This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
VOID DONATIONS BY THE SPOUSES: DONATIONS IN COMMON LAW MARRIAGES MATABUENA VS. CERVANTES BY APORTADERA On 20 February 1956, Felix Matabuena executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos in favor of Petronila Cervantes during the time they were living as husband and wife in a common law relationship. They were later married on 28 March 1962. Felix died intestate on 13 September 1962. Cornelia Matabuena, being the sole sister and nearest and nearest relative to Felix, questioned the validity of the donation claiming that the ban on donation between spouses during a marriage applies to a common-law relationship. She had the land declared on her name and paid the estate and inheritance taxes thereon on virtue of an affidavit of self-adjudication executed by her in 1962. On 23 November 1965, the lower court upheld the validity of the donation as it was made before Cervantes’ marriage to the donor. Hence, the appeal. Whether the Article 133 of the civil code applies to donations between live-in partners?
While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a “donation between the spouses during the marriage,” policy considerations of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship, as it is contrary to public policy. The law prohibits donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, a prejudice deeply rooted in ancient law. Whatever omission may be apparent in an interpretation purely literal of the language used must be remedied by an adherence to its avowed objective. It is a principle of statutory construction that what is within the spirit of the law is as much a part of it as what is written. Otherwise the basic purpose discernible in such codal provision would not be attained. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the 23 November 1965 decision of the lower court; (2) declared the questioned donation void and recognized the rights of plaintiff and defendant as pro indiviso heirs to the property; and (3) remanded the case to the lower court for its appropriate disposition in accordance with the current decision; without pronouncement as to costs.
PROPERTY RELATIONS FOR MARRIAGES BEFORE THE FAMILY CODE DELIZO VS. DELIZO BY APORTADERA Nicolas Delizo contracted two marriages. The first was with Rosa Vilasfer, from 1891 until her death in 1909, a period of 18 years. The second with Dorotea de Ocampo, from 1911 until the death of Nicolas in 1957, or a period of 46 years. The action for partition was instituted in 1957 by the 3 children and the heirs of the first marriage, all against their father, Nicolas Delizo, and his second wife, Dorotea de Ocampo, and their nine 9 children, the herein petitioners-appellants. Involved are the properties acquired by Nicolas Delizo, among which are 66 hectares of agricultural lands in Caanawan, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija; 58 hectares of riceland in Muñoz of the same province; and a lot in Manila. It was found by both the TC and the CA that the Caanawan lands were acquired as homesteads during the existence of the first marriage of Nicolas Delizo to Rosa Villasfer and there being no affirmative showing that they belonged exclusively to said Nicolas Delizo, should therefore correspond to the first conjugal partnership of Nicolas Delizo and Rosa Villasfer. With regards to the other properties, the CA found that these were all acquired during the existence of the second marriage of Nicolas Delizo. However, since these properties were acquired from the produce of the Caanawan properties although such produce is the result of the labor and industry of the spouses Nicolas Delizo and Dorotea de Ocampo, only eighty per cent (80%) of said properties acquired during the second marriage should appertain to the second conjugal partnership, while twenty per cent (20%) thereof adjudicated to the children of the first marriage. Whether the property acquired by homestead is conjugal property of the 1st or 2nd marriage? From the findings of the Appellate Court that 66 hectares of the Caanawan properties were acquired by Nicolas Delizo as homesteads during the period of the first marriage, it does not necessarily follow that they should be considered as properties of the first marriage, considering that being homesteads they were part of the public domain, and it was not shown that all the requirements of the Homestead Law to warrant the grant of a patent to the homesteader have been complied with prior to the death in 1909 of Delizo's first wife, Rosa Villasfer. Under Act 926, which was then the applicable law, the right of the homesteader to the patent does not become absolute until after he has complied with all the requirements of the law. The decisive factor, therefore, in the determination of whether a parcel of land acquired by way of homestead is conjugal property of the first or the second marriage, is not necessarily the time of the issuance of the homestead patent but the time of the fulfillment of the requirements of the public land law for the acquisition of such right to the patent. What was transferred to Nicolas Delizo were not rights of ownership, but inchoate rights as applicants for homesteads over portions of the public domain. Having received the homestead only in 1905, Nicolas Delizo could not have perfected his rights thereon by the completion of the five-year occupancy and cultivation requirement of the law, in 1909. The CA erred in, holding that the entire Caanawan properties belong to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage of Nicolas Delizo and Rosa Villasfer. Considering, however, that about twenty (20) hectares were cultivated and rendered productive during the period from 1905 to 1909, judgment and equity demand that the rights to said properties be apportioned to the parties in proportion to the extent to which the requirements of the public land laws had been complied with during the existence of each conjugal partnership. In connection with the other properties, the CA held that "there is no controversy that these were all acquired during the existence of the second marriage of Nicolas Delizo." Since these properties were acquired from the produce of the Caanawan properties although such produce is the result of the labor and industry of the spouses Nicolas Delizo and Dorotea de Ocampo, only eighty per cent (80%) of said properties acquired during the second marriage should appertain to the second conjugal partnership, while twenty per cent (20%) thereof adjudicated to the children of the first marriage. It would have been facile to hold that those after-acquired properties belong to the second conjugal partnership in view of the statutory presumption enunciated in Article 1407 of the old Civil Code (now Article 160, New Civil Code). There are, however, important considerations which preclude Us from doing so. There is the established fact that the produce of the Caanawan lands contributed considerably to the acquisition.
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS
APORTADERA, BALANE, BERNARDINO, GALVAN, LAGASCA, LEYNES, ORILLAZA, ROCAMORA, SANTOS, SAWIT, TRINIDAD, VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion.
CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION
BALLADOS VS. COURT OF APPEALS BY APORTADERA JOCSON VS. COURT OF APPEALS BY LAGASCA ANSALDO VS. SHERIFF BY LAGASCA CASTRO VS. MIAT BY LAGASCA WHEN CPG COMMENCES AND APPLIES? PNB VS. QUINTOS BY LAGASCA EXCLUDED FROM CPG: EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY LAPERAL VS. KATIGBAK BY LAGASCA BARCILLES VS. GSIS BY TRINIDAD Judge Pascual Berciles died of cardiac arrest. His retirement benefits, unpaid salary, retirement premiums and terminal leave and representation and transportation allowances are being contested in this case by two families. Iluminada Ponce Berciles and her four children Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione (lawful heirs) allege that they are the lawful legal heirs of the deceased. Iluminada presents as proof, evidence of her marriage with the deceased which entitled her and their legitimate children to a share in the said benefits. On the other hand, Flor Fuentebella and her four children Pascual Voltaire, Maria Luisa, Mercy and Rhoda (contending claimants) also claim a share in the benefits. The GSIS resolved to grant the benefits in the following proportion: 77/134 for Iluminada as surviving spouse; 10/134 each for the legitimate children Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione; 5/134 for Pascual Voltaire as acknowledged natural child; 4/134 each for the illegitimate children Maria Luisa, Mercy and Rhoda. Both parties appealed. The lawful heirs contend that the GSIS ruling is erroneous, that they are the only legal heirs under the law. The contending claimants also appealed claiming that they should be the only ones entitled to the benefits. Is the GSIS decision valid? NO
The marriage between Iluminada and the deceased was sufficiently proved and ruled upon by this court, fully supported by appropriate evidence as certified by the civil registry therefore the four children begotten by said spouses during their marital union are all legitimate. They are entitled to their share in the benefits. The marriage between Flor and the deceased was not proved. She only presented a certification that their marriage records could not be found or located in the civil registry. As to Pascual Voltaire, his paternity cannot be sufficiently proved. His birth certificate was not signed by either the father or mother and under the law, if the alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, the putting of his name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void. Pascual Voltaire therefore cannot be considered as an acknowledged natural child. Under the law, illegitimate children are entitled to support and such successional rights so long as there is admission or recognition of paternity. As a result, the illegitimate children of Flor cannot share in the benefits as the marriage between Flor and the deceased was not sufficiently proved and paternity was not established. The retirement benefits and the terminal leave pay, unpaid salary and allowances accruing to the deceased shall be distributed equally to the 5 heirs: Iluminada, Ilona, Ellery, England and Ione. As to the retirement premiums, the same is presumed conjugal, there being no proof that the premiums were paid from the exclusive funds of the deceased. One half belongs to the wife as her property in the conjugal partnership and the other half shall go to the estate of the deceased to be distributed to his legal heirs.
APORTADERA, BALANE, BERNARDINO, GALVAN, LAGASCA, LEYNES, ORILLAZA, ROCAMORA, SANTOS, SAWIT, TRINIDAD, VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion.
Who is entitled to the jewelry? MARTINEZ. leaving a widow (Isabela Garcia) and nine children and an interest in an estate valued at some 50. his widow. that these parcels of land were not acquired by the appellee by conveyance from her husband. he borrowed Php 4. 3 The record shows that the jewels were the sole and separate property of the wife. and we think after a careful examination of the record that this finding must be sustained. As such paraphernal property she exercised dominion over the same. acquired from her mother. and in the absence of further proof. Villanueva sued Begosa for illegal detainer and obtained judgment that became final. YATCO BY TRINIDAD Amalia Plata while single. and that they were in fact conveyed to her by third parties by way of exchange for certain property inherited by her from her father's estate during the coverture. The illegal detainer judgment against the husband alone cannot bind nor affect the wife's possession of her paraphernal.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION EXCLUDED FROM CPG: ACQUISITIONS BY GRATUITOUS TITLE DURING THE MARRIAGE VELOSO VS. (Article 1384. The mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially and Villanueva obtained said property by being the highest bidder. held in the name of the appellee and claimed as her separate estate. A house and lot on Calle Magallanes." The foregoing disposes of all the errors assigned by counsel for the appellant. which provides that "the buildings erected during coverture on land belonging to one of the married couple will be considered as conjugal partnership property. 700 pesos. incase you’re wondering) by the said Hilario Lim either as a gift or for valuable consideration. she could not be deprived of the same by any act of her husband. her separate property under the provisions of paragraph 3 of article 1396. The latter again resold the property to “Amalia Plata. had been brought to the marriage by the said Hilario Lim 2. BERNARDINO. SANTOS. because. ROCAMORA. It is contended by the appellant that these parcels of land were conveyed to the appellee during the coverture (that’s marriage. sold a parcel of land to Celso Saldaña. except the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to order the inclusion in the inventory of the estate of the deceased of three parcels of land. The subsequent conveyance thereof to Celso Saldaña. therefore. Before Domingo died. and which was sold in the course of the administration of his estate. The TC was of opinion that the evidence offered in support of this contention was not sufficient to overcome the presumption established in article 1407 of the Civil Code. either at the time of the marriage or at any time thereafter. and that in either event such conveyance was void under the provisions of articles 1334 and 1458 of the Civil Code. inherited from her mother. we must presume that they constituted a part of her paraphernal property.the entire estate as shown in the inventory prepared by the administrator was conjugal property. and the reconveyance of her several months afterward of the same property. . Evidence before us against the marriage of petitioner Amalia Plata to Gaudencio Begosa is weak. the fact being clearly spread on the land records. married to Gaudencio Begosa. which provides that property acquired by exchange for other property belonging separately to one of the married couple is the separate property of the owner of the property for LIM VS. and without compliance with the provisions of the Civil Code above cited. the deceased Hilario Lim. it appearing from the record that these buildings were constructed out of the conjugal partnership funds. Civil Code. married to Gaudencio Begosa" mortgaged the identical property to Cesarea Villanueva. MARTINEZ BY TRINIDAD Lucia Martinez is the widow of Domingo Franco and administratrix of his estate. (Article 1382. was in entire accordance with the provisions of article 1404. together with improvements TC . however. "Amalia Plata of legal age. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. as they allege. until and unless she had delivered it to her husband. which by law she holds and administers independently. with the intent that the husband might administer it properly. as conjugal partnership property. Civil Code. The deed of mortgage in favor of respondents Villanueva actually recites that the petitioner was the owner of the tenement in question and so does the conveyance of it by Saldaña to her. The setting aside of 700 pesos (which appears to have been taken as the value of the lot sold during the administration) as the separate property of the husband who brought the lot to the marriage. EXCLUDED FROM CPG: ACQUISITION BY REDEMPTION PLATA VS. before a notary public. was not derived from Gaudencio Begosa. Is Plata bound by the detainer/judgment against Begosa? NO She had acquired the property while still single.) She had the exclusive control and management of the same.) There is no proof in the record that she had ever delivered the same to her husband. It appears from the evidence. brought nothing to the conjugal partnership. SAWIT.000 pesos EXCEPT: 1. therefore. Filipino.none of the said property should be treated as the property of the conjugal partnership.000 pesos which. and the sum of 10. GARCIA BY SAWIT Hilario Lim died intestate some time in the year 1903. after allowing the owner of the land the value thereof. Since the property was paraphernal. A writ of execution was issued but Plata resisted all efforts to eject her from her property and filed a claim averring ownership of the property. Martinez claims that the jewelry in question was her own property. Should the property be considered conjugal? YES APORTADERA. in any manner. GALVAN. Counsel for the administrator. signed by Gaudencio Begosa as co-mortgagor. Veloso claims the husband pawned the jewelry to him with full knowledge and consent of Martinez. That being true. and the defendant. TRINIDAD.” In consideration of a Php 3. which provides that all the estate of the married couple will be considered as conjugal partnership property (bienes gananciales) unless and until it is proven that it is a part of the separate estate of the husband or the wife.500 from Mariano Veloso secured by jewelry. and which she may even encumber or alienate without his knowledge or consent. there being no proof that the money paid to Saldaña came from common or conjugal funds. BALANE.000 loan. or for any purpose. the purchase price paid by said Lim for a certain lot which it was also admitted had been brought by him to his marriage. ORILLAZA. brought to the marriage property worth more than double the amount of the intestate estate. Zamboanga.surviving children . LEYNES. did not transform it from paraphernal to conjugal property. and the creditors and purchasers were aware of it. and the treatment of the balance of the price received for this lot. it was admitted. together with the buildings thereon. LAGASCA. it is plain that Plata's possession. without her consent. and they are.
