You are on page 1of 14

Garlet v.

Garlet Doctrine:
Psychological Incapacity (personality disorder) In ​Santos v CA​, the Court declared that the psychological incapacity
must be characterized by
Petitioner Yolanda Garlet and respondent Vencidor Garlet got a. gravity
married in 1994. After 7 years of marriage petitioner and b. juridical antecedence
respondent separated. Petitioner then filed for a Nullity of Marriage c. incurability
on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his
marital obligations to petitioner and their children. Lucido v. People
RA 7610
During trial, De Guzman, a clinical psychologist testified that based
on her findings, respondent is suffering from narcissistic type of During AAA’s stay with Lucido, the former suffered repeated
personality disorder. She claimed that respondent cannot attend to physical abuse like strangulation, beating (using a belt), pinching
responsibility and comply with marital obligations. Moreover, and the touching of her sex organ. Lucido also threatened to stab
respondent is also insecure in dealing with mature roles. AAA if she would tell anyone about it. A case was filed against
Respondent’s traits and attitudes have been present even before Lucido. During trial she offered to plead guilty to the crime of Less
marriage so that any change to his disposition would be difficult to Serious Physical Injuries under RPC or violation of the Child and
do. The psychological incapacitation is pervasive, permanent and Youth Welfare Code. She was found guilty of child abuse under Sec
clinically proven to be incurable. She mentioned that the root cause 10 of RA 7610 by the RTC. Petitioner contends that she could not be
of this is his ordinal position in the family being the youngest boy. convicted of child abuse but only of slight physical injuries under
The SC upholds the decision of CA declaring that the marriage of Held​​:
respondent and petitioner is ​valid and subsisting​. De Guzman’s The SC held that when the incident happened, the victim was a child
report falls short of establishing respondent’s psychological entitled to the protection extended by Republic Act No. 7610. Thus,
incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and petitioner was properly charged and found guilty of violating Article
incurability so as to render the respondent’s marriage to petitioner VI, Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610.
void ab initio. Tested against the present guidelines (doctrine
below), the Court agrees with the CA that the totality of petitioner’s Doctrine:
evidence is insufficient to establish respondent’s psychological Article I, Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 defines ​child abuse as
incapacity. the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, including ​any
of the following:
1. Psychological and ​physical abuse​, neglect, cruelty, sexual
abuse and emotional maltreatment;
2. Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or Held​​:
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a The SC does not agree with the CA that the subject birth certificates
human being; are the express recognition of the children's filiation by Tinitigan,
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, because they were not duly registered in accordance with the law.
such as food and shelter; or The law is clear that illegitimate children shall use the surname and
4. Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured shall be under the parental authority of their mother. The use of the
child resulting in impairment of his growth and word "​shall​​" underscores its mandatory character. The ​discretion
development or his incapacity or death on the part of the illegitimate child to use the surname of the father
is conditional upon proof of compliance with RA 9255 and its IRR.
In the Matter of Petition for Cancellation of Certificates of Live
Birth of Yuhares Jan Barcelote Tinitigan and Avee Kynna Noelle The children shall use the surname of their mother, Barcelote. The
Barcelote Tinitigan entry in the subject birth certificates as to the surname of the
Name of illegitimate children children is therefore incorrect; their surname should have been
"Barcelote" and not "Tinitigan”.
Petitioner Jonna Barcelote bore two children out of wedlock with a
married man Ricky Tinitigan. She wasn’t able to register the birth Doctrine:
certificates of her two children. It turned out that Tinitigan Article 176. ​Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be
registered the birth certificates and used his surname as the under the parental authority of their mother.
surname of his children. Barcelote filed a petition in the RTC for the
cancellation of the said birth certificates registered by Tinitigan Abella v. Cabanero
without her knowledge and for containing erroneous entries. RTC Filiation
ordered the cancellation of the birth certificates.
In a Complaint ​for Support, petitioner Richelle alleged that while she
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. It ruled that the illegitimate was still a minor, she was repeatedly sexually abused by respondent
children can use the surname of their father. RA 9225 amending Art. Cabañero and as a result, she allegedly gave birth to a child. Richelle
176 of the Family Code allows illegitimate children to use the prayed for the child's monthly allowance in the amount of P3,000.
surname of their father if the latter had expressly recognized them Cabañero denied sexually abusing Richelle, or otherwise having any
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, such as in sexual relations with her. Thus, he asserted that he could not have
this case been the father of Richelle’s child.
relations, and invokes judicial intervention to do so. This does not
RTC dismissed Richelle's Complaint. CA sustained the dismissal of
run afoul of any rule.
the Complaint. It ruled that the dismissal of RTC of the Complaint
was proper as the filiation and paternity of the child had not been
Heirs of Gilberto Roldan
previously established. As the child's birth certificate did not
ArtIcles 172 and 175 Family Code in relation to the succession of
indicate that Cabañero was the father and as Cabañero had not
legitimate children
done anything to voluntarily recognize the child as his own. CA
asserted that Richelle "should have first instituted filiation
Natalia Magtulis owned Lot No. 4696, an agricultural land in Kalibo,
proceedings to adjudicate the minor child's paternity."
Aklan. Her heirs included Gilberto Roldan and Silvela Roldan, her
two children by her first marriage, allegedly, Leopolda Magtulis her
child with another man named Juan Aguirre.​ ​After her death, Natalia
It was improper to rule here, as the Court of Appeals did, that it was
left the lot to her children. Considering that Gilberta, Silvela, and
impossible to entertain petitioner's child's plea for support without
Leopolda were all descendants of Natalia, the RTC declared each set
her and petitioner first surmounting the encumbrance of an entirely
of their respective heirs entitled to 1/3 share of the property.
different judicial proceeding.

