SURVEY OF 2012 SC DECISIONS IN CIVIL LAW

Dean ED VINCENT S. ALBANO

MARRIAGE

Judgment declaring a spouse presumptively dead is immediately final and executory; remedy is
Rule 65, not Rule 45.

In Republic v. Yolanda C. Granada (G.R. No. 187512, July 13, 2012), Cyrus Granada, married to
Yolanda in 1991, went to Taiwan in 1994 to seek employment but since then, he never communicated
with Yolanda. After nine (9) years of waiting, she filed a Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively
dead which the Regional Trial Court granted. The Republic of the Philippines appealed from the decision
contending that Yolanda failed to prove earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus, failed to prove well-
founded belief that he was already dead. Yolanda moved to dismiss the appeal contending that the
Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death based under Art. 41, Family Code was a summary judicial
proceedings in which the judgment is immediately final and executory and, thus, not appealable. The
Court of Appeals granted the motion. Is the RTC decision declaring a person presumptively dead
immediately final and executory, thus not subject to appeal correct?

The Court ruled that by express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary
1
proceeding shall be immediately final and executory . As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can
be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of
an absent spouse under Art. 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved
party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

On whether the CA seriously erred in affirming the RTCs grant of the Petition for Declaration of
Presumptive Death under Art. 41 of the Family Code based on the evidence that respondent had
presented

In Republic v. Yolanda C. Granada (G.R. No. 187512, July 13, 2012), the Republic assailed the
RTCs grant of the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of the absent spouse of respondent on
the ground that she had not adduced the evidence required to establish a well-founded belief that her
absent spouse was already dead, as expressly required by Art. 41 of the Family Code. The Republic
pointed out that respondent Yolanda did not initiate a diligent search to locate her absent husband.
Petitioner argues that if she were, she would have sought information from the Taiwanese Consular
Office or assistance from other government agencies in Taiwan or the Philippines. She could have also
utilized mass media for this end, but she did not. Worse, she failed to explain these omissions.

PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP

To be presumed conjugal properties, there must be proof of acquisition during the marriage.

In Antonia dela Pea, et al. v. Gemma Reneilyn Avila, et al. (G.R. No. 187490, February 8, 2012),
Antonia, a widow executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over a property in favor of Gemma who registered
the same and obtained a title. Later on, Gemma obtained a loan from FEBTC-BPI but failed to pay the
loan, hence, the bank foreclosed the mortgage over the said property; and being the highest bidder,
consolidated its ownership. In the meantime, Antonia and her son filed a complaint for annulment of the
Deed of Sale in favor of Gemma contending that the same is void as the property formed part of her
conjugal partnership with her husband who was already dead when the deed of sale was executed. The
RTC declared the sale to Gemma void holding that it was a conjugal property of the husband and wife.
But on appeal, the CA reversed the decision for failure to prove that the same was acquired during their

1
Republic v. Tango (G.R. No. 161062, July 31, 2009)

Albano Bar Review Center www.albanobarreview.com1

marriage. What is the status of the property of the husband or the wife when there is failure to prove
acquisition during marriage?

The Court ruled that the property is exclusive. Art. 160 of the Civil Code states that 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. Although it is not necessary to prove that the property was
2
acquired with funds of the partnership , proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition
3
for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership .

FAMILY HOME

Family home is exempt from attachment, levy or forced sale.

