LEGAL RESEARCH GROUP ACTIVITY

GROUP III

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Juan met Maria, who was only 16 years old at that time, in Pandacan
Manila while working for the Coca-Cola Bottlers Company. They were
neighbors and Juan often sees Maria outside their house on his way to
work or from his work. They started talking to each other when Maria wrote
him a letter that she dropped through the window of her room as Juan
passes by. After 2 months of such communication Maria went inside to
Juans house and they had carnal knowledge. The following morning
Marias parents confronted Juan the whereabouts of their daughter, guiltstricken he admitted that Maria slept with him in his house. The parents
immediately demanded Juan to marry Maria. Although things happened so
fast for Juan, he did not have second thoughts and immediately agreed to
marry Maria. Juan, who had 6 siblings whose parents are both already
dead, always wanted to be with someone for the rest of his life since he
already have a good job and he wanted to start raising a family of his own.
Since at that time Maria was only 16, through Marias mother instigation,
Juan asked a friend working in the Pasay City Fiscal Office and obtained a
waiver that Maria was 18 years old by using the surname of her Step-father
instead of her real last name. The marriage took place, without a marriage
license, in Y.M.C.A. Manila on May 30, 1987. They were instructed by the
solemnizing officer to register their marriage in Cavite instead of in Manila.
After the marriage, Juan worked hard for his wife. He would take
extra shifts in order to get extra compensation from the company. Despite
of this, he would always be home before dinner comes. He started noticing
that every time hes comes home his wife was as tired as he was and will
often refuse to serve him meals or even coffee. Although some neighbors
warned him about the activities of Maria, Juan chose to listen to her when
he asked Maria bout her whereabouts. They had their first child on June
17, 1988. Maria met a friend who gave her a job as a waitress in a hotel in
Manila. She met a British man who promised her to bring her to London
with her child. She asked Juan for his permission. Juan was so furious
about this. Later on, through Juans relentless convincing, Maria quit her
job. After that everything went to normal again, until Maria met some new
group of friends who were party-goers and did all sorts of immoral acts
including having carnal knowledge with each other just for fun. Juan tried
to stop her from doing these activities but Maria never ceased. Maria had
illicit relationship with a security guard who was working as well in CocaCola with Juan. He was so frustrated that he cannot help his wife to stop
from doing all these kinds of things to him. Juan with a battered-ego moved
his family to Cavite where he bought a house. Eventually, Maria continued
to have illicit relationships, even worse she had it with the security guard of
the subdivision and with some friends of Juan from work. Hopeless in trying
1

to maintain the pride of his family, he inflicted physical force Maria to

impede her from doing these immoral acts against their marriage and
family. He tried asking for intervention of Marias family but no one seems
to have a control over Marias continuous urges to give disgrace to her
family. Juans last hope was to send his family to Laguna, the hometown of
Marias relatives, hoping that the whole clan can help him make Maria
change her ways. He consequently sold their house in Cavite. During this
time they already have their 4 th child. Yet despite of such effort and
optimism Maria continued philandering. Juan all this time repeatedly
forgave Maria despite how hurtful it was for him. He reached the threshold
of his patience. He cannot take any longer without killing himself or worse
kill Maria out of anger and rage.
Juan decided to work abroad not because he wanted a greener
pasture but because he wants to get away with all the hurtful things that
Maria did to him. He went to Taiwan on May 2005, he sent his monthly
income to his family and he was always left with his allowance for his own
expenses. He went home for a vacation on the last week of June to July
10, 2006, Maria seems to be reformed however some neighbors told a
different story but he turned a blind eye to those. On February 14, 2007,
while he was still in Taiwan, Maria told him that she was 9-month pregnant.
Juan knew definitely that he was not the father of the child. On May 15,
2007 Juan went home for another vacation and on May 21, 2007 Maria
gave birth to her 5th child but from a different man. Juan stopped any
communication with Maria after the child was born.
When Juan started to work in Saudi on September 2008 he stopped
sending money through Maria but instead gave his support through their
common 2nd child Bobby/Albert who was then 20 yrs old. His children
complained that sometimes Maria will bring Cecilio, the father of Marias 5 th
child, to their house (Juans family was living with Marias parents) and that
the children no longer have any privacy. So Juan decided to let his children
rent a house a few kilometers away from their grandparents house. Juan
was not able to finish his contract in Saudi and went home September
2008. Although still not talking, he somehow forgave Maria and trusted her
again with their kids.
On October 7, 2008 he flew to Malaysia with a tourist visa which
expired eventually after 1 month. Juan went home on November 2008 to
get his working visa for Malaysia. He borrowed money from a lending
company worth Php 20,000 payable in 1yr and the due amount is Php
40,000. The money was spent for his agency expenses and for their
children. When he started to work in Malaysia and upon receiving his
regular pay he religiously sent every month Php 10,000 for the debt alone
not including his monthly support to his family for 4 months. On June 2009
when he first came back for a vacation he was shock that his debt with the
lending company has not been settled yet as if nothing has been paid yet.
Maria who was the receiver of all the money Juan sent had all the excuses
why she was not able to pay their dues. Dumbfounded, Juan wanted to just
go back to Malaysia to escape further heartaches. Eventually upon
2