the former being neither an owner nor administrator of the subject property. BALANE. We are. BERNARDINO. but was only consummated after her death.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION 4 which it is exchanged. 136 NCC. (Art. it cannot be said that the sale which was entered into by the private respondent and Don Vicente Legarda had its inception before the death of Dona Clara Tambunting and was entered into by the former for and on behalf of the latter.’50 . CA ruled that the only right remaining to the petitioner is to enforce the collection of the balance because accordingly. LAGASCA. then Don Vicente Legarda would have been able to execute a valid deed of sale in favor of the respondent. GALVAN. Don Vicente Legarda. The Deed of Sale.20. with the understanding that the respondent would eventually buy the lot. then an overseer of the subdivision. Thus. 137 NCC. Legarda. . but there is nothing in the record which tends to prove that it was acquired as a part of her dowry. 1409. The trial court speaks of this property as dowry of the appellee. the husband shall give adequate security. LEYNES. and it hereby relieves the estate of Clara Tambunting de Legarda and the Philippine Trust Company. ROCAMORA.the owner of the lot. there was no effort on the part of the administrator to comply with the above-quoted rule of procedure nor on that of the respondent to protect his interests or to pay the balance of the installments to the court appointed administrator. If the probate court approved the request. Such being the case. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. Apr 2. as administrator of the Testate Estate of Clara Tambunting de Legarda.Don Vicente Legarda was appointed as a special administrator of the estate. died and her entire estate. As for the movables. of any and all liability with respect thereto in case of eviction. Meanwhile the private respondent remained in possession of the lot in question. The wife shall have the administration of the paraphernal property. including her paraphernal properties which covered the lot occupied by the private respondent were placed under custodia legis. The wife retains the ownership of the paraphernal property. provided for the following terms and conditions: • The VENDEE renounces the right to warranty in case of eviction with the knowledge of the risks of eviction and assumes its consequences with respect not only to the lots subject-of the above mentioned cases and claims but also with respect to any other lots subject of contracts of sale or promises to sell that may have been executed by the deceased. therefore. After the appointment of Don Vicente Legarda as administrator of the estate of Dona Clara Tambunting. Apr 28. otherwise. Unfortunately. the sale cannot be the subject of the ratification by the Philippine Trust Company or the probate court. • The VENDEE assumes the risk and expenses of ejecting the tenants or squatters on the said parcels of land if it decides to eject them In its effort to clear the Tambunting Subdivision of its squatters and occupants. Civil Code). It cannot be ratified neither can the right to set up the defense of its illegality be waived. Manotok Realty . it stepped into the shoes of its predecessor (Don Vicente Legarda).Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in holding that the sale by Don Vicente Legarda in favor of the private respondent is valid. Art. 49) .’50 . Arsenal v. Intermediate Appellate Court (143 SCRA 40. Madlangawa was one of the many occupants who refused to vacate the lots they were occupying TC dismissed the petitioner's action.Under the provisions of the Civil Code. unless she delivers the same to the husband by means of a public instrument empowering him to administer it. and indeed the evidence strongly supports the presumption that it was and continued to be a part of her separate estate (paraphernalia) which never acquired the "dotal" character. The lot in dispute was one of those covered by the sale.Manotok Raealty became the successful bidder and vendee of the Tambunting de Legarda Subdivision pursuant to the deeds of sale executed in its favor by the Philippine Trust Company. among others. ORILLAZA. Since there is no dispute that the property in question was the paraphernal property of Clara Tambunting. Mar 13. in its capacity as Administrator thereof. the public instrument shall be recorded in the Registry of Property. 1950. he should have applied before the probate court for authority to sell the disputed property in favor of the private respondent. therefore. CPG: ADMINISTRATION OF EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY BY THE OTHER SPOUSE VELOSO VS. SANTOS. COURT OF APPEALS BY SAWIT Felipe Madlangawa claims that he has been occupying a parcel of land in the Clara de Tambunting de Legarda Subdivision since 1949 upon permission being obtained from Andres Ladores. Clara Tambunting de Legarda and/or Vicente L. Vicente Legarda had no authority whatsoever to sell Whether Don Vicente Legarda could vlidly dispose of the paraphernal property? NO There is nothing in the records that will show that Don Vicente Legarda was the administrator of the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Tambunting during the lifetime of the latter. Art. who died on April 2. led to the inevitable conclusion that the sale between Don Vicente Legarda and the private respondent is void ab initio. In this case. the Manotok Realty caused the publication of several notices in the Manila Times and the Taliba advising the occupants to vacate their respective premises. court action with damages would follow. MARTINEZ BY SAWIT MANOTOK REALTY VS. TRINIDAD. SAWIT. Clara Tambunting. binding. APORTADERA. could not have validly disposed of the lot in dispute as a continuing administrator of the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Tambunting. and enforceable against the petitioner. a void contract is inexistent from the beginning.’59 .
upon property belonging to the hacienda of Tuason & Co. Civil Code). gave her conformity to her father’s Ex-Parte Motion. While it is rule that all property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal. absolving the defendants therefrom and charged the plaintiff with the costs. it must be presumed to be the conjugal property of Felimon and Graciana so that one-half thereof should be adjudicated to them as their inheritance from their mother. the factual finding of the CA is to the effect that Felimon acquired the land through inheritance and this conclusion is bolstered by that fact that no one of the petitioners herein.the provisions of the deed of sale are a declaration or admission against the interest of the petitioner. married to Gallego. 3770 having been acquired by him by way of inheritance prior to his marriage to his first wife. 16. therefore.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION the said property to the private respondent on May 12. as a guaranty for the payment of the sum of P14. and without discussing the same in detail. with a right to the possession of the same. is allegedly estopped from questioning the authority of Vicente Legarda in selling the property in dispute. therefore. To this petition the defendants filed a general denial. and when the same was reinvested in the construction of a house. LEYNES. Old Civil Code). that his first wife died many years ago. As the certificate of title was either lost or destroyed during the last world war. OCT 29257 covering lot was issued in favor of Felimon. Madlangawa . Consequently. by Emiliano Boncan Yap in favor of his wife. filed a Motion Ex-Parte alleging that Lot. made on September 20. The petitioner. the Cadastral court ordered that land be registered in the name of Torela. 1401. appearing on the face of OCT.The court erred in not allowing as proven the transfer of property No. After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause. Therefore.000.) Believing that the foregoing conclusions in effect answer the assignments of error made by the appellant. Bell & Co. Later the said Smith. ORILLAZA. borrowed by the said Emiliano Boncan upon the credit of the property of his wife. he filed a verified petition for reconstitution praying that after due publication in the Official Gazette. LIM QUENCO VS. (Art. which property was known as No. became conjugal property (paragraph 3. . decreeing that he is the owner of a parcel of land (Lot 3770). CPG: ENCUMBRANCE / DISPOSITION OF EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY PALANCA VS. Thus. as above stated. an order be issued setting the petition for hearing. and shows that the acts of Vicente Legarda had been ratified by the Philippine Trust Company and approved by the probate court. conveyed the house in question to the plaintiff and appellant herein as a guaranty for the payment of the debt to the International Banking Corporation. OCT 6898 was in favor of Felimon. and ordering that the same be registered. finding no opposition thereto and with the conformity of Clara Torela.000. From this decision the plaintiff appealed to this court and made the following assignment of error . The court. 1904. above described. LAGASCA. as it was inherited by Felimon from his parents and brought to the marriage with his first wife. daughter of Felimon by Whether or not the parcel of land herein involved is a conjugal property of the spouses Felimon Torela and Graciana Gallego (plaintiffs’ mother). He. which was given by the said Emiliano Boncan. In the instant case there in is nothing in the record to show that the lot in question was acquired during the marriage of Felimon Torela and Graciana gallego. GALVAN. 1408. Graciana Galeego. APORTADERA. plaintiffs’ complaint was correctly dismissed by the court below. BALANE. 16. 1904. obtained an execution out of said court which was levied upon the property in question in this case. and in not finding that she is the sole and exclusive owner thereof. and later. So ordered. 1396. pending in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila obtained a judgment against the said Emiliano Boncan for a sum of money. asking that said court dictate a sentence declaring her to be the only and exclusive owner of the property described in the complaint. Alejandra Palanca de Boncan. SANTOS. On the other hand. With the money so borrowed the said Emiliano Boncan constructed the house in question. with costs. from Felimon. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. with the consent of the said Alejandra Palanca. that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. SAWIT. The property question is one of those documented in Article 1401 of the Old Civil Code. situated in an alley without name running toward the old Santa Mesa race track. Thereafter the court. Torela. Clara Torela. the questioned sale could not have bound Clara Tambunting's estate because the vendor Vicente Legarda neither acted as the owner nor the administrator of the subject property when the alleged sale took place. TORELA BY ROCAMORA Decree 440157 was issued by the CFI of Negros Occidental in favor of Felimon Torela. married to Graciana Galeego. orders the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the original as well as the owner’s duplicate of OCT 29257. Accordingly. BERNARDINO. This proof is a condition sine qua not for the application of the presumption. and so hold. CARTAGENE BY SAWIT PRESUMPTION OF CPG TORELA VS. which Emiliano Boncan borrowed from the International Banking Corporation. Emiliano Boncan Yap having no interest whatever in the property in question. and that said attachment be dissolved. SPANISH Is the property conjugal property? YES 5 An examination of the evidence brought to this court shows that the said Alejandra Palanca was the owner of certain property in the city of Manila. art. After said execution was levied upon the property in question. for the guaranty of the payment of which the said plaintiff and appellant had given her private property. nonetheless the party who invoke the presumption must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage. by a public document executed on the 20th of September. TRINIDAD. This P14. 1950 since the former was appointed as administrator of the estate of Clara Tambunting only on August 28. the lower court denied the prayer of the petition of the plaintiff and appellant. prayed that the court order the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental to change his (movant’s) civil status. in lieu of the lost and/or destroyed one. Petitioners claim that since the lot in questions was registered in the name of Felimon Torela. defendant Felimon had lawfully disposed of his property to the exclusion of his children by his first marriage. the same is deemed his separate property (Art. we are of the opinion. SMITH BELL BY SAWIT Smith. For these reasons. married to Graciana Gallego. On the contrary. the house became conjugal property and was liable for the payment of the debts of the husband. the plaintiff and appellant herein commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the defendant herein. ROCAMORA. married to Graciana Gallego to Felimon Torella married to Marciana Gepango”. Bell . and that he is married by second nuptial to Marciana Gepanago. Civil Code. 1950.
Francisco. Sr. LEYNES. MAGALLON VS. In this case. Graciana Gallego. the latter executed a contract of lease of the said lot in favor of Maximo Vitug. The document was acknowledged before Notary Public. Transfer Certificate was issued to spouses. however. the plaintiffs want us to believe that the parcel of land is a status and in conveying the land to another. if the PNB knew of the conjugal nature of said properties it would not have approved the mortgage applications covering said properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the consent of all other heirs or co-owners thereof. it appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by Donata Montemayor when she was already a widow. Prudencio all surnamed Vitug. and now married to Marcina Gepango. MONTEJO BY ROCAMORA The petition seeks the annulment of a writ of execution issued by the respondent Judge. This ruling presumes that petitioner is the legal wife of Lacerna though no marriage contract was presented by Lacerna to prove his marriage to the petitioner either before or after the death of Eustaquia. their father married Marcina Gepango.000. By virtue of a general power od attorney executed by Donata Montemayor in favor of Pragmacio Vitug. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. upon payment of the required fees. When the properties were mortgaged to the PNB. They assailed the mortgage to the PNB and the public auction of the properties as null and void. his second wife. He also stated in the deed of sale that he was a widower by first marriage to Graciana Gallego. The PNB had no reason to doubt nor question the status of said registered owner and her ownership thereof. Does the presumption of conjugal life of properties acquired by the spouses during coverture provided for in Article 160 of the Civil Code apply to properties covered by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow? 6 wherein it was recited. Felimon executed a definite deed of sale. PNB VS. Relying on the Torrens certificate of title covering properties. Indeed. And this presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code cannot prevail when the title is in the name of only spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved. the PNB had the right to rely on what appears in the certificates of title and no more. On its face the properties owned by Donata Montemayor. For all legal purpose. they were registered in the name of Donata Montemayor. that Felimon had acquired the property by way of inheritance prior to his marriage to his first wife. BALANE. Eligio Jesusand Luz all surnamed Fajardo and the PNB. 496 does not confer title. which is covered by TCT 2887-R in favor of her children Pragmacio and Maximo both surnamed Vitug. Indeed. ORILLAZA. Anselmo. and when their mother died. although actions for recovery of real property and partitions are real actions. As a mere mistress. Donata Montemayor executed a contract of lease of Lot 24. that he is the registered owner of lot. Eustaquia Pichan. The further circumstances that the land was registered during their marriage cannot in itself constitute proof that it was acquired during their marriage for land registration under Act. In other words. claiming to be the common children of Martin and his wife. COURT OF APPEALS BY ROCAMORA Clodualdo Vitug died intestate so his estate was settled and distributed in special Proceeding 422 in the CFI of Pampanga wherein Donata Montemayor. When the property is registered in the name of a spouse only and there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by said spouse. it is clear that the petitioner cannot assert any claim to the land other than by virtue of her supposed marriage to Lacerna. At any rate. she cannot pretend to any right to it. the PNB was a purchaser for value in good faith. The well known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered land gas a right to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispose with the need if inquiring further. So its right thereto is beyond question.00. Meanwhile. granted the motion and ordered the Register of Deeds to change the civil status of the movant from “Felimon Torela. Pedro. the PNB is a mortgagee in good faith for at the time the mortgage covering said properties were constituted the PNB was not aware to any flow of the title of the mortgagor. when said properties were sold at public auction. having acquired it by inheritance from his parents before his marriage to Graciana Gallego. Benigno. Upon its registration. The PNB had no reason to rely on what appears on the certificates of the title of the properties mortgaged. GALVAN. Moreover. widow. This lease was extended. for and in consideration of P3. deceased.. the mortgage loan applications of Donata were granted by the PNB and the mortgage were duly constituted and registered in the office of the Registered of Deeds.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION First marriage. Pragmacio Vitug and Maximo Vitug filed an action for partition and reconveyance with damages in the CFI of Pampanga against Marcelo Mendiola. The PNB not being a party in said is not bound by the said decisions. Alleging that they were deprived of their corresponding share from the property thus sold. They invoked the case of Vitug vs. ROCAMORA. a widow. this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to said spouse.” The presumption applies to property acquired during the lifetime of the husband and wife. Natalia. inter alia. The plaintiffs. Aurora. Salvador. whereby. there are no liens and encumbrances covering the same. Case was instituted by the plaintiffs (private respondents herein) against Martin Lacerna to compel partition of parcel of land in Magsaysay. Corazon. Indeed. except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautions man make such inquiry. In processing the loan applications of Donata Montemaor. it confirms a title already existing and which is registerable. Jesus Vitug. Motemayor. SANTOS. 20. 1953 which is an action for partition and liquidation of the said 30 parcels of land wherein the properties were found to be conjugal in nature. Nor does it appear that the PNB was aware of the said decisions when it extended the above descriptive mortgage loans. LAGASCA. they now assert their right to the estate appertaining to their mother. SAWIT. Antonio. to the plaintiffs while in their youth they had seen their father Felimon and their mother Graciana clean the lot in question. Honorio. decided on Oct. TRINIDAD. Article 160: “All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. married to Marciana Gepanto which is the actual civil status of the movant. The subject of the action is 30 parcels of land which they claim to be conjugal property of the spouses Donata Motemayor and Clodualdo Vitug of which they claim a share of 2/11 of ½ thereof. to which defendant had perfected a claim by homestead. they are actions in personal that bind only the particular individuals who are parties thereto. BERNARDINO. asserted a right to one-half of the land as their mother's share in her conjugal partnership Is petitioner bound by final judgment rendered in an action to which she was not made a APORTADERA. was the Administratrix. . however. special administrator of the estate of Donata Montemayor who died earlier. The circumstances that Decree 440157 of the CFI of Negros Occidental which confirmed the ownership of Felimon over the land in question described him as married to Graciana Gallego was merely descriptive of his civil status at that time and cannot be taken as proof that the land was acquired during their coverture. he sold said lot to Marcos and Maria Luna Mahilum. According. Davao del Sur.