In Sps. Araceli & Ernesto de Mesa v. Sps. Claudio & Rufina Acero, et al. (G.R. No. 185064,
January 16, 2012), Araceli and Ernesto de Mesa, while they were not yet married, jointly acquired in 1984
a parcel of land where a house was constructed which they occupied as a family home when they got
married. In 1988, Araceli obtained a loan from Claudio and mortgaged the property to secure the payment
of the obligation. She issued a check to pay the loan but it was dishonored, hence, a BP22 case was filed
against her where she was acquitted but held civilly liable. A writ of execution was issued and the
property was levied upon and sold to satisfy the obligation. Claudio was the highest bidder and a title was
issued in his name but leased the property to Araceli and Ernesto but for failure to pay the rents, a
complaint for ejectment was filed. In their answer, they contended that Claudio is not the owner because
the property being a family home cannot be levied upon as it is exempt from execution. In the meantime,
they filed a complaint to declare the title of Claudio void alleging that the property was their family home
which is exempt from execution, which was dismissed by the RTC and then affirmed by the CA.
The subject property became a family residence sometime in January 1987. There was no
showing, however, that the same was judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. Still, when the Family Code took effect on August 3,
1988, the subject property became a family home by operation of law and was thus prospectively exempt
from execution. The petitioners were thus correct in asserting that the subject property was a family
home.

The family homes exemption from execution must be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the
sale of the property at public auction.

In the case of Sps. Araceli & Ernesto de Mesa v. Sps. Claudio & Rufina Acero, et al. (G.R. No.
185064, January 16, 2012), the Court ruled that failure to assert and prove that their house is a family
4
home operates as a waiver of such defense or right. In Honrado v. CA , it was said that while it is true
that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence
and is exempt from execution or forced sale under Art. 153 of the Family Code, such claim for exemption
should be set up and proved. At no other time can the status of a residential house as a family home be
set up and proved and its exemption from execution but before the sale thereof at public auction. Failure
to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption.

For all intents and purposes, the petitioners negligence or omission to assert their right within a
reasonable time gives rise to the presumption that they have abandoned, waived or declined to assert it.
Since the exemption under Art. 153 of the Family Code is a personal right, it is incumbent upon the
petitioners to invoke and prove the same within the prescribed period and it is not the sheriffs duty to
presume or raise the status of the subject property as a family home.

PROOF OF FILIATION

2
Tan v. CA (G.R. No. 120594, June 10, 1997)
3
Manongsong v. Estimo, 452 Phil. 862 (2003)
4
512 Phil. 657 (2005)

Albano Bar Review Center www.albanobarreview.com2

Baptismal certificate standing alone cannot be a proof of filiation.

In Makati Shangri-La Hotel & Resort Inc. v. Harper, et al. (G.R. No. 189998, August 26, 2012),
the Court held that as a rule, baptismal certificate, being hearsay, is not conclusive proof of filiation.
5
On the other hand, in the case of Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals , the SC expressly
held that a baptismal certificate had evidentiary value to prove filiation if considered alongside other
evidence of filiation. As such, a baptismal certificate alone is not sufficient to resolve a disputed filiation.

Proof of filiation; support.

In Antonio Perla v. Mirasol Baring, et al. (G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012), a complaint for
support was filed alleging that a child is an illegitimate child of the alleged father; and the bases were the
record of birth although unsigned by the alleged father and the baptismal certificate identifying the alleged
father, as the father of the child without the signature of the alleged father. The RTC granted the support
based on those documents. Is a record of birth and a baptismal certificate both unsigned by the alleged
father sufficient to prove filiation?

The Court ruled that the two (2) documents are not proofs of filiation. Before a child may be
entitled to support, he must be recognized by the alleged father. A high standard of proof is required to
establish paternity and filiation. An order for support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an
irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is
established by clear and convincing evidence. The Rules for establishing filiation are found in Arts. 172
and 175 of the Family Code. One such proof is the record of birth appearing in the civil register, Art.
172(1) and any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws, (Art. 172(2)(2), Family
Code.

It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not
competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the
preparation of said certificate. Randys baptismal certificate is not a good proof of Antonios paternity of
Randy. Just like in a birth certificate, the lack of participation of the supposed father in the preparation of a
baptismal certificate renders this document incompetent to prove paternity. And while a baptismal
certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of
the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity.

5
G.R. No. 118464, December 21, 1998

Albano Bar Review Center www.albanobarreview.com3