returning to Malaysia Juan was able to pay all his dues. He sacrificed all
sorts of social life and just kept on working hard. He never talked to Maria
again. He sent all his financial support through Bobby again.
On February 2011, Juan was told that Maria was very ill and needed
a blood transfusion and that she was in the hospital without any money to
pay all the bills. Out of guilt, Juan sent money for the discharge of Maria but
later on he found out that Maria actually gave birth to her 6 th child (2nd child
with Cecilio).
Currently, Juan has a 13-yr old daughter from another woman who is
in the custody of his relatives in Ormoc and he is living with a new girlfriend
in Malaysia and they are both expecting a baby in October 2012. Juan has
started to invest on properties for his future family.

ISSUES:
1. Is the marriage of Juan and Maria void ab initio based on any or all
of the following grounds?
1. Lack of marriage license;
2. Lack of legal capacity of Maria on account that she was
only 16 at the time marriage;
3. Psychological incapacity on the part of Maria.
2. Does the serial sexual infidelity of Maria constitute Psychological
Incapacity?
3. What is the Property Relations of Juan and Maria?
4. Are Maria and the common children of Juan and Maria entitled to
support?
5. Can Juan sue Maria for Adultery?
6. Can Juan be sued by Maria for Concubinage?

PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Main Issues
DECLARATION OF NULLITY
A.

Declaration Of Nullity On The Ground That There Was No Marriage

License

Since the marriage of Juan and Maria was contracted in 1987, a year
before the Family Code took effect, it would seem that the Civil Code would
apply.
Article 53 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 53. No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these
requisites are complied with:
(4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional
character (Sec. 1a, Art. 3613).
Article 53 states that a marriage license is a requirement for a
marriage to be solemnized while Article 80 declares marriages solemnized
without a marriage license as void from the beginning except those that are
of exceptional character.
Under the Family Code, a similar provision would be Article 35 paragraph 3
of which provides:
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning:
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered in
the preceding Chapter;
The marriage of Juan and Maria does not fall under marriages of
exceptional character as defined in Articles 72, 76, 77 and 78 1 of the Civil
Code and Articles 27, 28,33 and 34 2 of the Family Code. Therefore, under
either the Family Code or the Civil Code, the marriage of Juan and Maria is
void ab initio for lack of marriage license.
B.

Declaration Of Nullity On The Ground That One Of The Parties Was

Underage At The Time Of The Marriage
Article 35 of the Family Code provides that:
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even
with the consent of parents or guardians;

However, in the Civil Code, the age requirement for the wife is only
14 years old as stated in Article 80. 3 At the time of Juan and Marias
marriage, Maria was only 16, and such marriage could be declared void ab
initio on the ground of underage of one of the parties only under the Family
Code. There is, therefore, a need to establish the applicability of the Family
Code to marriages contracted even before the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988.
In the landmark case Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 4 the petitioner had
originally filed a complaint for Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the
Family Code. When the case was elevated to the SC, the Court discussed
4

at length psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring a marriage null

and void but denied the petition. It should be noted that Leouel Santos and
Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos were married on September 20, 1986.
In the case of Toring vs. Toring,5 the petitioner originally filed a petition
for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity of his wife
Teresita. Ricardo and Teresita were married on September 4, 1978.
In yet another case, Lim vs. Lim, 6 a similar petition was filed based on
the same grounds. The parties were married on December 8, 1979.
These three cases are but some where the SC took cognizance of
questions regarding psychological incapacity based on Article 36 of the
Family Code even though the marriages were celebrated before the
effectivity of said code. Article 36 is an entirely new provision and thus by
taking cognizance of these petitions, the Supreme Court has then implicitly
allowed the application of the Family Code retrospectively.
C.