although he had already complied with all the conditions necessary to a grant thereof. on motion of the plaintiffs issued an alias writ of execution commanding the Provincial Sheriff to order the defendant Martin to divide and partition the property. mother of the private respondents. and now incontestable. indeed. was. Moreover. what is awarded by judgment. the petitioner. The petitioners also alleged the finding of newly discovered evidence to prove that the lands were conjugal properties of Agripino and petitioner Engracia. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. leave no doubt that the land. CUENCA VS.. the property should be regarded as impressed with an implied." the latter being the present petitioner. the plaintiff's mother. on the fact that the certificate of title to the land carries her name as the "wife" of the owner Martin. as the trustee of a constructive trust. Apparently. the respondent Judge.. MARTIN LACERNA married to Epifania Magallon. however. The appellate court reversed the decision of the lower court. by force of law. While it is not disputed that said certificate of title refers to the same land homesteaded by Lacerna during his coverture with Eustaquia. has an obligation to convey to the private respondents that part of the land to which she now claims an ostensible title. GALVAN. and plaintiffs being Pichan's children are also entitled thereto. The Trial Court further found that Martin had begun working the homestead. TRINIDAD. The appellate court declared Engracia Basadre as surviving spouse. registered in the names of Martin and petitioner Epifania. BALANE. After the confirmative Decision of the IAC had become final and executory." Said motion was denied. Neither can petitioner invoke the presumption established in Article 160 that property acquired during the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership. even on appeal. The petitioners alleged that these parcels were surveyed for Agripino and approved when Agripino was already married to Engracia as indicated in the documents. the respondent Trial Court is ordered to effect the partition of the land in accordance with the terms of its now final and executory decision and the provisions of Rule 69. The judgment of the respondent Trial Court merely declared the private respondents entitled to onehalf of the land. Both the lower courts appear to have overlooked the fact that the surviving spouse is the legal and compulsory heir of the deceased husband or wife. otherwise. SANTOS. The lower court dismissed the complaint." as well as valid. in view of the finality of the latter's decisions. there is the presumption that these are conjugal properties and therefore petitioners have hereditary rights over these properties. without specifically ordering partition and delivery to them the same. they should have ruled that Martin concurred with the three private respondents in the succession to said portion. if not solely. It appears that at the time the case was brought. hence. Such entry on the certificate of title has been established by evidence no longer disputable as resulting from a mistake if. It rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents. each of them taking an equal share. There was. he claimed. In such a situation. as when as the pertinent allegations of the petition. ORILLAZA. no certificate of title to the land had yet been issued to Martin Lacerna. considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes. during his coverture with Eustaquia. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioners. must be set aside. The facts found by the lower courts which. . for reasons to which the record before the Court offers no clear clue. said error is beyond review because Martin allowed the judgment to become final and executory without raising that point of law. LEYNES. though not for the reasons urged in the petition. The writ of execution is set aside. or a constructive. BERNARDINO. ½ of which is the share of Eustaquia in the conjugal property.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION with Martin. OCT P-11 568 was issued only while Lacerna's appeal was pending in the IAC. trust for the party rightfully entitled thereto. therefore no need to prove the legality of marriage between petitioners Engracia and Agripino much less to prove the legitimacy of the other petitioners who are undoubtedly the children of Agripino and Engracia. While said defendant denied having contracted marriage with Eustaquia — although he admitted living with her without benefit of marriage until she allegedly abandoned him — as well as paternity of two of the plaintiffs who. This Case involves parcels of land which were claimed by two sets of families. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud. A writ of execution cannot vary the terms of the judgment it is issued to satisfy. The IAC affirmed. CUENCA BY ROCAMORA Private respondents Restituto and Meladora Cuenca filed a complaint for recovery of real property and damages against the petitioners before the then CFI of Davao del Norte. consistent with the finding that the half portion of the land sued for pertained to the late Eustaquia as her share in the conjugal partnership with Martin. APORTADERA. LAGASCA. the Trial Court gave his denials no credence. Instead of enforcing said writ. it was not procured through fraud. binding and legal unless declared otherwise in an independent proceedings. The plaintiffs were declared entitled to the half of the land claimed by them. are binding upon this Court and can no longer be controverted. Clearly. were fathered by other men. through fraud or mistaken. and praying that the property of herein intervenor be excluded from the enforcement of the writ of execution. there being no proof of her alleged marriage to Martin except that which arises by implication from the entry in the certificate of title and for the far more compelling reason that the homestead claim on the land was shown to have been perfected during Martin's marriage to Eustaquia. the phrase "married to Epifania written after the name of Martin in said certificate of title is merely descriptive of the civil status of Martin and does not necessarily prove that the land is "conjugal" property. said portion rightfully pertaining to the respondents' deceased mother as her share in the conjugal partnership with Martin. SAWIT. the person obtaining it is. The writ of execution. and his right to a patent to the land accrued. the latter filed with the Trial Court a "Motion for Intervention and to Stay Execution" alleging that the land subject of the writ was conjugal property of herself and Martin under a certificate of title issued way back 1978 without legal impediments. ROCAMORA. Unfortunately. or afford relief different from. it states on its face that it is issued in the name of " . said writ was served on both Martin and petitioner. which rightfully pertained to the conjugal partnership of Martin and Eustaquia. Private respondents Restituto and Meladora Cuenca claimed ownership on the ground that they are the legitimate party? YES 7 The petitioner relies mainly. and deliver portion of 5 hectares of the lot to the plaintiffs as their share to satisfy the said judgment and your fees thereon. and should have been titled in the names of said spouses. or not clearly included in.
The resolutions of the appellate court are AFFIRMED. They contend that the subject parcels of lands are conjugal properties of Agripino and Engracia. BERNARDINO. defendants' evidence consist only of the oral testimonies which proved nothing concrete as they merely are inferences conveniently tailored to support their claim. that the couple acquired properties during the marriage. that Maria Bangahon brought properties into her marriage. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. the documents show that 5 of the 8 parcels are titled in the name of either respondent Meladora or Restituto. The petition DISMISSED. What is more if “that which is acquired by right of redemption or by exchange with other property belonging to only one of the spouses” and “that” which is purchased with the exclusive money of the wife or of the husband: belonging exclusively to such wife or husband. plaintiff. that by virtue of the extrajudicial settlement executed by Agripino Cuenca and his children. . the private respondents herein. The damages in question arose from a breach of plaintiff’s contract of carriage with defendant. Restituto is the absolute owner of the land. for which plaintiff paid their fare with funds presumably belonging to the conjugal property. for Whether the APORTADERA. Said action was based on a breach of contract of carriage coupled with quasi-delict. The damages in the case at bar do not come also under any of the provisions of Article 148 NCC or other provisions forming part of Chapter 3. Whether or not the damages involved in the present case are among those forming the part of the conjugal partnership. They claimed that Agripino and their mother Engracia were legally married and that they are the legitimate children of the couple. who by law should succeed to the possession and ownership." this Court ruled that the presumption refers only to the property acquired during marriage and does not operate when there is no showing as to when property alleged to be conjugal was acquired. GALVAN. Pending appeal. Engracia Basadre-Cuenca together with the plaintiffs as forced heirs of Agripino. Upon the dissolution of the conjugal relationship by the death of spouses. ORILLAZA. there’re fall under Article 153(1). The petitioners attached to their motion an alleged newly discovered evidence consisting of a certified true copy of the Register of Birth of petitioner first child of Agripino and petitioner Engracia which discloses that he is a legitimate child of the couple and a notarized public document which discloses that Jesusa Pagar was married to someone disproving the respondents' evidence. Said damages.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION children of Agripino Cuenca and Maria Bangahon. A motion to dismiss the case insofar as Mrs. one half goes to Agripino which portion after the death of Agripino goes to his alleged third wife. They alleged that some of the parcels are paraphernal property of Maria while all the others are conjugal properties of Maria and Agripino. Title IV of Book I NCC. LEYNES. The documents presented are proofs that the properties belong exclusively to Maria as her paraphernal property. TRINIDAD. the right thereto having been acquired by onerous title during the marriage. Agripino and Maria were legally married with Restituto and Meladora Cuenca as their issues. that one half of the land belongs to Agripino and the other half to Maria the same having been acquired by them during their marriage-conjugal partnership property. These. a fact declared by the husband in a declaration against his interest. These public documents carry sufficient evidentiary weight to prove the origin of the properties and the nature of their ownership as properties brought into the marriage by Maria to Agripino as against the bare testimony of the defendants and their witnesses. On the other hand. REYES This case originated with the filing of a complaint by Ponciano S. pieces of evidence established that the plaintiffs are the forced heirs of Maria and Agripino.00. Moreover. LAGASCA. ROCAMORA. Mrs. his wife and their daughter were awarded moral and exemplary damage as well as attorney’s fee. BALANE. The presumption cannot prevail "when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved. Zulueta separated from the case insofar into compromise agreement with Pan-am wherein she settled for P50. Hence this motion for reconsideration. It was error for the trial court to brush aside the importance of the declaration in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Maria. SANTOS. both deceased. except in cases provided by law. but was denied in the ground that a wife cannot bind conjugal partnership without the husband’ consent.000. The applicable provision of law is Article 153 of the Civil Code which provides: The following are MENDOZA VS. The non-applicablility of the presumption should also be upheld. 8 Article 160: "All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. The documents sought to be presented as newly discovered evidence do not show that the claims to the parcels were perfected during the marriage of Agripino and petitioner Engracia. The fact that these parcels were surveyed for Agripino and approved during their marriage is not determinative of the issue as to whether or not the parcels were conjugal properties. and other. unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Reyes with the CFI of Rizal. They also alleged that Agripino and Engracia Basadre were not legally married because at the time they lived together Agripino was married to a certain Jesusa Pagar. The perfection of the homestead claims is considered the time of acquisition of the properties. The dispositive portion of the CA decision states that petitioner Engracia Basadre was entitled to inherit from Agripino Cuenca together with the latter's legitimate children by Maria. Zulueta is concerned was filed. The petitioners (defendants below) denied the legitimacy of the marriage between Agripino and Maria as well as the legitimacy of the plaintiffs as children. WHAT IS INCLUDED IN CPG? ZULUETA VS. Motion denied. it follows necessarily that which is acquired with money of conjugal partnership belongs thereto or forms part thereof. SAWIT. which chapter is entitled “Paraphernal Property”. PAN-AM BY ROCAMORA In an action for damage against Pan-am.
Any person who buys land registered in the married name of the wife is put on notice about its conjugal nature. now the Development Bank. unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. CFI dismissed the complaint and declared the properties in question exclusive and paraphernal properties of petitioner Julia R. It ruled that she could validly dispose of the same without the consent of her husband and that the Mendozas are innocent purchasers. 1961. CA reversed the decision. TRINIDAD. 1961 otherwise he would agree to the foreclosure his mortgage and he would pay the amount if he can secure a certificate of indebtedness from the government of his back pay. executed by his wife. petitioner Julia R. neither does registration in the name of the wife. and upon failure to do so. can bind the CPG? YES Prescription has set in as to the 1st PN as of February 10. Furthermore. ADIL BY LEYNES Spouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained a P2k agricultural loan from the Agricultural and Industrial Bank. as vendees. SANTOS. There is no question that the disputed property was acquired by onerous title during the marriage. However. OSMENA BY ORILLAZA VDA. Under Article 161 of the Civil Code. PCIB BY ORILLAZA DBP VS. IMPROVEMENTS ON CPG PROPERTY CALIMLIM VS. Hence. executed a 2nd PN acknowledging the loan and promising to pay on or before June 15. . all debts and obligations contracted by the husband and the wife for the benefit of the conjugal partnership are liabilities of the partnership. BERNARDINO. then a member of Congress. whether the acquisition be for the partnership. Julia R. The presumption found in Article 160 of the Civil Code must also be overcome by one who contends that the disputed property is paraphernal Article 160 provides: All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. BALANE. the amount Whether the execution of the 2nd PN by the husband alone. the consent of the Ponciano Reyes to the mere lease of the properties was demanded by the Mendozas allegedly for their own protection. de Reyes and that they had purchased the same in good faith and for adequate consideration. yet when it came to the deed of sale which entailed a greater transfer of rights such consent was not required. agreed to the foreclosure of the mortgage. But the obligation remained unpaid and had prescribed. SAWIT. In a separate answer. FORTUN BY ORILLAZA MARAMBA VS. Ponciano S. LEYNES. LOZANO BY ORILLAZA CHARGES UPON & OBLIGATIONS OF CPG: WITH CONSENT JAVIER VS.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BY ORILLAZA the annulment of a deed of sale of 2 parcels of land with their improvements. or for only one of the spouses. The consideration of the new PN is the pre-existing obligation under the 1st PN. De Reyes as vendor and the spouses Efren V. as evidenced by a PN whereby they bound themselves solidarily to pay in 10 equal yearly amortizations. ORILLAZA. LAGASCA. Confesor. If the fact that property acquired during marriage was registered in the name of the husband alone does not affect its conjugal nature. De Mendoza alleged in their answer that the properties were paraphernal properties of Julia R. De Reyes. The statutory limitation bars the remedy but does not discharge the debt. ROMANA VS. De Reyes. confirming the loan by the spouses. properties are the conjugal properties of the spouses? YES 9 conjugal partnership property: That which is acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund. Petitioners Efren V. This is not a mere case of acknowledgment of a debt that has prescribed but a new promise to pay the debt. DE STA. this petition. Still. Mendoza and Inocencia R. 1961 whereby he promised to pay the amount covered by the previous PN on or before June 15. GALVAN. De Mendoza. 1940. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. Mendoza and Inocencia R. CA ruling affirmed that properties are conjugal properties. But were the funds used to buy the lot and build the improvements at the expense of the common fund? The records show that the funds came from loans obtained by the spouses from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation. supported the spouses Mendozas' contentions. Reyes averred that said properties were conjugal properties of himself and his wife and that she had sold them to petitioners "all by herself" and without his knowledge or consent. APORTADERA. when Confesor executed the 2nd PN on April 11. he thereby effectively and expressly renounced and waived his right to the prescription of the action covering the first promissory note. ROCAMORA.
