio. pointed out that his claim that their marriage was contracted without a valid license is untrue. our laws do not comprehend an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation. Erlinda filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for habeas corpus to have the custody of Potenciano.00 as monthly support for their children. He did not question this document when it was submitted in evidence. Petitioner. Masculino. Logic. it did not award moral damages because the latter did not adduce evidence to support her claim. she asks for damages from her husband for filing a baseless complaint for annulment of their marriage which caused her mental anguish. Paralejas. Mella. The Supreme Court ruled that damages should not be awarded to Ofelia Ty. 1998. 1980. He stated that at the time he married petitioner the decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria had not been issued. Makati City. The decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria was rendered only on August 4. Arce. they separated from bed and board for undisclosed reasons.R. while Erlinda lived in Antipolo City. and at Ilusorio Penthouse. Tinsay | 26 . alleged that this was because of an overdose of medicine that was given to him by Erlinda. Manalili. In the same breath. anxiety. militates against such incongruity. Petitioner wants her marriage to private respondent held valid and subsisting. The trial court sustained private respondent’s civil suit and declared his marriage to herein petitioner null and void ab initio and ordered private respondent to pay P15. During that period.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera declared null and void. The children. they had six children. Quitco. In 1972. Makati City when he is in Manila. RATIO: Although the appellate court admitted that they found private respondent acted “duplicitously and craftily” in marrying petitioner. in defending her marriage to private respondent. Erlinda Bildner.000. Ilusorio vs Bildner G. Consequently. . while his civil marriage to petitioner took place on April 4. if not common sense. Grimares. is about 86 years of age who possessed extensive property valued millions of pesos. On May 31. Loredo. a lwayer. he was still married to Anna Maria. his health deteriorated. It ruled that a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage (to Anna Maria) must first be secured before a subsequent marriage could be validly contracted. Potenciano lived at Urdaneta Condominium. To do so. They have lived together for a period of thirty years. ISSUE: Whether or not damages should be awarded to Ofelia Ty. She is suing to maintain her status Atty. social humiliation and alienation from her parents. He alleged that they had no marriage license when they got married. Potenciano did not return to Antipolo City. would make the application of the law absurd. besmirched reputation. Should we grant her prayer. Out of their marriage. He also averred that at the time he married petitioner. Both parties appealed to respondent Court of Appeals. HELD: No. On December 30. from Baguio City. 1979. we would have a situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. Moreover. Baguio Country Club when he is in Baguio City. upon Potenciano's arrival from the United States. Instead he lived at Cleveland Condominium. Cuartero. Sylvia Ilusorio and Ma.

She pursued a degree in education in St. In 1954.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera After due hearing. the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. Grimares. wife. Manalili. Leyte where she studied elementary school and graduated high school in the Holy Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949. Tinsay | 27 . The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective. around 8 years old. In the case at bar. Daniel Romualdez. She went to Manila during 1952 for work and was employed wby her cousin. In 1965. After due hearing. Sotto. the now deceased. they lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. Cuartero. ISSUE: Whether or not Erlinda Ilusorio may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her Article 69 HELD: No. not merely nominal or moral. and render mutual help and support. Erlinda sought the reversal of the dismissal of her petition. when Marcos won the presidency. Quitco. Being in exile it was understood that Hawaii has been deemed their domicile. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. In case the husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons. When Imelda Romualdez-Marcos returned to the Philippines after her husband’s death. Atty. That is a matter beyond judicial authority and is best left to the man and woman's free choice. while Potenciano wanted to annul the visitation rights of Erlinda. there was no illegal confinement or detention. When Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959. Also. Potenciano Ilusorio may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free choice. she wed President Ferdinand Marcos who was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte. Rizal where she registered as a voter. the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no unlawful restraint on his liberty. Erlinda Ilusorio may not secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to live with her. Otherwise. the restraint of liberty must be an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled thereto. but Erlinda was given visitation rights. he will be deprived of his right to privacy and this will run against his fundamental constitutional right. Mella. established her domicile in Tacloban. Paul’s College in Tacloban. the current Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a Arce. Loredo. observe mutual love. FACTS: RATIO:  A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention. Both parties elevated the case to this Court.” no court is empowered as a judicial authority to compel a husband to live with his Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 | Article 69 Imelda. Paralejas. Cirilo Roy Montejo. after a while she decided to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte during the 1995 Elections.  Although Article 68 of the Family Code provides that “the husband and wife are obliged to live together. Masculino. Then she lived in exile in Hawaii with her husband. Marciano. She also taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She also served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978. To justify the grant of the petition. they lived together in San Juan. which was the speaker of the House of Representatives. respect and fidelity. he is at liberty to do so without threat of any penalty attached to the exercise of his right. with his full mental capacity coupled with the right of choice.