Declaration of Nullity on the Ground of Psychological Incapacity

In March 2003, the Supreme Court issued A.m. No. 02-11-10-SC

2003-03-04 which provides:
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages.
(d) What to allege.A petition under Article 36 of the Family
Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that
either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from
complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at
the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if
any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of
the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be
alleged.
These amendments to the Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily to
the Family Code. By virtue of this amendment, psychological incapacity can
now be used as a ground for filing a petition for the declaration of absolute
nullity of a void marriage in addition to those listed in Article 35 of the
Family Code.
Admittedly, of the three grounds presented for a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage, psychological incapacity might be the
most difficult to prove as it is necessary to prove that the incapacity be a
mental one as in the Santos case. In Republic of the Philippines vs.
Molina,7 it must also be shown to be existing at the time of the marriage
and incurable.
5

In the case at hand, Juan contends that the sexual infidelity of Maria
constitutes psychological incapacity and thus, would have to be guided by
the SC ruling in the case of Toring vs. Toring which states:
Teresitas alleged infidelity, even if true, likewise does not
constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code. In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as
psychological incapacity, the respondents unfaithfulness must
be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality,
completely preventing the respondent from discharging the
essential obligations of the marital state;[22] there must be
proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively
incapacitated her from complying with the obligation to be
faithful to her spouse.[23]
In our view, Ricardo utterly failed in his testimony to prove that
Teresita suffered from a disordered personality of this kind.
Even Ricardos added testimony, relating to rumors of
Teresitas dates with other men and her pregnancy by another
man, would not fill in the deficiencies we have observed, given
the absence of an adverse integral element and link to
Teresitas allegedly disordered personality.
Juan must be able to show that Maria suffers from a disorder and that it is
the direct cause of her inability to perform basic marital obligations like
remaining faithful to her husband.

SUPPORT
Art 194 of the Family Code defines support as:
Art. 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education
and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the
family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to
in the preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or
training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond
the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in
going to and from school, or to and from place of work. (290a)
Until Juans petition for the declaration of nullity is granted, he is under
obligation to materially support Maria and his four children by Maria. This is
in line with Articles 49 and 198 of the Family Code which provide that:
Art. 49. During the pendency of the action and in the absence
of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the
spouses, the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses
6

and the custody and support of their common children. The

Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and
material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent
with whom they wish to remain as provided to in Title IX. It shall
also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent.
(n)
Art. 198. During the proceedings for legal separation or for
annulment of marriage, and for declaration of nullity of
marriage, the spouses and their children shall be supported
from the properties of the absolute community or the conjugal
partnership. After the final judgment granting the petition, the
obligation of mutual support between the spouses ceases.
However, in case of legal separation, the court may order that
the guilty spouse shall give support to the innocent one,
specifying the terms of such order. (292a)
Under Article 198 of the Family Code, upon dissolution of the
marriage, Maria is no longer entitled to support. In Mendoza vs. Parungao, 8
the Court based its decision denying the wifes claims on the fact that the
demand for support by the wife was made after the marriage had already
been annulled and the right to support had already ceased.
The common children are entitled to support during the pendency of
the case under Articles 49 and 198. In the case of Javier vs. Lucero, 9 the
court ruled that even if the person is above the age of majority, he is still
entitled to support unless there are just reasons for the extinguishment of
the right. A similar decision was issued in Falcon vs. Arca 10 and in
Mangonon vs. CA.11 However, Juan is under no obligation to support the
children of Maria by other men as he is not related to them in any way.
Adulterous wives are not entitled to support. So, if the wife claims
support and the husband sets up adultery as a defense, he should be
allowed to introduce preliminary evidence as to why the support should not
be granted as pointed out in Mangoma Vs. Macadaeg and Bautista. 12
There is no reason to believe that Juan intends to withhold support
for his children. In fact, he continues to support even his grandchildren by
his eldest son, Jobert.