concurring: I concur in the result. On the other hand. the $25k check was drawn from the personal account of Carlos. (2) the spouses received it and gave it to Vallejo as full payment of a house and lot. Carlos Construction. 1970. Hence the conjugal partnership is liable for this obligation. Ladislao Chavez. TRINIDAD. BERNARDINO. do not require that actual profit or benefit must accrue to the CPG from the husband's transactions. DBP sued the spouses for the payment of the loan. the sugar quedans of the Sps. The husband in acting as guarantor or surety for another in an indemnity agreement did not act for the benefit of the CPG. NCC. REYES. Honorio Garcia claims that Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo approached him and requested him to advance $25k for the purchase of a house and lot. 165. executed a surety bond in favor of the PNB to guaranty a crop loan of P9k to Chavez. Whether the CPG. may at any time sustain. There is no proof that Vicente Garcia in acting as surety or guarantor received consideration therefor. considering that the benefit was clearly intended for a third party. BA FINANCE VS. Moreover. CHARGES UPON & OBLIGATIONS OF CPG: WITHOUT CONSENT LUZON SURETY DE GARCIA BY LEYNES VS. seller of the property. holding that Confessor cannot bind the CPG without his wife’s consent under Art. LAGASCA. could be held liable on an indemnity agreement executed by the husband to accommodate a third party in favor of a surety company? NO The husband. The PNB sued Chavez and Luzon Surety Co. COURT OF APPEALS BY LEYNES CARLOS ABELARDO BY LEYNES VS. and (4) only the wife executed an instrument acknowledging the loan but which the husband did not sign. Patricio Confesor can bind the conjugal partnership or otherwise became liable in his personal capacity. Lacson and Garcia. GALVAN. however. to pay and likewise ordered Chavez. CFI – REVERSED and DISMISSED the complaint and counter-claim. they filed separate answers.577. which was made permanent CA – AFFIRMED the permanent preliminary injunction. Vicente Garcia. 166. all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the CPG are chargeable thereto. BALANE.760. the only obligations incurred by him that are chargeable against the CPG are those incurred in the legitimate pursuit of his career. SAWIT. to pay Luzon Surety Co. hence the collection suit. There must be the requisite showing then of some advantage which clearly accrued to the welfare of the spouses. Ladislao Chavez. acknowledging the loan for the conjugal home. profession or business with the honest belief that he is doing right for the benefit of the family. P576 equivalent to 10% of the total claim by way of AF and incidental expenses plus interest at the legal rate as of September 17. Carlos issued a check in the name of Pura Vallejo. CFI – ORDERED Chavez and Luzon Surety Co. prior to the filing of the complaint. the husband failed to substantiate his claim that he is entitled to the profits and income of the corporation.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION remained unpaid. without the signature of the husband can bind both? YES According to the records: (1) there was a check in the amount of US$25k issued by Carlos. He made a formal demand but they failed to comply. and Lacson. the spouses acknowledged their obligation but pleaded they were not yet in a position to make a definite settlement. based on the indemnity agreement. LEYNES. it was payable on a staggered basis. When Carlos inquired the status of the loan.L. . DENIED DBP’s MR. The husband claimed that the money was not a loan since he Whether a written instrument by the wife. DBP: Judge Midpanto Adil refused to recognize that the right to prescription may be renounced or waived. The wife admitted securing a loan together with her husband. the total amount to be paid by it to PNB. even if hypothetically accepted.96 plus additional daily interest of P1. Since the spouses were separated in fact for more than 1 yr. in the absence of any showing of benefits received. Garcia. the husband is the administrator of the CPG. but the words "all debts and obligations contracted by the husband for the benefit of the CPG" in describing the charges and obligations for which the CPG is liable. as principal. To enable and assist the spouses conduct their married life independently and on their own. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the CPG except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. As such administrator. MTC – ORDERED the spouses to pay P5. Garcia were levied and garnished from their sugar plantation. such benefit. it issued a writ of execution against Garcia for the satisfaction of the claim of Luzon Surety Co. All the checks of the husband were all in the account of H. but that it suffices that the transaction should be one that normally would produce such benefit for the partnership.95. as such administrator. SANTOS. CC. and Luzon Surety Co. ORILLAZA. together with Chavez and Ramon Lacson. then all the more does this prove that the $25k was not part of such profits because it was issued by Carlos from his own account. Assuming to be true that the checks presented were his profits from the corporation. To make the CPG respond for a liability that should appertain to the husband alone is to defeat and frustrate the avowed objective --. 10 Under Art.04 from September 17. Garcia filed for preliminary injunction. Thereafter. which may redound to the benefit of the CPG. until fully paid and the costs of the suit.solidarity and well-being of the family as a unit. While the husband by thus signing the indemnity agreement may be said to have added to his reputation or esteem and to have earned the confidence of the business community. The Sps. Confesor signed the 2 nd PN for the benefit of the CPG. ROCAMORA. Nor could there be. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. is too remote and fanciful to come within the express terms of the provision. who acknowledged its receipt. Obligations incurred by the husband in the practice of his profession are collectible from the CPG. filed a third-party complaint against Chavez. as guarantors. Then. (3) this house and lot became the spouses’ conjugal dwelling. 1970 (date of filing of complaint). The spouses never denied the APORTADERA. to recover the amount of P4. and that in signing the 2nd PN. signed an indemnity agreement binding themselves solidarily for any and all damages and other burdens Luzon Surety Co. Luzon Surety Co.
NCC. their son. BALANE. so that all others not granted expressly cannot be considered as enjoyed by her. 161. LC – GRANTED MTQ under Art. to assist in the management. Juan designated Bilbao as manager.L. and must be restrictively construed. When Jon resigned. took over as manager. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. is entitled to take over possession and management of the hacienda. Jose. The law presumes good faith. Otherwise. The husband. LAGASCA. FC. which was granted. APORTADERA. RTC – ORDERED the spouses to pay $25k. Juan Ysasi. ordinary credibility sufficing. Juan claims Maria never made any such report. the acknowledgment of the loan by the wife binds the CPG since its proceeds redounded to the benefit of the family so both are solidarily bound to pay the loan. Hacienda ManucaoA was managed by Valentin Bilbao. The wife's right rests upon proof of such abuse. the code still assumes the existence of a residuary authority in the latter with respect to the administration of community property. TRINIDAD. as the case may be. The termination of the CPG is not a prerequisite. he showed an instrument executed by the wife acknowledging her and her husband’s accountability. Jon. CPG: JOINT ADMINISTRATION YSASI FERNANDEZ BY VALDEZ VS. Carlos Construction.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION offered his services for Carlos’ construction company and such was his share of the profits from the contracts he obtained for Carlos. Jon did not allow him to participate. Dissension between the two developed. The right to require the husband to render an accounting is not among those granted to her. BERNARDINO. The case was remanded for the proper receipt of evidence for recovery. These must first be proven. AF and burial expenses. undoubtedly. the husband or the wife. Absent that proof. plus legal interest thereon and P100k AF and the husband to pay P500k as MD and P50k ED. ORILLAZA. CA – REVERSED and DISMISSED the complaint for insufficiency of evidence to show that the subject amount was indeed loaned to the spouses because there was evidence that the $25k was the husband’s share in the profits of H. representing the CPG may find the temptation to magnify its obligation irresistible so as to defeat the right of recovery of the family of the offended party. Since 1948. Jon refused to turn over the hacienda because Maria already took possession and administration of the hacienda since his resignation. Notwithstanding the alleged lack of consent of the husband. What practical effect would be given this particular liability of the CPG for the payment of fines and indemnities imposed upon either husband or wife? Fines and indemnities imposed upon either husband or wife may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Art. he presented 10 BPI checks allegedly given to him by Carlos and argued that if indeed. from 1952-1965 but Juan maintained overall supervision. sued Froilan Lagrimas for murder and subsequently. Maria filed for Whether a husband may be deprived of his powers of administration over conjugal partnership properties upon mere allegations of abuse of such powers? NO The changes introduced by the code have not relegated the husband to the position of an ordinary administrator of another's property. Hence. The husband may not be forced to surrender his statutory right to administer the conjugal properties by the simple expedient of merely charging him with the naked averment that he has forfeited that right. The sale thereof at public auction was scheduled. Neither may the husband be divested of his administration upon mere assertions of fraud. but before which. if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient. Receivership at this stage is improper. accordingly. the wife's right does not exist. . are husband and wife. the latter could have easily deducted the amount of the said loan from his share of the profits. The period during which such a liability may be enforced presupposes that the conjugal partnership is still existing. This prompted Maria to leave for the Philippines to iron out the differences between the two brothers and to inquire into the affairs of the hacienda. ROCAMORA. petitioner. the spouses have been commuting between the Philippines and Spain where they also own real properties. The heirs of the victim. 21. CHARGES UPON & OBLIGATIONS OF CPG: PERSONAL DEBTS PEOPLE LAGRIMAS BY LEYNES LC – GUILTY of MURDER and ordered to indemnify the heirs P6k plus P10k as damages. 11 money was used to purchase the conjugal dwelling. A levy was had on 11 parcels of land under the name of the accused. moved for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on his property. the wife of the accused. While the husband refused to sign the acknowledgment executed and signed by his wife. and Maria de Ysasi. Mercedes. Juan instructed their younger son. The grant of certain rights to the wife is specific. VS. Considering that the obligations mentioned in Art. authorizing her to intervene in and question some acts of the husband. the proof required of the beneficiaries of the indemnity should not be of the most exacting kind. 161 have been covered. He himself has an interest in the community property. must be complied with first. moved to quash the writ of attachment and execution because the property belonged to the CPG which cannot be held liable for the pecuniary indemnity of the husband. Juan concedes Hacienda Manucao-A is conjugal property. 161 chargeable against such assets. 161 are peculiarly within the knowledge of the husband or of the wife whose conjugal partnership is made liable. Although certain rights are now recognized in the wife. Manuel Abelardo: To prove his claim. one of the respondents. Then in 1965. under Art. But the husband shuttled more frequently between the two countries on account of the management of the hacienda. LEYNES. SAWIT. Subsequently. the loan redounded to the benefit of the family because it was used to purchase the conjugal home. At stake here are the husband's power of administration and the wife's right to be protected from abuse thereof. he and his wife were indebted to him. SANTOS. He also refused to let Jose act as Cashier even as the latter was so designated by the father. he shall be solidarily liable for such loan together with his wife. Partnership assets contemplates that the responsibilities to which enumerated in Art. GALVAN. Carlos: To prove his claim.
Eduardo and Hermogena Felipe without the consent of her husband. the wife may be punished for contempt for her refusal to deliver to him the conjugal assets.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION administration of the CPG or. 166) And the wife cannot bind the CPG without the husband's consent. Felipe claiming they orally mortgaged the lots and they offered to redeem the mortgage. The father's share is one-half (1/2) of the lands and their share is two-thirds (2/3) thereof. After the death of Maximo they acquired the right to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary rights in their father's share in the lands. And declared BPI to be the receiver. LC – GRANTED ex parte petition on the same day. preferably BPI. hence the complaint. Felipe to be the lawful owners thereof CA – REVERSED and ordered the Sps. And. BALANE. sold lands belonging to the conjugal partnership without the consent of the husband and the sale is not covered by the phrase "except in cases provided by law. upon Juan's filing. after deducting the sum of P1. The husband may even enforce right of possession against the wife who has taken cover the administration without his consent. Here. in the alternative. (Art. as well as its records. ORILLAZA. documents and books of accounts. the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the CPG without the wife's consent. Juan set up affirmative defenses and counterclaim and filed a third-party complaint against Jon and moved for a writ of preliminary mandatory and preventive injunction to compel his wife and son to turn over to Bilbao Hacienda Manucao-A. make an accounting of the produce derived and to solidarity turn over the NET monetary value of the profits. mandatory injunction should issue but only upon bond. she could not do thereafter. could not ask for its annulment." Hence. except in cases provided by law. The Sps. The heirs of Maximo Aldon. In the meantime. (Art. Gimena had no capacity to give consent to the contract of sale. GALVAN. Juan moved to set aside the order appointing his wife receiver pendente lite. but was refused. TC . a separation of property with ex parte petition that she be appointed receiver pendente lite because her husband was already 77 yrs. SANTOS. and other properties used in the operation of the hacienda. Whether the sale of conjugal property by the wife without the consent of the husband is valid? YES The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. the lands were divided into 3 lots of the San Jacinto Public Land Subdivision. Maximo Aldon died. who was the party responsible for the defect. 172). Felipe to surrender the lots and muniments of title. It was only in 1976 when the heirs filed action to recover the lands. The BPI. Juan: The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. mortgagee of the hacienda. the period for APORTADERA. She may be required to render full and complete accounting of such properties. The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is different. LAGASCA. LEYNES. papers. 165. ROCAMORA. Felipe have been in possession of the lands since 1951. The voidable contract of Gimena was subject to annulment by her husband only during the marriage because he was the victim who had an interest in the contract. Gimena. The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the CPG by the death of Maximo did not improve the situation of Gimena. What she could not do during the marriage. We quote with approval the following statement of the Court of Appeals: Since the Sps. Later. as receiver. filed an Urgent Motion to Authorize Crop Loan Releases. Maria and Jon are to turn over to Juan the possession and control of Hacienda Manucao-A. LC – DENIED writ of preliminary injunction but reserved for a later date the decision for the release of the crop loan lines. SAWIT. Anent the first question. the sale made was a voidable contract. of a bond in the sum of P50k to answer for any and all damages which private respondents or any of them may suffer by reason of the issuance of said injunction. and Judge Jose Fernandez' approval. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. and has a blind left eye and he abandoned her and their conjugal properties without just cause.500 to the spouses. work animals. 12 Because of the possible abuses that may ensue from the husband’s administration. BERNARDINO. Their children could not likewise seek the annulment of the contract while the marriage subsisted because they merely had an inchoate right to the lands sold. TRINIDAD. The capacity to give consent belonged not even to the husband alone but to both spouses. .800. implements. HEIRS OF BY VALDEZ Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara and they bought parcels of land. Meanwhile BPI was ordered to give monthly allowance of P1. the wife. Felipe claimed they acquired the lots by purchase and subsequent delivery. (Art. CPG: DISPOSITION & ENCUMBRANCE FELIPE ALDON VS. one-third (1/3) pertaining to the widow. Juan asked the court that the releases be made to him. Maria filed a supplemental petition asking to appoint a disinterested person. CC) Subject to certain exceptions. which may result in damage to the wife. Gimena sold the lots to Sps. Felipe acted in BF because as relatives they never sought the consent of Maximo. The Sps. Gimena. and all the agricultural machinery. The wife is not entitled — as of right — to joint administration.DECLARED the Sps. namely his widow Gimena and their children sued the Sps.