The court ruled that PBM and Ching should pay the principal amount and interests. Cuartero. The petitioner. Loredo. EVP of PBM executed security agreements which makes him answerable regarding the debt of PBM to AIDC. Alfredo Ching.R. As added security for the credit line extended to PBM. one’s domicile is changed after marriage but is given a right to choose a new one after the death of her husband. 1995 and she claimed that she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile even though it has been changed due to her marriage with the late president. Article 73 Ayala Investments v CA G. Article 69 proves that she has given valid and compelling evidence that her choosing of Tacloban as her domicile is applicable as it does not go against the solidarity of the family. Mella. filed a petition to disqualify Imelda with the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. Tinsay | 28 . Alfredo CHing and his wife filed a case for injunction against AIDC and the Court of First Instance alleging that they cannot enforce a judgment against their conjugal properties because the loan did not redound to the benefit of their conjugal partnership. residence and domicile shall be taken as one and the same. After the application. her exile to Hawaii and her government positions in Metro Manila HELD: The Court decided that Imelda Marcos has proved that she has attained the necessary residential qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in Leyte being that her domicile was in fact still Tacloban. Also. The auction took place and AIDC. the court issued a temporary restraining order to Magsajo to proceed with the sale. in an honest misrepresentation. FACTS: Philippine Blooming Mills obtained a loan from Ayala Investments & Development Corp. Paralejas. Pending appeal of the judgement. Ching presented several witnesses while AIDC did not present any evidence. Quitco. Contention (Ching): There was a third party who claims ownership of property attached upon in this case. In terms of election requirements. The writ of execution was issued and Abelardo Magsajo caused the issuance of a notice of sheriff sale regarding three of their conjugal properties. Marciano.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera candidate for the same position. The motion was dismissed and during the trial. Masculino.No. was awarded the Certificate of Sale by Magsajo. AIDC filed a motion to dismiss the petition for injunction filed by Alfredo Ching and his wife. the lower court issued a writ of execution pending appeal upon motion of AIDC. since she did decide to return to Leyte after her husband’s death. Contention (AIDC): The consummation of the sale makes the petition for injunction filed by Alfredo Ching moot and academic. Grimares. which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 29. two of the properties are in the name of Encarnacion Ching. Manalili. wrote seven months under residency. Sotto. being the only bidder. AIDC questioned the decision of the lower court regarding the sale. She arrived at the seven months residency due to the fact that she became a resident of the Municipality of Tolosa in said months. 118305 | Article 73 Atty. the wife of Arce. PBM failed to pay the loan thus AIDC filed a case against PBM and Alfredo Ching with the Court of First Instance in Pasig. ISSUE: Whether or not Imelda’s domicile is still Tacloban despite the her marriage.

Mella. Masculino. The loan procured from respondentappellant AIDC was for the advancement and benefit of Philippine Blooming Mills and not for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of petitioners-appellees. Paralejas. Atty. In the case at bar. RATIO: AIDC failed to prove that Ching contracted the debt for the benefit of their conjugal partnership of gains. Manalili. HELD: The trial court promulgated in its decision declaring the sale null and void. Cuartero. It is a general rule that debts and obligations. shall be chargeable to the conjugal partnership of gains. Sotto. but contributed to the benefit of the family. Arce. it cannot be proven that the guarantee of Ching was for the benefit of his family and their conjugal properties cannot be included in the debt of PBM and Ching. Grimares. the debt by Alfredo Ching was only to the extent of his shares in the company because the debt is considered as a corporate debt. Marciano. ISSUE: Whether or not the debts and obligations contracted by the husband alone is considered “for the benefit of the conjugal partnership” and is it chargeable. Quitco.Persons and Family Relations Case Digest Bruce Rivera Alfredo and a third party which constitute a different legal situation. of whatever nature or regardless of the time incurred. Also. Tinsay | 29 . Loredo.