Dolina v. Vallecera​ clarified that since an action for compulsory Petitioners then appealed to the CA. They asserted that the RTC
recognition may be filed ahead of an action for support, the direct could not have considered Leopolda the son of Natalia on the mere
filing of an action for support, "where the issue of compulsory basis of his Certificate of Baptism. Petitioners argued that the
recognition may be integrated and resolved, is an equally valid baptismal certificate of Leopoldo served only as evidence of the
alternative administration of the sacrament.

In​ Agustin v. Court of Appeals, t​ his Court added that an action to Held:
compel recognition could very well be integrated with an action for Jurisprudence has already assessed the probative value of baptismal
support. ​
certificates. In ​Fernandez v. Court of Appeals,​ the Court explained
that a baptismal certificate is "no proof of the declarations in the
Indeed, an integrated determination of filiation is "entirely record with respect to the parentage of the child baptized, or of
appropriate" to the action for support filed by petitioner Richelle for prior and distinct facts which require separate and concrete
her child. An action for support may very well resolve that issue of evidence.
paternity if it involves the same parties, is brought before a court
with the proper jurisdiction, prays to impel recognition of paternal
But in ​Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Harper​, the Court Chua” and has been using such name ever since. Finding that the
clarified that a baptismal certificate has evidentiary value to prove change of name as nothing more than a mere straightening of
kinship "if considered alongside other evidence of filiation." records, RTC ordered the Local Civil Registrar to change Eric’s name
to “Eric S. Chua” in his birth certificate. However, the CA granted the
All told, the Baptismal Certificate and the Marriage Contract of Office of the Solicitor General’s appeal saying that Eric failed to
Leopoldo, which merely stated that Natalia is his mother, are meet the quantum of evidence required to establish the fact of his
inadequate to prove his filiation with the property owner. father changing name.