BALANE. the CA did not err in voiding the wife's sale of the conjugal land without the husband's consent. the wife cannot make such a disposition without the husband's consent since the husband is the administrator of the conjugal assets. had not only abandoned her but as well was mismanaging their conjugal partnership properties. LAGASCA.00 as exemplary damages.00 as moral damages and P25. are the same as those granted to her by Art. 1978 which was the date when Vicente and the spouses entered into a contract. Vicente sold the lot to Sps. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. 1982. In the instant case. and not mere separation. The children filed action within the period so their shares of the lands was awarded. The disputed lot and the apartments built thereon were part of the spouses’ conjugal properties having been purchased using conjugal funds from their garments business. until finality of this decision.500 during the pendency of the action. Vicente: He contended to have sold his share only and never represented she was already dead. there must be real abandonment. 1986.REYES MIJARES BY VALDEZ VS. He claimed that the Sps.000. These obvious flaws in the death certificate should have prompted them to investigate further. ROCAMORA. To entitle her to any of these remedies. and (3) her burial or cremation would be on March 8. but did not award the rentals. With more reason. and prayed for (1) separation of property. before her demise is perfectly within the 10 yr.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION 13 extraordinary prescription (30 years) should be applied and it had not yet lapsed. prescriptive period under Art. The purchase price of the lot was P110k and ordered Vicente to return ½ thereof to the spouses. (3) Vicente Reyes is ordered to pay the heirs of the late Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes. AGUILAR. 178. After this decision becomes final. Failing to settle the matter amicably. Vicente and Ignacia were married in 1960. In 1984. concurring: I concur in the result. of the wife otherwise. LC – DECLARED the sale void in its entirety and ordering Vicente Reyes to reimburse the spouses the purchase price of P110k. 178 when she has been abandoned by the husband for at least 1 yr. 173. Mijares: They claimed to be purchasers in good faith and that the sale was valid because it was duly approved by the court. Cipriano and Florentina Mijares for P40K and that Vicente filed a petition for administration and appointment of guardian. it is still valid because the spouses were innocent purchasers for value. LC – APPOINTED Vicente as the guardian of their minor children and authorized Vicente to sell the estate of Ignacia. LEYNES. DE BY VALDEZ Estrella de la Cruz complained her husband. . Ignacia died and she was substituted by her compulsory heirs. physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the term "abandonment". ORILLAZA. reveals that – (1) it was issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Lubao Pampanga on March 10.000. but had been separated de facto since 1974. under Art. 1986. he had misrepresented that his wife died in 1982. Whether the sale of conjugal property by husband without consent of the wife can be annulled? YES The husband could not alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the consent. however. (2) the alleged death of Ignacia was reported to the Office of the Civil Registrar on March 4. As that sale is contrary to law. express or implied. Ignacia filed in 1996 an annulment of sale. especially so when Florentina Mijares admitted on cross examination that she suspected Ignacia was still alive. The spouses are not purchasers in good faith because of circumstances that should have placed them on guard. In awarding rentals which are in the nature of actual damages. SAWIT. GALVAN. Severino. 4349B-2. CA – REVERSED. Ignacia demanded the return of her ½ share in the lot.00 as purchase price of Lot No. Ignacia learned that in 1983. notwithstanding the absence of Ignacia’s consent to the sale. (1) The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is ordered to issue a new certificate of title over Lot No. 1983 sale which was filed on June 4. Ignacia prayed the sale be declared void in its entirety and that the respondents be ordered to reimburse the rentals they collected on the apartments built thereon. conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss. (2) Vicente Reyes is ordered to reimburse the respondent spouses the amount of P110. (2) monthly support of P2. 1982. the action to have it declared void or inexistent does not prescribe. The same death certificate. The death certificate of Ignacia. with interest at 6% per annum from June 4. Mijares took advantage of his illiteracy by filing a petition for the issuance of letters of administration and appointment of guardian without his knowledge. Moreover. Ignacia’s action would still be within the prescribed period.CC. the contract is voidable. APORTADERA. Did the separation of the husband and wife constitute abandonment in law that would justify a The extraordinary remedies afforded to the wife by Art. Therefore. Pending the appeal. The prayer for payment of rentals should be denied. a transaction which is very common in rural areas. The abandonment must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to financial and moral desertion. TRINIDAD. 4349-B-2. and that he and their 5 minor children were her only heirs. SANTOS. AQUINO.000. if the husband. BERNARDINO. the amounts of P25. and (3) payment of P20k as AF and costs. there are indications that the contract between the parties was an antichresis. Ignacia’s action to annul the March 1. speculations. 1982. 167 in case of abuse of the powers of administration by the husband. Ignacia and the spouses appealed. shows that she died on March 22. in the name of petitioners as co-owners thereof. 1982. Sps. Even if reckoned from November 25. interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal and interest (or any part thereof) shall be imposed until full payment. CPG: EFFECT OF ABANDONMENT DE LA CRUZ LA CRUZ VS. LC – DECLARED the sale void with respect to the share of Ignacia. the Court cannot rely on mere assertions.
ORILLAZA. . but paid short visits during which they engaged in brief conversations and left her for his concubine. LEYNES.000. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. ROCAMORA. BALANE. such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 Sec. evidenced by a repetition of deliberate acts and/or omissions prejudicial to the latter. he proved that through his industry and zeal. the CC requires that separation of property shall not prevail unless expressly stipulated in marriage settlements before the union is solemnized or by formal judicial decree during the existence of the marriage and in the latter case. there must be abuse of powers of administration of the conjugal partnership property of the husband. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE BY BALANE The petitioners Princesita. was reduced to P2. or married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their right to allowance under Art. Be it noted however that with respect to "spouse. If there is only physical separation between the spouses (and nothing more). Severino: He denied having a concubine and admitted that they were living separately but explained that he was never amiss in his obligation to support his family and manage the conjugal property. They further allege that the administrator does not have sufficient funds to cover the allowance because whatever funds are in the hands of the administrator constitute funds held in trust for the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit properties from where these funds now held by the administrator are derived. Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Petitioners argue that private respondents are not entitled to any allowance since they have already attained majority age. The fact Severino never ceased to give support to his wife and children negatives any intent on his part not to return to the conjugal abode and resume his marital duties and rights. upon Severino's motion. for these may be the result of mere inefficient or negligent administration. CFI – GRANTED the motion without conducting a hearing thereon Whether allowance to the respondents should be on the mere allegation that they are still schooling without conducting a hearing thereon? YES separation of the conjugal partnership properties? NO 14 despite his voluntary departure from the society of his spouse. the private respondents Victor. the conjugal assets at the time of the trial had increased to a value of over a million pesos. Since the provision of the Civil Code." the same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common-law spouses who are the mothers of the children here). gainfully employed.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION LC – GRANTED alimony pendente lite. Gonzalo Garcia sued his wife Consolacion for the judicial declaration of the Whether the Under Art 191. which however. and religiously gives support to his wife and children. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he has squandered the conjugal assets. During the intestate proceedings the respondents moved for allowance on the ground they were of schooling age. APORTADERA. a substantive law. While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased. Petitioners allege there was misrepresentation on the part of the guardian in asking for allowance for tuition fees. Pablo Santero was the only legitimate son of Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. Rodrigo. the same was certified to the SC because of the hefty amount involved. Consistent with its policy of discouraging a regime of separation as not in harmony with the unity of the family and the mutual affection and help expected of the spouses. it may only be ordered by the court for causes specified in Art. de Santero. On appeal to the CA. Anselmina and Miguel are four of the seven children begotten by Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz. it is not enough that the husband perform an act or acts prejudicial to the wife. ORDERED the separation and division of the conjugal assets. Both sets of children are the natural children of the late Pablo Santero since neither of their mothers. was married to Pablo. gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased. two are gainfully employed and one is married. industry. SAWIT. Upon the contrary. SANTOS. engendered by the husband's leaving the conjugal abode. the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. BERNARDINO. The mere refusal or failure of the husband as administrator of the conjugal partnership to inform the wife of the progress of the family businesses does not constitute abuse of administration. LAGASCA. For abuse to exist. and directing Severino to pay P20k AF. Abuse connotes willful and utter disregard of the interests of the partnership. Nor is it sufficient that he commits acts injurious to the partnership. TRINIDAD. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule. NCC. The fact that private respondents are of age. Rodrigo. and efficiency as he did prior to the separation. Hence. 188. neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife. GALVAN. JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF PROPERTY: FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE GARCIA VS. Estrella: She claimed that her husband did not sleep in the conjugal dwelling. Federico and Winy are the children begotten by the late Pablo Santero with Felixberta Pacursa while private respondents Victor. Was Severino's failure or refusal to inform the state of their business enterprises such an abuse of his powers of administration of the conjugal partnership as to warrant a division of the matrimonial assets? NO SUPPORT DURING CPG LIQUIDATION SANTERO VS. but the husband continues to manage the conjugal properties with the same zeal. the wife's petition for separation of property must be denied. books and other school materials and other miscellaneous expenses for school term. 191.
complaint establishes a sufficient cause for judicial separation of property? NO 15 or in case of abandonment by the husband.. TRINIDAD. So ordered. separation of property may also be ordered by the court according to the provisions of Arts. For this reason. She is the administrator of the household. BALANE. the Court does not thereby accord recognition to nor legalize the de facto separation of the spouses. The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the CPG during the marriage. The Sps. ORILLAZA. 167 and 173(3). APORTADERA. JOSE-LACSON SAN Carmen San Jose-Lacson left the conjugal home to reside in Manila and filed for custody of her children with Alfonso. and separation of property. The sale by their father after the death of their mother was without their knowledge and consent. The spouses obtained judicial imprimatur of their separation of property and the dissolution of their CPG. It does not appear that they have creditors who will be prejudiced by these arrangements. LEYNES. succeeded in reaching an amicable settlement respecting custody of the children. shall be notified of any petition for judicial approval of the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership. Monday are ordered to return one-half of the properties to the heirs of Regina Morales. it is sufficient to present the final judgment which has been entered against the guilty or absent spouse. so that any such creditors may appear at the hearing to safeguard his interests. occupation. shall be notified of any petition for judicial approval of the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership. or business but also her contribution to the family's material and spiritual goods through caring for the children. Thee disputed properties were owned in common by Melbourne Maxey and the estate of his late wife. BY BALANE LIVE IN PARTNERS OR THOSE UNDER A VOID MARRIAGE MAXEY VS. LC – DISMISSED the complaint Wherefore. subject to judicial approval. The husband and the wife may agree upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage. so that any such creditors may appear at the hearing to safeguard his interests.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION MANZANO BY BALANE separation of their CPG. However. husbanding scarce resources. This enumeration must be regarded as limitative. He claimed that during the separation. The "real contribution" to the acquisition of property must include not only the earnings of a woman from a profession. the remedy of the husband does not lie in a judicial separation of property but in revoking the power granted to the wife and resume the administration of the community property and the conduct of the affairs of the conjugal partnership. subject to judicial approval. COURT OF APPEALS BY BALANE Melbourne Maxey and Regina Morales (both deceased) were married in a “military fashion” and thereafter. In all these cases. administering the household. JDRC – GRANTED the compromise YES Alfonso delivered all the four children to Carmen and remitted money for their support. It is the woman who traditionally holds the family purse even if she does not contribute to filling that purse with funds. The Sps. his wife had assumed complete management and administration of the CPG and enjoyed its fruits without filing any ITRs. Melbourne acquired the parcels of land and sold it to the Sps. Upon approval of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership. the judgment appealed from is affirmed. neglect her traditional household duties. the articles above quoted contemplate exclusively the remedies available to the wife (who is not the legal administrator of the partnership) against the abuses of her husband because normally only the latter can commit such abuses. LAGASCA. Upon approval of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership. as well as of the conjugal partnership. During their cohabitation. there is propriety of severing their financial and proprietary interests is manifest. Regina Morales. having been acquired during their lifetime and through their joint effort and capital. In the event of such maladministration by the wife (and disregarding the case of judicial authorization to have the wife manage the partnership. 191. No matter how large the income of a working wife compared to that of her husband. Gonzalo claimed they have been living separately from each other and all attempts at reconciliation have failed. . when they were sold. in view of the Code's restrictive policy. GALVAN. All the creditors of the husband and of the wife. if not the full responsibility of running the household remains with the woman. in so approving the regime of separation of property of the spouses and the dissolution of their CPG. Carmen wanted to modify the arrangement regarding their children and the compromise regarding the separation of their property. Whether the agreement to voluntarily dissolve the CPG is valid? The law allows separation of property of the spouses and the dissolution of their conjugal partnership provided judicial sanction is secured beforehand. 214 and 215 shall apply. TC – DECLARED that the rules on co-ownership should govern because there was only a live in relationship and held that justice demands that the woman should be entitled to the share of the property and ORDERED the return of the lands. The provisions of this Code concerning the effect of partition stated in Arts. NCC for decreeing a judicial separation of properties was alleged. as well as of the conjugal partnership. Being separated in fact for at least 5 yrs. the court shall take such measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons. and otherwise performing the traditional duties of a housewife. Whether the NCC should apply retroactively as to award the household efforts of the wife and allow her a claim on the property gathered during the live in relationship? YES The new article in the CC recognizes that it would be unjust and abnormal if a woman who is a wife in all aspects of the relationship except for the requirement of a valid marriage must abandon her home and children. The Sps. ROCAMORA. Consolacion MTD for lack of cause of action because none of the grounds under Art. the court shall take such measures as may protect the creditors and other third persons. upon proper action filed for that purpose. the provisions of Arts. the major. SANTOS. lived together as husband and wife and had 6 children. even to the extent of annulling or rescinding any unauthorized alienations or incumbrances. freeing her husband from household tasks. and go out to earn a living or engage in business before the rules on co-ownership would apply. The Maxey children sued for the annulment of the documents of sale claiming these were common properties of their parents. since such a case is not involved). SAWIT. Monday. with costs against appellant. All the creditors of the husband and of the wife. 498 to 501 shall be applicable. Monday claim to be purchasers for value. CA – REVERSED because the lands were the exclusive properties of the late Melbourne. He may enforce his right of possession and control of the conjugal property against his wife and seek such ancillary remedies as may be required by the circumstances. After dissolution of the conjugal partnership. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. The fact that the two involved in this case were not legally married at the time does not change the nature of their respective roles. support. JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF PROPERTY: VOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF PROPERTY LACSON VS. BERNARDINO.