PROPERTY RELATIONS
Under the Family Code, the property relations of spouses is absolute
community of property unless there is a marriage settlement.

Article 75 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements,

agree upon the regime of absolute community, conjugal
partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any
other regime. In the absence of a marriage settlement, or when
the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute
community of property as established in this Code shall govern.
(119a)

However, if the couple were living under a void marriage, under

Article 147 of the same code, it is clear that if proof of source of funds used
in acquiring specific properties is presented, the rules on co-ownership
shall govern said properties.

Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to

marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
equal shares and the property acquired by both of them
through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired
while they lived together shall be presumed to have been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be
owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a
party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other
party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed
jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his
or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and
owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after
the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith,
the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be
forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of
or waiver by any or all of the common children or their
descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective
surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such
share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
(144a)

Since Juan intends to petition for declaration of nullity, it is incumbent

upon him to adduce proof showing his share in the acquisition of the
property in order to claim benefits proportional to his interest therein.
Articles 484 to 501 of the Civil Code govern co-ownership. Article 485
specifically provides:
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as
in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective
interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be
void.

Collateral Issues

LEGITIMACY AND FILIATION

If the marriage between Juan and Maria is declared void ab initio, the
four children resulting from the union of Juan and Maria would be
considered illegitimate unless the declaration based on Article 36, that is,
on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The relevant provisions in the Family Code are:
Art 165. Children born and conceived and born outside a valid
marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this
Code.
Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of
annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36
has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate.
Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under
Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.
Should the marriage be declared void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity, the children will be considered legitimate.
There is no reason to believe that the filiation of these four children
will be questioned by Juan as he acknowledged the same in the birth
certificate of each child. Articles 172 175 of the Family Code provide:
Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any
of the following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent
concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation

shall be proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
Art. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate
filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children.
There are no immediate issues emanating from the illegitimacy or
legitimacy of the children. The status of the children become important in
succession.

ADULTERY
Adultery means the carnal relation between a married woman and a
man who is not her husband, the latter knowing her to be married, even if
the marriage be subsequently declared void. Each sexual intercourse made
constitutes a crime of adultery.
Proof of sexual intercourse is enough to be a ground for a case of
adultery.
The offended party or spouse can legally file the complaint of
adultery. The marital status must be present at the time of filing the criminal
action. In other words, the offended spouse must still be married to the
accused spouse at the time of the filing of the complaint.
Adultery is a crime against chastity. In Adultery the pardon given by
the offended party will bar the prosecution of the case.
If a husband wants to file an adultery case against his wife, he must
also charge the paramour.
The provisions of the revised penal code are stacked against the
woman. If she commits even just one case of adultery, she, along with the
paramour can be immediately sued and be charged criminally.
The Revised Penal Codes provides:
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by
any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a
man not her husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the
marriage be subsequently declared void.
Based on what is stated above, Maria appears to have committed
adultery having borne a child not fathered by her husband, Juan. However,
10

from the facts of the case, it seems that Juan continued to cohabit or
maintain a family home with Maria despite his knowledge of Marias
adulterous acts thereby implicitly pardoning her. This effectively bars Juan
from instituting any action against Maria for adultery.
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. The
crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without
including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in
any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
CONCUBINAGE
Concubinage is committed by any husband who shall keep a mistress
in the conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall
cohabit with her in any other place.
Article 334 of the RPC provides:

Art. 334. Concubinage. Any husband who shall keep a

mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman
who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place,
shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.
Only the offended spouse can legally file the complaint for
concubinage. The marital status must be present at the time of filing the
criminal action. In other words, the offended spouse must still be married to
the accused spouse at the time of the filing of the complaint.
The offended party cannot institute the criminal charge without
including both guilty parties (the offending spouse and the paramour), if
both are alive.
In concubinage, the law requires that both culprits, if both are alive,
should be prosecuted or included in the information. Concubinage is a
private offense and at the same time a crime against chastity. In
concubinage, just like in adultery, pardon by the offended party will bar the
prosecution of the case.
Concubinage is committed by a husband in several ways:
by keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a
woman who is not his wife; or
by cohabiting with his mistress in any other place.
11