Doctrine​​: Issue:
Article 172.​ The filiation of legitimate children is established by any Whether or not Eric should be allowed to change name. (YES)
of the following:
1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final Held​​:
judgment; or In ​Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo,​ the Court enumerated several
2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a grounds that can be invoked by the person who wants to change his
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent name. One of such instance is when such change will avoid
concerned. confusion. As Eric had established, he had been known as “Eric
Chua” than “Eric Kiat.” Moreover, all his credentials except his birth
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation certificate bear the name of “Eric Chua.” To compel him to use the
shall be proved by: name, “Eric Kiat” at this point will inevitably lead to confusion. It
1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate would result in an alteration of all his official documents, save for
child; or his birth certificate. His children too, will be compelled to have their
2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. records changed. So to deny Eric’s petition, would not only deny
Eric’s identity but also that of his children.
Chua v. Republic
Change of Surname Doctrine:
RA 9048.​ Section 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname.
Eric was born on November 8, 1973 to a Chinese father named — The petition for change of first name or nickname may be
Cheong Kiat and a Filipino mother named Melania Sibayan. His allowed in any of the following cases:
name, as it appears in his birth certificate, is “Eric Sibayan Kiat.” (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous,
After his birth, his father Cheong was able to change his surname tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
from “Kiat” to “Chua.” As such, Eric adopted the name “Eric Sibayan
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and was still denied. It was only then that PITC stopped paying the
continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known benefits.
by the first names or nicknames in the community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion. Issues​​:
1. Whether or not the doctrine of prospectivity of laws would
PITC v. COA apply to the instant case. (NO)
Supreme Court decisions being part of the law of the land; 2. Whether or not the retroactive application of the 2010
Retroactivity of laws Decision would divest qualified PITC employees of their
vested right to receive the retirement benefits under EO
In 1983, President Marcos further reorganized PITC through EO 877. 756. (NO)
Section 1 thereof states that the restructuring shall be completed Held:
within six months and that personnel laid off during that period In​ Columbia Pictures v. CA, th​ e Court held that judicial interpretation
shall be entitled benefits under EO 756. But apparently, PITC becomes a part of the law as of the date that law was originally
continued to grant the benefits provided under EO 756 to its passed. The only qualification is that when a doctrine of the Court is
qualified employees even after the lapse of the six-month period. overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should
be applied prospectively and should not apply to the parties who
The legality of such policy was put in issue and was resolved by the relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.
Supreme Court in a Decision. However, pending the resolution of
the motion for reconsideration, PITC still allocated part of its budget The 2010 Decision did not reverse and old doctrine nor adopted a
for retirement benefits pursuant to Section 6 of EO 756. new one. The Court merely construed the meaning and application
of Section 6 of EO 756. Prior to the 2010 Decision, there is no other
After the finality of the 2010 Decision, the PITC resident COA ruling that explained the nature of the retirement benefits under
auditor informed PITC that the accrual of the retirement benefits Section 6 of EO 756. Thus, the Court’s interpretation in the 2010
under Section 6 of EO 756 has no legal basis in accordance with the Decision retroacts to the date when EO 756 was enacted. Moreover,
SC Decision. She advised PITC to stop the payment of such benefits. the fact that PITC continued to grant retirement benefits from the
However, PITC argued that it could continue to allocate part of its time of the issuance of EO 756 until the Court Decision in 2010 does
budget for the said benefits while the motion for reconsideration not impair vested rights of the employees. As previously held by the
was still pending and that should the Supreme Court deny the Court in KMG v. COA, “practice, no matter how long continued
motion, PITC believe that the Decision should be applied cannot give rise to any vested right if it is contrary to the law. The
prospectively. PITC filed a second motion for reconsideration, but it limitations provided by law must be enforced even if it prejudices
certain parties due to a previous mistake committed by public
officials in granting such benefit.” In this Petition, one of the arguments of Felicitas was that the
execution cannot continue because it is being enforced against the
Doctrine: family home. In this regard, she invokes Article 155 of the Family
Judicial interpretation becomes a part of the law as of the date that Code exempt the property from execution.
law was originally passed.
Salazar v. Felias Whether or not the property is part of the family home under
Family home Article 155 of the Family Code. (NO)

Remedios Felias, representing the Heirs of Catalino Nivera, filed a Held:

Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages The family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and
against Spouses Romualdo and Felisa Lastimosa to recover four free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and that
parcels of land located in Pangasinan. During the trial of the case, land on which it is situated. It confers upon a particular family the
Romualdo died. As such, he was substituted by his wife, Felisa and right to enjoy such properties. It cannot be seized by creditors
their children (collectively called Heirs of Lastimosa). except in certain special cases. However, it must be noted that it is
not sufficient for the claimant to merely alleged that a property is a
RTC rendered a Decision declaring the Heirs of Catalino Nivera as family home. Whether the claim is premised under the Old Civil
the absolute owners of the parcels of land in question and thereby Code or the Family Code, the claim for exemption must be set up
ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa to vacate the lands and to surrender and proved.
possession thereof. The Heirs of Lastimosa did not appeal the RTC’s
ruling. Guided by the aforementioned rules, it becomes apparent that
Felicitas cannot conveniently claim that the subject property is her
Meanwhile, Felicitas Salazar (daughter of Romualdo) along with two family home without sufficient evidence proving her allegations.
other children of Spouses Lastimosa filed a Petition for Annulment Since Felicitas was unable to convincingly prove and substantiate
of Judgment with the CA. Felicitas contends that she was deprived her claims, the execution of the Court’s judgment must be in order.
of due process when she was not impleaded in the first case. ​CA
dismissed her Petition. SC affirmed with finality CA’s ruling. The Doctrine:
Heirs of Catalino Nivera opted to execute the judgment of the Article 153. T​ he family home is deemed constituted on a house and
Court, but the Heirs of Lastimosa filed an appeal before the CA. The lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence. From the time
appeal was denied. of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually
resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt Doctrine:
from execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter Article 151.​ No suit between members of the same family shall
provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or
petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made,
Moreno v. Kahn but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts
Family home; earnest effort requirement were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.

Petitioner Jose claimed that he and his family have been occupying Sarto v. People
two parcels of land since May 1998 and is co-owned by his Bigamy
full-blooded sister, respondent Consuelo Moreno Kahn-Haire
(Consuelo) and his nephews and nieces (Consuelo's children), Petitioner Redante was charged with the crime of bigamy for
respondents Rene Kahn (Rene), Rene Luis Pierre Kahn (Luis), allegedly contracting two marriages: the first marriage with Maria
Philippe Kahn (Philippe), and Ma. Claudine Kahn-McMahon. Socorro and the second marriage with Fe Aguila, without first
having the prior marriage legally terminated.
Non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article Held:
151 of the Family Code is not a jurisdictional defect which would The Supreme Court ruled that all the elements of bigamy are
authorize the courts to dismiss suits filed before them. Rather, it present namely:
merely partakes of a condition precedent such that the I. That the offender has been legally married;
non-compliance therewith constitutes a ground for dismissal of a II. That the first marriage has not been legally
suit should the same be invoked by the opposing party at the dissolved;
earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. III. That the offender contracts a second or subsequent
In this case, a plain reading of the records shows that the RTC IV. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
ordered the dismissal of Jose's complaint against respondents for essential requisites for validity.
his alleged failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code
even before respondents have filed a motion or a responsive People v. Nuyte
pleading invoking such non-compliance. As such ground is not a RA 7610
jurisdictional defect but is a mere condition precedent, the courts a
quo clearly erred in finding that a dismissal was warranted under Nelson Nuyte was charged in six separate Informations, with one
the given circumstances. count of rape under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and
five counts of violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 committed
against a minor, AAA who is at the time of the commission of the Issue​​:
offense 14 years old. Whether or not the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies in a
case involving recognition of a foreign decree of divorce. (NO)
T​he Informations charging Nuyte for violation of Sec 5 (b) of RA Held:
7610 reveals that each of the informations contained elements of The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court misapplied Sec. 20 of
both crimes of rape defined Under Art 266-A of the RPC and child A.M. No. 02-11-SC. It was an error for the RTC to apply the said rule
abuse defined under Sec 5(b) of RA 7610. However, the offender as a basis for denial of petitioner’s appeal. Instead Sec 3 of Rule 41
cannot be accused of both crimes as it would result in double of the Rules of Court should govern since Florie followed the
jeopardy. procedure for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, which is a
special proceeding. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that
I​n such a case, the Supreme Court must examine the evidence of A.M. No. 02-11-SC only covers void and voidable marriages that are
the prosecution, whether it focused on the specific force or specifically cited and enumerated in the Family Code. Void and
intimidation employed by the offender or on the broader scope of voidable marriages contemplate a situation wherein the basis for
coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the victim. In the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of the
this case, the prosecution was able to establish that the appellant marriage exists before or at the time of the marriage. Divorce on
forced her to lie down on a grassy ground and, at knifepoint, the other hand, ends a legally valid marriage and is usually due to
inserted his penis into her vagina. circumstances arising after marriage.