LEYNES. can be held solidarily liable for damages with her live in partner? NO 16 Art. GSIS BY BERNARDINO YAP VS. CC. SANTOS. CFI . who is not the registered owner of the jeepney can neither be liable for damages caused by its operation. Only the registered owner of a public service vehicle is responsible for damages that may arise from consequences incident to its operation. there is an impediment for him to contract marriage with Rosalia Arroyo. who is not a registered owner of the jeepney. Since Eugenio Jose is legally married to Socorro Ramos. MULTIPLE ALLIANCES OF THE SAME MAN JUANIZA VS. which resulted in the death of 7 and physical injuries of 5 passengers. BALANE. CARINO BY BERNARDINO Whether the concubine. 144. .CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES. BERNARDINO. There is therefore no basis for the liability of Arroyo for damages arising from the death of.ORDERED Eugenio Jose and Rosalia Arroyo to indemnify the victims solidarily and DENIED the MR of Rosalia (insofar as it condemns her to pay damages solidarily with her co-defendant) because of her liability as co-owner of the jeepney under Art. SAWIT. CC. the passengers of the jeepney which figured in the collision. RELATIONSHIPS WHERE BOTH ARE MARRIED TO OTHERS. Arroyo cannot be a co-owner of the jeepney. and physical injuries suffered by. 144. 144. GALVAN. DE CONSEGUERA VS. ORILLAZA. Rosalia Arroyo. or maybe caused to any of the passengers therein. COURT OF APPEALS BY BERNARDINO CARINO VS. LIPANA BY BERNARDINO VDA. Under Art. ADULTEROUS / CONCUBINAGE RELATIONSHIPS. ROCAMORA. CC requires that the man and the woman living together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. for 16 yrs. GOMEZ VS. Eugenio was legally married to Socorro Ramos but had been cohabiting with Rosalia Arroyo. At the time of the accident. JOSE BY BALANE Eugenio Jose was the registered owner and operator of the passenger jeepney involved in an accident of collision with a freight train of the PNR. The jeepney belongs to the CPG of Jose and his legal wife. CITY OF TACLOBAN APORTADERA. TRINIDAD. LAGASCA. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. FAMILY: WHAT GOVERNS FAMILY RELATIONS? ALVADO VS.
GALVAN. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. GAYON BY SAWIT WAINWRIGHT VS. PERIDO BY APORTADERA 17 DE LA PURTA VS. VERSOZA BY SAWIT FAMILY HOME: EXEMPTIONS MODEQUILIO VS. LEYNES. LUCASAN BY SAWIT PATERNITY & FILIATION: LEGITIMATE CHILDREN PERIDO VS. SAWIT. BERNARDINO. TROCIO BY APORTADERA PATERNITY & FILIATION: RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN APORTADERA. BALANE. . ROCAMORA. BREVA BY SAWIT SIARI VALLEY VS. LAGASCA. COURT OF APPEALS BY SAWIT FAMILY: FAMILY RELATIONS GAYON VS. TRINIDAD.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BY BERNARDINO ARROYO VS. COURT OF APPEALS BY APORTADERA TAN VS. ORILLAZA. SANTOS.
" The defendants' case becomes the stronger when it is remembered that. by affidavits. APORTADERA. And under articles 139 and 845 of the Civil Code. There must be a declaration of the status of the child from which the right to support is derived and before support can be ordered. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants. As above related the affidavits of petitioner and the two (2) witnesses were presented to prove the paternity of the child. Thus. Said article has marked a right of which legitimate children may not be deprived. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT BY GALVAN Petitioner filed in the QC RTC an action for actual. TC ordered private respondent to pay monthly support in the amount of P1. from all appearances. Defendants. brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for the Can Mariano Andal be considered as the If the son born to the couple is deemed legitimate. GALVAN. but it cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father. Valencia) are the illegitimate children of Pio E. an application for support pendente lite was filed to which an opposition was filed by private respondent. Recognition is voluntary when made in the record of birth. illegitimate children (who are not natural) are entitled only to support. a minor. and a birth certificate was also presented to corroborate the same. Such a declaration may be provisional. ORILLAZA. the defendants can still use the surname "Valencia. and this sustained by the lower court. The Court agrees with the court a quo that the status of the minor child had been provisionally established." in the absence of any law granting exclusive ownership over a surname. Valencia in the latter's lawful wedlock with plaintiff Catalina Osmeña and contend that they alone have the right to bear the surname "Valencia. as guardian ad litem. The private respondent claims that the same is spurious as it was sworn before a notary public in Manila when the child was born in Cavite Maternity Clinic in Las Pinas Rizal. compensatory and moral damages and support for her child Alfie Angelo. REPUBLIC BY APORTADERA NALDOZA VS. then the land should revert back to Eduvigis Macaraig as the next of kin entitled to succeed him under the law. assisted by his mother Maria Dueñas. BALANE. an illegitimate child like the minor Alfie in this case whose father. If otherwise. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. then he is entitled to inherit the land in question. . Valencia with his common-law-wife. is married and had no legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of his conception is not a natural child but an illegitimate child or spurious child in which case recognition is not required before support may be granted.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION MOORE VS. defendant Emilia Rodriguez. OSMENA VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ BY GALVAN DE VS. in all cases of illegitimate children. (except Emilia Rodriguez and Pio E. Whether the minor child. that is. Pending the litigation. In addition. The plaintiffs allege that they (except Catalina Osmeña) are the legitimate children of the defendant Pio E. grants monopolistic proprietary control to legitimate children over the surname of their father. from using the surname "Valencia.00 to the minor child Private respondent moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied CA annulled the orders of the TC. It is compulsory when by court action the child brings out his recognition. is entitled to support? YES 18 Petitioner established the paternity of the child not only by her own affidavit but also by the affidavits of two (2) witnesses. Pio E. Such filiation may be proved by the voluntary or compulsory recognition of the illegitimate (spurious child). the private respondent herein. their filiation must be proved. REPUBLIC BY APORTADERA MANGULABNAN VS. petitioner submitted a birth certificate of the child. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. Whether the defendants can use the surname of their father. it nevertheless observed that its probative value is impaired by the verified opposition of the private respondent. Valencia (the father) acquiesces in the adoption of his surname by the defendants. Under Article 887 of the Civil Code. “Valencia”? YES ACTION TO IMPUGN LEGITIMACY: PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACCESS ANDAL VS. a will. MACARAIG Mariano Andal. We concede that the plaintiffs may use the surname of their farther as a matter of right by reason of the mere fact that they are legitimate children.500. SAWIT." in accordance with article 114 of the Civil Code which provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father. they can stop countless inhabitants from bearing the surname "Valencia. TRINIDAD. If plaintiff's theory were correct. But even if he objects. BERNARDINO. ROCAMORA. but we cannot agree to the view that article 114 of the Civil Code. and that until it is finally proved to be spurious it must be upheld. LAGASCA. SANTOS. an illegitimate child. The requirement for recognition by the father or mother jointly or by only one of them as provided by law refers in particular to a natural child under Article 276 of the Civil Code. a statement before a court of record or in any authentic writing. While the appellate court claims that the birth certificate is prima facie evidence of acknowledgment of the child. Such a child is presumed to be the natural child of the parents recognizing it who had the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of conception. LEYNES." The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. without more.
But experience shows that this does not prevent carnal intercourse. there is enough evidence to show that during that initial period. TROCIO BY GALVAN Complainant is a married woman with 8 children and a school directress. that Emiliano Andal was the owner of the parcel of land in question having acquired it from his mother Eduvigis Macaraig by virtue of a donation propter nuptias executed by the latter in favor of the former. hence. although inconclusive as to paternity (As shown in Co Tao). 1943. TAN VS. Whether the result of blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive to prove Paternity? In this jurisdiction. taking advantage of the abnormal situation then prevailing. the result of blood tests. the brother. specially during the period comprised between August 21. his feet were swollen and his voice hoarse. LEYNES. TRINIDAD. As a result. The birth of Rolando came more than one hundred eighty 180 days following the celebration of the said marriage and before 300 days following the alleged separation between aforenamed spouses. that her four children by her husband in her mother's house in the said town. CA where the court held that the NBI expert’s report stating that “from their blood groups and types. the decision invoked positive provisions of the Civil Code and Rules of Court and authorities CA reversed and denied appellant's motions for reconsideration for lack of merit. respondent and Crispin Anahaw had already four children. Respondent overpowered her and against her will succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. seven months from their separation (if there really was a separation). like playing with him and giving him toys. The testimonies of complainant and her witness. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. 1942. Emiliano was already suffering from tuberculosis and his condition then was so serious that he could hardly move and get up from bed. then a minor. if the blood APORTADERA. the fact remains that there was always the possibility of access to each other.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BY GALVAN recovery of the ownership and possession of a parcel of land The complaint alleges that Mariano Andal is the surviving son of Emiliano Andal and Maria Dueñas. she and her husband separated. COURT APPEALS BY GALVAN Perico denied paternity so they agreed to a blood grouping test duly conducted by the NBI upon the trial court’s order. she begot a son – Jewel Tan. . Respondent (then plaintiff) filed a complaint for recognition and support against petitioner (then defendant) Lower court dismissed the complaint. Under Article 255 of the Civil Code. her husband being Crispin Anahaw. The baby boy subject of this controversy was born on October 30. Since respondent and her husband continued to live in the same province. no concrete or even substantial proof was presented to establish physical impossibility of access between respondent and her spouse. We find insufficient basis to sustain Complainant’s charge. SANTOS. only seven (7) months after March. This presumption can only be rebutted by proof that it was physically impossible for the husband to have had access to his wife during the first 120 days of the 300 next preceding the birth of the child. they had been married years before such date. that she gave birth to a baby boy named Rolando Macdangdang. Another factor is that she continued having dealing with the respondent as if nothing had happened. SAWIT. What should really matter is the fact that during the initial one hundred twenty days of the three hundred which preceded the birth of the renamed child. Whether there was physical impossibility of access between respondent and her husband? NO legitimate child Emiliano Andal? of 19 The determination of this issue much depends upon the relationship that had existed between Emiliano Andal and his wife during the period of conception of the child up to the date of his birth in connection with the death of the alleged father Emiliano Andal. Result: Janice could not have been that OF 1968: Petitioner Janice Jao. She filed an administrative case against respondent was the legal counsel of her school. ORILLAZA. she also alleges that due to the affair. Since the boy was born on June 17. Jewel was born in 1972 during the wedlock of complainant and her husband alien and the presumption should be in favor of legitimacy unless physical access between the couple was impossible. which is included in the 120 days of the 300 next preceding the birth of the child Mariano Andal. among other evidence. are not convincing enough to prove paternity. The fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product o the mother and the alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents. As has already been pointed out. From the evidence on hand. that does not preclude cohabitation between Emiliano and his wife. was living in the same house. Respondent denies that he had sexually assaulted the complainant.only the possibility. There was no evidence presented that Emiliano Andal was absent during the initial period of conception. when Eduvigis Macaraig. the defendant Co Tao is apossible father of the child” could not give any assurance that Co Tao was the father. LC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs Defendant took the case to this Court upon the plea that only question of law are involved. More importantly. As of March. that boy is presumed to be the legitimate son of Emiliano and his wife. represented by her mother and guardian-ad-litem Arlene Salgado filed a case for recognition and support with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC) against Perico Jao. that her alleged estranged husband also lived in her mother's place It should also be noted that even during her affair with petitioner and right after her delivery. Respondent’s threat to cause the deportation of her alien husband should she report to anyone made her desist from filing a charge is not credible as she had admitted having lost contact with him. entered the land in question. but. and also. Whether or not respondent and her husband were separated would be immaterial to the resolution of the status of the child Rolando. She allegedly had intercourse with petitioner Antonio Macadangdang. There is now an almost universal agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity. OSG reported that respondent had committed acts violative of his professional decorum and it recommended disciplinary actions against him. BERNARDINO. 1967. ROCAMORA. 1943. GALVAN. On the contrary. BALANE. 1967 when the "incident" or first illicit intercourse between respondent and petitioner took place. Provincial Fiscal of Lanao also found the respondent guilty of the charge. 1942. respondent's self-serving statements were never corroborated nor confirmed by any other evidence more particularly that of her husband. to affirm paternity was dealt with in Co Tao v. that Emiliano Andal had been in possession of the land from 1938 up to 1942. respondent went to her mother's house in Samal for treatment. and Emiliano Andal died on January 1. Even if Felix. COURT OF APPEALS BY GALVAN Respondent Elizabeth Mejias is a married woman. Emiliano Andal and his wife were still living under the marital roof. the child Rolando is conclusively presumed to be the legitimate son of respondent and her husband. and he and the wife were indulging in illicit intercourse since May. 1942 and September 10. 1942. LAGASCA. 1967. MACADANGDANG VS. he having been born within three hundred (300) days following the dissolution of the marriage. She alleged that after classes were dismissed. From her very revealing testimony. that presumption has not been overcome by adequate and convincing proof. respondent declared that she was bringing two sacks of rice to Samal for her children. that Emiliano Andal died on September 24. Whether the respondent had sexually assaulted the complainant? NO ACTION TO IMPUGN LEGITIMACY: BIOLOGICAL / SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS JAO VS.