Concubinage is difficult to prove in court. In order to charge her

husband with concubinage, the wife has to prove that he has committed
any or all of the three acts mentioned above. If the evidence merely proves
that the husband is having an extra-marital affair, he cannot be charged
with concubinage.
In the instant case, Juan, who has fathered a child by a woman other
than his wife, has not committed any of the three acts enumerated above
and therefore has not committed concubinage. The illegitimate child of
Juan cannot be used as evidence of cohabitation. The contention,
therefore, is that Juan cannot be charged for concubinage.
Footnotes
1

Art. 72. In case either of the contracting parties is on the point of

death or the female has her habitual residence at a place more than
fifteen kilometers distant from the municipal building and there is no
communication by railroad or by provincial or local highways between
the former and the latter, the marriage may be solemnized without
necessity of a marriage license; but in such cases the official, priest,
or minister solemnizing it shall state in an affidavit made before the
local civil registrar or any person authorized by law to administer
oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or at a place
more than fifteen kilometers distant from the municipal building
concerned, in which latter case he shall give the name of the barrio
where the marriage was solemnized. The person who solemnized the
marriage shall also state, in either case, that he took the necessary
steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties
and that there was in his opinion no legal impediment to the marriage
at the time that it was solemnized. (20)
Art. 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a
woman who have attained the age of majority and who, being
unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least five
years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state
the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law
to administer oaths. The official, priest or minister who solemnized
the marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to
ascertain the ages and other qualifications of the contracting parties
and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage. (n)
Art. 77. In case two persons married in accordance with law desire to
ratify their union in conformity with the regulations, rites, or practices
of any church, sect, or religion it shall no longer be necessary to
comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 of this Title and any
ratification made shall merely be considered as a purely religious
ceremony. (23)

12

Art. 78. Marriages between Mohammedans or pagans who live in the

non-Christian provinces may be performed in accordance with their
customs, rites or practices. No marriage license or formal requisites
shall be necessary. Nor shall the persons solemnizing these
marriages be obliged to comply with Article 92.
2

Art. 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the
point of death, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of
a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party
subsequently survives. (72a)
Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no
means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally
before the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized
without necessity of a marriage license. (72a)
Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic
cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity
of marriage license, provided they are solemnized in accordance with
their customs, rites or practices. (78a)
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and
a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The
contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before
any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing
officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the
qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment
to the marriage. (76a)

Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by
the male and female respectively, even with the consent of the
parents;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform
marriages;
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of
exceptional character;
(4) Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 83,
Number 2;
(5) Incestuous marriages mentioned in Article 81;
(6) Those where one or both contracting parties have been found
guilty of the killing of the spouse of either of them;
(7) Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and other marriages
specified in Article 82. (n)

13

Leouel Santos vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

Ricardo Toring vs Teresita Toring and Republic of the Philippines G.R.

No. 165321 December 16, 2008:

Edward N. Lim vs Ma. Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim G.R. No. 176464

February 4, 2010

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano

Molina G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

Lorenzo Mendoza vs. Gorgonia Parungao, HonorableEduardo

Gutierrez David, Judgeof First instance of Nueva Ecija, Gabriel
Belmonte, sheriff ex-officioof Nueva Ecija and Honorable Manuel
Moran, Vacation Judge of First instance of the Court of Nueva Eciha
G.R. No. L-26231 August 7, 1926

Javier Vs Lucero, Phil. 634

10

Falcon Vs. Arca, L-18135, July 31, 1963

11

Ma.Belen B. Mangonon, for and in behalf of her minor children

Rebecca Angela Delgado and Regina Isabel Delgado vs. Hon. Court
Of Appeals, Hon. Judge Josefina Guevara-Salonga, Presiding Judge,
RTC-Makati, Branch 149, Federico C. Delgado and Francisco C.
Delgado G.R. No. 125041 June 30, 2006

12

Mangoma Vs. Macadaeg and Bautista, 90 Phil 508

14