Republic v. Cote Republic v. Javier

Recognition of Foreign Divorce Psychological incapacity

On July 31, 1995, Rhomel Cote and respondent Florie Grace Cote, Martin filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and
both Filipinos, were married in Quezon City. On Aug 23, 2002, Joint Custody of Common Minor Child under Article 36 of the Family
Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce in Hawaii on the ground that Code. In order to support his claims, Martin testified himself and
their marriage was irretrievably broken, which was granted by the presented the psychological findings of Dr. Adamos. It appears from
Family Court of Hawaii. On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted her the findings that both parties are suffering from Narcissistic
petition and declared Florie to be capacitated to remarry after the Personality Disorder. RTC dismissed the Petition. However, the CA
RTC’s decision attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity has overturned RTC and ruled that both parties are psychologically
been issued on the basis of Article 26 par (2). incapacitated.
Ludyson and Shanaviv married sometime in 2003. Ludyson was
Issue​​: working overseas in order to provide for his family. On July 12,
Whether or not the marriage of Martin and Michelle is void for 2006, while working abroad, private respondent was informed by
psychological incapacity. (YES) his relatives that Shanaviv left their house and never returned.

Held Worried about his wife's sudden disappearance and the welfare of
The totality of evidence shows that Martin is psychologically his children, private respondent flew back home. Ludyson looked
incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage. for his wife in Enrile Cagayan, but to no avail. He then proceeded to
Martin showed several pieces of evidence to support his petition for inquire about Shanaviv's whereabouts from their close friends and
declaration of nullity of marriage. This notwithstanding, the Court relatives, but it proved useless as well. Ludyson travelled as far as
disagrees with the CA's findings that Michelle was psychologically Bicol where Shanaviv grew up, but he still could not locate her. He
incapacitated. There were no other independent evidence even sought the help of Bombo Radyo to broadcast the fact of his
establishing the root cause or juridical antecedence of Michelle's wife’s disappearance. After almost seven years of waiting, private
alleged psychological incapacity. While this Court cannot discount respondent filed with the RTC a petition to have his wife declared
their first-hand observations, it is highly unlikely that they were able presumptively dead where it was granted.
to paint Dr. Adamos a complete picture of Michelle's family and
childhood history. There were no other independent evidence Held:
establishing the root cause or juridical antecedence of Michelle's The requisite of diligent search was not met. First, private
alleged psychological incapacity. respondent failed to present any evidence of his alleged friends or
relatives to corroborate his act of inquiring about his missing wife's
Doctrine: whereabouts from both friends and relatives. Moreover, no
In ​Santos v CA​, the Court declared that the psychological incapacity explanation for such omission was given. As held in the previous
must be characterized by: cases, failure to present any of the persons from whom inquiries
a. gravity were allegedly made tends to belie a claim of a diligent search.
b. juridical antecedence
c. incurability Second, private respondent did not seek the help of other
concerned government agencies, namely, the local police
Republic v. Catubag authorities and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). It would
Judicial declaration of presumptive death be ideal for the aggrieved spouse to seek the aid of the authorities
in searching for the missing spouse. Finally, aside from the
certification of Bombo Radyo's manager, private respondent bases
his "well-founded belief' on bare assertions that he exercised issues related to Filipinos' family rights and duties, together with the
earnest efforts in looking for his wife. determination of their condition and legal capacity to enter into
contracts and civil relations, including marriages.
Article 41​. A marriage contracted by any person during the Held:
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires
before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the
had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who
had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It
In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or
circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is
Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. bound by the words of the statute.The legislature is presumed to
know the meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and
Republic v. Manalo to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in
Recognition of foreign divorce the statute. ​Verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a
statute there should be no departure.
Marelyn Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of marriage
by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese Court. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word "obtained"
Manalo was previously married in the Philippines to a Japanese should be interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be
national named Yoshino Minoro. A case for divorce was filed by actually initiated by the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow
Manalo in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree dated the letter of the statute when to do so would depart from the true
December 6, 2011 was rendered by the Japanese Court. intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions
inconsistent with the general purpose of the act. Laws have ends to
The RTC denied the petition for lack of merit and stated that the achieve, and statutes should be so construed as not to defeat but to
divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be recognized carry out such ends and purposes.
based on Article 15 of the Civil Code. It states does not afford
Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, whether they are in the Doctrine:
country or living abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to Article 26. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
in another country and that unless Filipinos are naturalized as obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
citizens of another country, Philippine laws shall have control over
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry Doctrine:
under Philippine law. ​ marriage contracted by any person during the
Article 41. A
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless
Tadeo v. Republic before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse
Judicial declaration of presumptive death had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present
had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.
Estrellita, pursuant to Art. 41 of the Family Code, filed before the In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
RTC a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil
husband Wilfredo who was a member of the Philippine Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
Constabulary. On September 15, 1979, he set out from their
conjugal home to serve in Arayat, Pampanga but he never made For the purposes of contracting the subsequent marriage under the
contact or communicated with the Estrellita nor his relatives and preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary
has been declared missing ever since. Estrellita has been constantly proceeding as provided for in this Code for the declaration of
pestering the Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding her presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect
husband but the Philippine Constabulary had no answer to his of reappearance of the absent spouse.
whereabouts, all the information that the Constabulary knew was
that Wilfredo was assigned to a place frequented by the New Juego Sakai v. Republic
People’s Army. Recognition of foreign divorce