S. The petitioner argues at length that the question to be settled in a motion to dismiss based on lack of a cause of action is the sufficiency of the allegation itself and not whether these allegations are true or not. the admissibility of blood tests results to prove non. Castro. BALANE. The motion was denied by the trial court. LEYNES. That is also correct. petitioner Sy Kao denied that respondent Chua Keng Giap is her son by the deceased Chua Bing Guan. by failing to appear at the hearing of the main case. Who better than Sy Kao herself would know if Chua Keng Giap was really he son? More than anyone else. the trial court made a last-minute effort to simplify the issues by calling the parties for an agreement – the parties agreed to submit themselves to a blood-grouping test to determine the paternity of BY ROCAMORA plaintiff before the National Bureau of Investigation. Respondent. WHO MAY IMPUGN LEGITIMACY? Esperanza Frianeza – Cabatbat was survived by her husband Proceso Cabatbat. It was perfectly proper for the Court to consider the evidence presented by the parties at the hearing of the plaintiff’s contempt motion against the defendant. sought relief by filing a petition for certiorari. puts a cloud on the genuiness of her exhibit. who held that the case invoked decided the paternity and not the maternity of the petitioner. 1982. At the commencement of the trial. COURT OF APPEALS This case arose when Chua Keng Giap fiels a petition for the settlement of the estate of the late Sy Kao in the RTC of Quezon City. declined to undergo the test to prove or disprove their allegations. as evidence also on the merits of the main case. it found that: The said child is a possible offspring of the alleged father Romeo Amurao with Fe Rosario Buenaventura as the natural mother. is a finding of fact. LAGASCA. had been BY ROCAMORA declared as not the son of the spouses Chua Bing Guan and Sky Kao for the settlement of the estate of the late Chua Bing Guan. SAWIT. Petitioner Amurao was sued for support by the offspring of his illicit relations with a 19-year old college student.Cuneo and Clark v. On the basis of the blood-grouping tests performed by the NBI. Perico appealed to CA. Legislation expressly recognizing the use of blood tests is also in force in several states. the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order impugning its validity. This is not an APORTADERA. and court ordered trial on merits where Janice was declared Perico’s kid and thus entitled to monthly support. Whether or not the petitioner made an admission of paternity under the terms of the trial court’s order binding him to give support to his child. However. contesting trial court’s error to appreciate result of blood test and CA reversed trial court decision Hence this appeal by Janice YES 20 type of the child is not the possible blood type when the bloods of the mother and the alleged father are cross matched. paternity shall be admitted and this case will proceed for trial only on the issue of amount of support. before this Court but his petition was likewise dismissed on January 30. waived his right to adduce additional evidence. she. The tests were conducted6 times using 2 scientifically recognized blood grouping systems: MN test and ABOsystem. The Court finds the same well taken. and has extensive practice in this area for several years. ORILLAZA. Rysedorph). The latter. Exactly one year later. That is correct. The increase in the child’s support is proper and is sanctioned by the provisions of Articles 290. it was claimed. is also a factual issue which we may not re-examine and review. Holding that this was mere quibbling. represented by her mom. The petitioner sought a review of the order by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari but the petition was denied. .paternity has already been passed upon in several cases (Gilpin v. The defendant and the natural mother were ordered to submit themselves to a bloodgrouping test before the National Bureau of Investigation for a determination of plaintiff’s paternity. PAC Whether or not filiation could be claimed if the supposed mother flatly and unequivocally declared that she was not the petitioner’s mother? The Supreme Court held in an earlier case. for lack of merit. Cuneo v. and LIM VS. In any event. He then filed a mandamus case with the Court of appeals but the same was dismissed. then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. her sisters. ACTION TO IMPUGN LEGITIMACY: CONTRARY DECLARATION BY THE MOTHER AMURAO VS. and therefore. Whether or not the Court Appeals correctly determined that the minor. therefore. Gilpin. since nearly two years after the first bloodtest.. who filed his action for support in 1977 when he was only an infant five months old. The decision in that case had long become final and executory. The important doctrine from such cases is that toreject competent medical testimony would be tantamount to rejecting scientific factand to deny progress. Hence. under witness and supervision. The petitioner then came to this Court to challenge these rulings. ROCAMORA. it finds no reversible error in the decision of the CA. Even so the petition must be and is hereby denied. for their truth is hypothetically admitted. SANTOS. then this case shall be dismissed without further trial. In jurisdictions like the U. Petitioner attempts to discredit the result of the blood grouping tests by impugning that qualification of the NBI personnel who conducted the tests and the conduct of the tests themselves. the private respondents alleged that Violeta Cabatbat Lim is not a child of Esperanza but is only a ward (ampon) of the spouses CHUA KENG GIAP VS. TRINIDAD. the NBI forensic chemistry who conducted the tests is also a serologist. he may not be heard to complain that he was denied due process. Tolentino affirms this rule on blood tests as a proof of nonpaternity. 296 and 297 of the Civil Code. the respondent court reversed the trial judge in a petition for certiorari filed by the private respondent. it was Sy Kao who could say – as indeed she has said these many years – that Chua Keng Giap was not begotten of her womb. He also submits that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and therefore reversible not in a petition for on appeal. GALVAN. The defendant (herein petitioner). Thus.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION possible offspring of Perico and Arlene The trial court found the test result legally conclusive Janice filed MFR. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the amount of support payable to the private respondent. The respondent tried to appeal the courts resolution but his appeal was denied by the lower court for having been filed out of time. petitioner’s opposition is based principally on the ground that the respondent was not the son of Sy Kao and the deceased. In their complaint. and b) if the finding is negative. He denied paternity and refused to give support. even as Perico was willing to undergo the test again. is now (as an 11-year old student) entitled to an increase in the amount of support awarded to him by trial court. The motion was by Judge Jose P. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. and to be bound by the results of the said government agency in the following manner: a) if finding is to be the effect that herein plaintiff may be the offspring of defendant. Even the allegation that Janice was too young at five months to have been a proper subject for accurate blood tests must fall. Whether or not Violeta Cabatbat – The Supreme Court held the absence of a record of the birth of petitioner Violeta Cabatbat in the Office of the Civil Registrar General. IAC the children of her deceased brothers. had no lawful interest in the estate of the latter and no right to institute the intestacy proceedings. The private respondent moved to dismiss for lack of a cause of action and of the petitioner’s capacity to file the petition. The motion fro reconsideration was denied for late filing. BERNARDINO.
GALVAN. she has the right to represent her father to the inheritance left by her grandmother. represented by his mother Corazon G. 1976. She nevertheless possesses the right to compel judicial recognition and the action for this must be had not presented any discovered document wherein be presumed father recognized her. also known as Billy. She cohabited with William Liyao from 1965 up to the time of Liyao’s death. No. The appealed decision is affirmed. gave birth to an illegitimate child who was named by her mother Benita Lastimosa as Baby Girl Lastimosa (Exhibit S Plaintiff’s Folder of Exhibits. however the Court of Appeals reversed the decision saying that the law favors the legitimacy rather than the illegitimacy of the child. testified that Corazon and her husband were seen in each other’s company during the supposed time Corazon cohabited with William Liyao. but an action of the private respondents to claim their inheritance as legal heirs of their childless deceased aunt. They do not claim that petitioner Violeta Cabatbat Lim is an illegitimate child of the deceased. Since birth. William Jr. Whether or not the petitioner has the right to inherit as an illegitimate child of the deceased Francisco Delgado. but that she is not the decedent’s child at all. the petition is denied for lack of merit. In 1975. a child born and conceived during a valid marriage is presumed to be legitimate. The Court of Appeals found that although Irene Delgado was the spurious daughter of Francisco Delgado. COURT OF APPEALS BY ROCAMORA On January 29. his heirs for the simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the scandal. What Irene have to proved is that she had been in continuous possession of a status of an illegitimate child who is not natural. deceit. Record on Appeal. very guapo and healthy”. presumed to be the father does not impugn the legitimacy of the child. pp. who are not legal heirs of Esperanza Frianeza Cabatbat from participating with their children and the surviving sisters of the deceased in the one-fourth share of the estate pertaining to the latter under Article 1001 of the Civil Code. SANTOS. fraud. or authentic writing does not make Irene a recognized illegitimate child who is not natural. The Court held that it is settle that a child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. On November 29. however. Only in exceptional cases may his heirs allowed to contest such legitimacy. On May 26. Jr. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. Garcia filed a civil action for compulsory recognition as “the illegitimate son the late William Liyao. BERNARDINO. 1975. But such fact alone without valid recognition in a record of first will. SAWIT. Unfortunately. Whether or not the petitioner may impugn his own legitimacy to be able to claim from the estate of his supposed father William Liyao. without benefit of formal adoption proceedings. private respondent as plaintiffs field a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Batangas praying that defendant Irene Reyes be ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance in favor of plaintiffs over parcels of lands located in Quezon and Batangas. . He talked about grand plans for the baptism of Billy. LEYNES. including his daughters. De Frianeza. During William Liyao’s birthday he was carrying Billy and told everybody present. it did not happen due to his untimely death on December 2. Lim is a legitimate child of the deceased? 21 action to impugn the legitimacy of a child. Irene Delgado filed an answer to the complaint and set-up the affirmative defense that she is the illegitimate daughter of the defendant Genoveva Ramero and the deceased Francisco Delgado. No. 117-118). It was alleged in the complaint that the defendant’s thru abuse of confidence. not Esperanza Frianeza. misrepresentation and other falsifications succeeded in registering in the offices of the Register of Deeds of Quezon and Batangas a document of self adjudication. nor a child by illegal fiction of Esperanza Cabatbat. wherein defendant Irene Delgado alleged that she was the sole child of Francisco Delgado and entitled to inherit the parcels of lands described in the complaint. the day defendant Violeta Cabatbat was alleged to have been delivered by Esperanza Frianeza in the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital. the record of birth certificates of Pangasinan Provincial Hospital for the years 1947 and 1948 does not carry the birth certificate of defendant Violeta Cabatbat and only birth certificate in the file of birth certificates of the hospital for May 26. APORTADERA. The counterclaim of Irene that she has the share to the inheritance of Benigna Castillo. and the latter cannot choose to be the child of his mother’s paramour. Corazon gave birth to William Liyao Jr. LAYAO VS. or in exceptional cases. The RTC granted his petition. by excluding the widows Adela B. the records of the hospital show that only one woman by the same of the Benita Lastimosa of Tagudin. Impugning the legitimacy of the child. Violeta is not a legal heir of the deceased. BALANE. is a strictly personal right of the husband. There is nothing on the records to indicate that Ramon Yulo has already passed away at the time of the birth of the petitioner nor at the time of the initiation of proceedings. She also set up a counterclaim that as the illegitimate daughter of Francisco Delgado. PROOF OF FILIATION OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN: RECORD OF BIRTH REYES VS. 1967. Francisco Delgado’s mother. had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the status of a recognized and/ or acknowledge child of William Liyao by the latter’s direct and overt act. Under the New Civil Code. then the status of the child if fixed. The petition was filed for review on certiorari. the action to compel recognition is already barred. ROCAMORA. she nevertheless cannot inherit from the estate because she was not recognized either voluntarily or by court action. need not to be ruled upon because of the findings that Irene is not an heir of Francisco Delgado. “Look. 1948 is that of Baby Girl Lastimosa whose mother’s name is Benita Lastimosa. ORILLAZA. Vda de Frianeza and Decideria Q.39. this is my son. Being neither a legally sdopted child. Furthermore.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BY ROCAMORA Esperanza and Proceso Cabatbat who sheltered and supported her from childhood. TANHOTILAYAO BY ROCAMORA Corazon Garcia is legally married but has been living separately from Ramon Yulo for more than 10 years. but with modification of paragraphs 2 and 4 of the dispositive portion thereof. the child himself cannot choose his own affiliation – if the husband. Vda. p. WHEREFORE. TRINIDAD. Some witnesses. 1948. statement before a court of record. Ilocos Sur. LAGASCA. nor an acknowledged natural child. William Liyao.
BERNARDINO. Vicente Toring. LEYNES. She called him Papa Miroy. married at that time to Emiliana Barrientos. She averred that Mendoza recognized her as an illegitimate child by treating her as such and according her the rights and privileges of a recognized illegitimate child. the herein private respondent. 1981. Casimiro Mendoza. 283. When she married Valentin Tufiacao. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the APORTADERA. RTC. RANAS BY ORILLAZA PROOF OF FILIATION OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN: OPEN & CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF STATUS MENDOZA VS. (3) when the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with the supposed father. 175. 22 The rules on compulsory recognition are embodied in Article 283 of the Civil Code. Art. 1930. (4) When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his father. COURT OF APPEALS BY ORILLAZA PROOF OF FILIATION OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN: SIGNED & HANDWRITTEN PRIVATE INSTRUMENT RANAS VS. GALVAN. TRINIDAD. COURT OF APPEALS BY SANTOS The private respondent claimed she was the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza. 172 Family Code Teopista testified that it was her mother who told her that her father was Casimiro. The appellate court did not and reversed the judgment of the lower court. alleged that she was born on August 20. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT BY ORILLAZA PROOF OF FILIATION OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN: FINAL JUDGMENT RAMOS VS. Teopista Toring Tufiacao. Lolito Tufiacao. Art. SAWIT. SANTOS. the father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural child: (1) In cases of rape. BALANE. She lived with her mother because Casimiro was married but she used to visit him at his house. then already 91 years old. In the absence of the foregoing evidence. This article has been substantially reproduced in Art. ROCAMORA. specifically denied the plaintiffs allegations. (2) When the child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. COURT OF APPEALS BY ORILLAZA MENDOZA VS. LAGASCA. or (2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. He denied it to his dying day. Casimiro allowed her son. and defendant Casimiro Mendoza. but the latter denied her claim. . In any of the following cases. Casimiro bought a passenger truck and engaged him to drive it so he could have a livelihood. ORILLAZA. In 1977. The complaint was filed on August 21. the legitimate filiation shall be proved by: (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child. to build a house on his lot and later he gave her money to buy her own lot from her brother. to Brigida Toring. abduction or seduction. who was then single. when the period of the offense coincides more or less with that of the conception.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION CASTRO VS. Casimiro later sold the truck but gave the proceeds of the sale to her and her husband. RAMOS BY ORILLAZA PROOF OF FILIATION OF LEGITIMATE CHILDREN: ADMISSION IN A SIGNED PUBLIC DOCUMENT LIM VS. The trial court believed him and dismissed her complaint for compulsory recognition. which has been held to be applicable not only to natural children but also to spurious children.
23 Both the trial court and the respondent court. namely. that Teopista was Casimiro's illegitimate daughter. Later. under both Article 283 of the Civil Code and Article 172 of the Family Code. Section 39. and the names of the relatives. Casimiro handed him P20. in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or marriage. His testimony was that he was informed by his father Hipolito. birth. Such evidence may consist of his baptismal certificate. took the passbook from her." according to the Civil Code. Although Teopista has failed to show that she was in open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child of Casimiro. Two years later. This was understandable because Teopista herself had apparently based her claim on this particular ground as proof of filiation allowed under Article 283 of the Old Civil Code. a family Bible in which his name has been entered. LEYNES. who later abandoned her. who was Casimiro's brother. or unable to testify. The persons who made the declarations about the pedigree of Teopista. we agree with the trial court that Teopista has not been in continuous possession of the status of a recognized illegitimate child of Casimiro Mendoza. BALANE. To set the record straight. the testimonies of witnesses.00 to be given to Brigida at Teopista's baptism. but Casimiro ordered it returned to her after admonishing Margarita. or "by evidence or proof in his favor that the defendant is her father. and the relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The trial court conceded that "the defendant's parents. focused on the question of whether or not Teopista was in continuous possession of her claimed status of an illegitimate child of Casimiro Mendoza. declared that Teopista's father was not Casimiro but a carpenter named Ondoy. "Continuous" does not mean that the concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues. Isaac also declared that Casimiro intended to give certain properties to Teopista. Gaudencio said he was a cousin of Casimiro and knew Brigida Toring because she used to work with him in a saltbed in Opao. Casimiro's adopted daughter.00 to P10. LAGASCA. Casimiro also gave him P5. admission by silence. — Act or declarations about pedigree. which eventually resulted in Brigida becoming pregnant in 1930 and giving birth to Teopista. The word "pedigree" includes relationship. RTC. and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The statement of the trial court regarding Teopista's parentage is not entirely accurate. 1977. GALVAN. as well as the plaintiff himself. family genealogy. ORILLAZA. common reputation respecting his pedigree.appellant has sufficiently proven her continuous possession of such status. BERNARDINO. providing as follows: Sec. There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his own. the dates when and the places where these facts occurred. Margarita Bate. a judicial admission.00 every so often to be delivered to Brigida. directly and not through others. of the Rules of Court. told Gaudencio Mendoza and Isaac Mendoza. Gaudencio acted as a go-between for their liaison. in arriving at their respective conclusions. same evidence as legitimate children. With these guidelines in mind." It should have probed this matter further in light of Rule 130. Brigida Mendoza.00 to be delivered to Teopista." it is necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is illegitimate). and for a low price because she was his half sister. that Teopista was the daughter of the defendant. the mother of APORTADERA. It was also he who permitted Lolito to build a house on Casimiro's lot. TRINIDAD. He worked on Casimiro's boat and whenever Casimiro paid him his salary. and his grandmother. What both the trial court and the respondent court did not take into account is that an illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care. SANTOS. Casimiro opened a joint savings account with her as a co-depositor at the Mandaue City branch of the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank. he would also give him various amounts from P2. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. death. may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy.rejected the plaintiff' s claim that she was in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father by the direct acts of the latter or of his family CA. Casimiro himself told him she was his sweetheart. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. 39. To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child. Vicente said that it was he who sold a lot to Teopista. Isaac testified that his uncle Casimiro was the father of Teopista because his father Hipolito. The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION On February 14. — The act or declaration of a person deceased. This witness stressed that when Casimiro was hospitalized. Teopista never once visited her alleged father. so informed him. and Brigida Mendoza. . we find that she has nevertheless established that status by another method. and he did not cite Casimiro's father. SAWIT. Casimiro's brother. we will stress that it was only Isaac Mendoza who testified on this question of pedigree." according to the Family Code. Casimiro's own mother. who professed to be Casimiro's only illegitimate child by Brigida Toring. marriage. ROCAMORA. Vicente.
1953. his father and mother continued living together as husband and wife. 1960. 285 ). PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS. DE ALBERTO VS. and subsequently. UNSIGNED BIRTHDAY CERTIFICATE. COURT OF APPEALS BY SANTOS In the said Complaint. consisting of the extrajudicial partition of the estate of Florencio Mendoza. lived together as husband and wife and as a result of which. Finally.. on September 8. his father died. both were single and had no legal impediment to marry each other. prescription runs against him even during minority. his father supporting them and introducing him to the public as his natural child. — The action for recognition of natural child may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parent. ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF NATURAL CHILD TO BE BROUGHT ONLY DURING LIFETIME OF PRESUMED PARENT. against the herein petitioners. — a birth certificate not signed by the alleged father therein indicated. PROOF OF FILIATION OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN VDA. which were the very issues involved in the complaint for compulsory recognition.. Antonio C. 'reopista Toring Tufiacao has proved that she is the illegitimate daughter of Casimiro Mendoza and is entitled to be recognized as such. During the time that his alleged father and mother lived together as husband and wife and up to the time of his birth. GALVAN. 1949. including evidence now obtainable through the facilities of modern medicine and technology Judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING Teopista Toring Tuñacao to be the illegitimate child of the late Casimiro Mendoza and entitled to all the rights appurtenant to such status. as his natural guardian. his father married herein petitioner Natividad del Rosario. Hence. The declarations were made before the complaint was filed by Teopista or before the controversy arose between her and Casimiro. APORTADERA. The declarations referred to the filiation of Teopista and the paternity of Casimiro. Although his father was separated from his mother. 18 years of age. de Alberto. 1949. The complaint for acknowledgment and partition was filed eleven (11) years later. that in 1941 his alleged father. LAGASCA. like in the instant case. and in view of the other circumstances of this case. 1960 with the then Court of First Instance of Manila by the herein private respondent. the action for recognition must be instituted within four (4) years after the death of the natural father. and his brother. assisted by his mother. BALANE. he was born on September 10. Andrea Jongco. And if the presumed father or mother died during the minority of the child. is not competent evidence of paternity. and his mother. ROCAMORA. On the said intestate proceedings. TRINIDAD. that as a result of the marriage. LEYNES. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. private respondent alleged. that the said intestate proceedings were terminated on November 9.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION 24 Casimiro. Alberto. Hipolito. In so holding. the relationship between the declarants and Casimiro has been established by evidence other than such declaration. We hold that by virtue of the above-discussed declarations. a minor. SANTOS. Sr. 1942. BERNARDINO. EVIDENCE. on July 17. that after his birth. that on or about the year 1944. we give effect to the policy of the Civil Code and the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of "the paternity of illegitimate children. without prejudice to the right of the alleged parent to resist the claimed status with his own defenses. Antonio C. and without notice to him. Andrea Jongco. 1949. prescription had set in. Brigida Mendoza. ORILLAZA. The case originated from a complaint for acknowledgment and partition filed on September 8. two (2) children were born—herein petitioners Lourdes Alberto and Antonio Alberto. In such case. in substance. were both dead at the time of Isaac's testimony. the alleged father. that his father left ACTION FOR RECOGNITION OF NATURAL CHILD TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS AFTER DEATH OF THE NATURAL FATHER IN CASE THE LATTER DIED DURING MINORITY OF THE CHILD WITH A GUARDIAN. instituted before the then Court of First Instance of Manila an intestate proceedings for the estate of his deceased father. his father and mother separated. the latter may file the action within four (4) years from the attainment of majority (Art. Jr. INCOMPETENT PROOF OF PATERNITY. — If the minor has a guardian as in this case. that even the family of his father recognized him as such. he continued to support him and recognized him as his own child. petitioners deliberately omitted him as one of the heirs and for this reason they succeeded in having the properties of his deceased father adjudicated and partitioned among themselves. petitioner Natividad del Rosario Vda. died on July 3. Alberto. . in which Casimiro was mentioned as one of his heirs. SAWIT. On July 3.
among other proofs. only his consent being necessary.81. It was Ligaya Gapusan-Chua. 1968. it has been said. respectively. or in any authentic writing. BALUYOT BALUYOT BY SANTOS PATERNO PATERNO BY SANTOS PROOF OF FILIATION OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN: COMPULSORY RECOGNITION GAPUSAN VS. the Court appointed Ligaya Special Administratrix of Felisa Parcon's estate. and Article 285 providing that generally. SANTOS. he is entitled to at least P18. 2 By Order dated January 16. COURT OF APPEALS BY SANTOS Felisa Gapusan Parcon died intestate and without legitimate issue on April 6. Ligaya filed with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition for the settlement of the estate and for issuance of letters of administration in her favor. Art. judicial approval shall be necessary. and applied for his own appointment as administrator of his wife's estate. Accordingly. ROCAMORA.963.50 paid to her (Ligaya) as her share in the death benefits due the heirs of Felisa Parcon. Exh. 25 Voluntary recognition. 1966 in Bacolod City. judicial approval is not needed if a recognition is voluntarily made — 1) of a person who is of age. expressed in the form prescribed by the Civil Code. claiming to be an acknowledged natural daughter of Felisa Gapusan Parcon. he prays that the petitioners be ordered to acknowledge him as the natural child of Antonio C. and (c) are undoubtedly an "authentic writing" within the contemplation of Article 278. A minor can in any case impugn the recognition within four years following the attainment of his majority. When the recognition of a minor does not take place in a record of birth or in a will. It is recognition decreed by final judgment of a competent court. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. setting forth the cases in which the father or mother. Neither her surviving spouse. in view of its consequences. a statement before a court of record. 1968. nor her other known relatives — three (3) sisters and a nephew — made any move to settle her estate judicially. during her lifetime. even if no action was brought by the latter to compel the former. 1 She also sought her designation as Special Administratrix pending her appointment as regular administratrix. and accordingly. In other words. The matter of whether or not judicial approval is needful for the efficacy of voluntary recognition is dealt with in Article 281 of the Civil Code. to recognize her as such. Hearings were had on the issue of Ligaya claimed affiliation. VS. On the other hand. earlier adverted to. Felisa Parcon's surviving husband. Alberto. 44046 of the Government Service Insurance System in the sum of P505. Prospero Parcon. b) Felisa Parcon's application for GSIS life insurance in which Ligaya is set out as her (Felisa's) daughter." The form is prescribed by Article 278 of the Civil Code. judicial approval is needful if the recognition of the minor is effected. and that he had absolutely no previous knowledge of the intestate proceedings and came to know about it only recently and thereupon made a demand from the petitioners who refused to give him his share. 1968.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION properties valued at P74. or 2) of a minor whose acknowledgment is effected in a record of birth or in a will. or on January 15. is obliged to recognize a natural child. c) Check No. the following documents: Exh. Prospero Parcon. GALVAN. Exh. SAWIT. TRINIDAD. to distinguish it from that which is a purely voluntary act of the parent. Whether or not Felisa's sworn statement of assets and liabilities and her application for insurance are "authentic writings" which effectively operated as a recognition of Ligaya Gapusan-Chua as her natural child. a) Felisa Parcon's sworn statement of assets and liabilities wherein Ligaya is named and described as the daughter of Felisa. it provides that a voluntary recognition "shall be made in the record of birth. Its essence lies in the avowal of the parent that the child is his. A child who is of age cannot be recognized without his consent. filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order of January 16. . ORILLAZA. Recognition of natural children may be voluntary or compulsory. In any case the individual recognized can impugn the recognition within four years following the attainment of his majority. who instituted judicial proceedings for the settlement of the latter's estate. On April 22. LAGASCA. About a year and eight months after Felisa's demise. not through a record of birth or in a will but through a statement in a court of record or an authentic document. Exhibits (a). the action for recognition of natural children may be brought only during the lifetime of the presumed parents. the formality is added to make the admission incontestable. BALANE.00." Compulsory recognition is sometimes also called judicial recognition. VS. as a natural child of his father. Ligaya presented. BERNARDINO. (b). 1968. He denied that Ligaya was an acknowledged natural child of his deceased wife. LEYNES. 281. It is governed by Articles 283 and 284. "is an admission of the fact of paternity or maternity by the presumed parent. a will. APORTADERA.000. that his one-fourth share be turned over to him.
a circumstance which would have made judicial approval unnecessary. but is made clearly manifest and conclusive by her assertion of that recognition in the judicial proceeding for the settlement of her mother's estate as basis for her rights thereto. The requirement of judicial approval imposed by Article 281 is clearly intended for the benefit of the minor.reversed.) by such acts as keeping. that she was a minor at the time of her recognition. In the first place. the evidence shows that she has in fact consented thereto. however. she contends that the sworn statement of assets and liabilities. PEOPLE VS. For whether Ligaya were still a minor or already of age at the time of her recognition in the authentic writings mentioned. . she is hereby appointed regular administratrix of the properties of the above-mentioned deceased with the same bond given by her as special administratrix. and hence. the acknowledgment papers and the use of the parent's surname. "The lack of judicial approval can not impede the effectivity of the acknowledgment made. LAGASCA. to bear her mother's surname. after having reached the age of majority. or insufficiency of such approval is NOT a defect available to the recognizing parent but one which the minor may raise or waive. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. voluntarily made. She is therefore entitled. These statements. RIZO BY LAGASCA DEMSEY VS. and to receive the hereditary portion accorded to her by the Code. the absence thereof was cured by her ratification of that recognition. conformably with the legal provisions above cited. GALVAN. and for being the next of kin of the deceased (Rule 78. The judicial approval is for the protection of the minor against any acknowledgment made to his prejudice. Rules of Court). the lack of judicial approval should make no difference. even after reaching the age of majority. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BY LAGASCA MENDOZA VS. TRINIDAD. Her consent to her recognition is not only implicit from her failure to impugn it at any time before her mother's death. The acknowledgment was made in authentic writings. The point need not be belabored. If after reaching majority the minor consents to the acknowledgment. SAWIT. she alleges. Assuming on the other hand. LEYNES. by her initiation of the proceedings for the settlement of her deceased mother's estate on the claim precisely that she was the decedent's acknowledged natural daughter. the lack. the question of whether or not the absence of judicial approval negated the effect of the writings as a mode of recognition of Ligaya is dependent upon the latter's age at the time the writings were made.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION The Probate Court found for Ligaya. CA. Ligaya Gapusan Chua must be held to be a voluntarily acknowledged natural child of Felisa Gapusan Parcon. Implied consent to the acknowledgment may be shown (e. Upon the foregoing facts and considerations. a public document submitted by the decedent pursuant to a legal requirement therefor. in accordance with Article 282 of the Civil Code. More particularly. COURT OF APPEALS APORTADERA. Ligaya insists that the evidence submitted by her does indeed sufficiently establish her status as the acknowledged natural child of Felisa Parcon. that circumstance would be immaterial in the light of the attendant facts. It is also evident that Ligaya's recognition as Felisa's daughter was not made in a record of birth or a will. Declared that petitioner is the acknowledged natural child of the late Felisa Gapusan. ORILLAZA. BALANE. with costs against the oppositors. the consent required by Article 281 of a person of age who has been voluntarily recognized may be given expressly or tacitly. RAFANAN BY LAGASCA PEOPLE VS. Assuming then that Ligaya was of age at the time of her voluntary recognition. and that her appointment as regular administratrix is justified by law and jurisprudence. and the latter's application for life insurance were in law indubitable recognition by her mother of her status as an acknowledged natural child." "Therefore.g. were "authentic writings" in contemplation of Article 278 of the Civil Code: 26 It is admitted on all sides that no judicial action or proceeding was ever brought during the lifetime of Felisa to compel her to recognize Ligaya as her daughter. Here. In other words. and therefore judicial approval of the recognition was necessary. judicial approval thereof was needed if the writings had been executed during Ligaya's minority. and were adequate foundation for a judicial declaration of her status as heir. only her own consent to the recognition being required.. BERNARDINO. ROCAMORA. SANTOS.
SANTOS. . BERNARDINO. SAWIT. COURT OF APPEALS BY TRINIDAD WHO MAY ADOPT? HUSBAND & WIFE JOINTLY REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS & BOBILES BY TRINIDAD WHO MAY ADOPT? NEED FOR CONSENT SANTOS VS. CAMPOS BY TRINIDAD CERVANTES VS. ROCAMORA.CIVIL LAW REVIEW DIGESTS: PROPERTY RELATIONS TO FILIATION BY LAGASCA PEOPLE VS. ARANSANZO BY TRINIDAD 27 APORTADERA. BARRANEO BY LAGASCA ADOPTION LAZATIN VS. FAJARDO BY TRINIDAD REPUBLIC VS. GALVAN. VALDEZ Unauthorized distribution & non-submission shall merit expulsion. BALANE. ORILLAZA. LAGASCA. TRINIDAD. LEYNES.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.