Held: Stephen I. Juego-Sakai and Toshiharu Sakai got married on August

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for declaration of 11, 2000 in Japan pursuant to the wedding rites therein. After two
presumptive death filed by Estrellita is not an action that would years, the parties, by agreement, obtained a divorce decree in said
have warranted the application of Art. 41 of the Family Code country dissolving their marriage. On April 5, 2013, petitioner filed a
because petitioner was not seeking to remarry. It is clear that based Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgement before the
on the provision, it is only applicable for the purpose of contracting RTC to which the RTC affirmed and recognized the divorce between
a valid subsequent marriage under the said law. the parties as valid and effective under Philippine Laws.

In this case, the petitioner was only filing for the declaration of However, the Court of Appeals reversed the rulings of the RTC and
presumptive death for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638. Instead, the ruled that the second of the following requisites under Article 26 of
declaration of presumptive death contemplated should be Art. 390 the Family Code is missing: (a) there is a valid marriage that has
or 391 of the Civil code been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (b) a
divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry. This is because the divorce herein was consensual in The case of ​Republic v. Manalo​ teaches that a plain reading of Par. 2
nature, obtained by agreement of the parties, and not by Sakai of Article 26 only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained
alone. Thus, since petitioner, a Filipino citizen, also obtained the abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse
divorce herein, said divorce cannot be recognized in the Philippines. should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce
In addition, the CA ruled that petitioner's failure to present decree was granted. ​Verbal legis non est recedendum​, from the
authenticated copies of the Civil Code of Japan was fatal to her words of a statute there should be no departure. Moreover,
cause. assuming that the word “obtained” should be interpreted to mean
that the divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by the alien
Held: spouse, the Court will not follow the letter of the statute when to
Despite the fact that petitioner participated in the divorce do so would depart from the true intent of the legislature or would
proceedings in Japan, and even if it is assumed that she initiated the other yield conclusion inconsistent with the general purpose of the
same, she must still be allowed to benefit from the exception act.
provided under Paragraph 2 of Article 26. Consequently, since her
marriage to Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by virtue of Spouses Carlos v. Tolentino
the divorce decree they obtained in Japan, thereby capacitating Property regime
Toshiharu to remarry, petitioner shall likewise have capacity to
remarry under Philippine law. A parcel of land with an area of 1,000 square meters covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-90746 issued on March 17, 1967
However, the Court ruled that it cannot yet grant petitioner's and registered under Juan C. Tolentino, married to Mercedes
Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment for she has yet Tolentino. Without Juan’s knowledge and consent, Mercedes and
to comply with certain guidelines. The Court has held that in any Kristoff, who were residing in the subject property allegedly forged
recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it must be a Deed of Donation on Feb. 2011, making it appear that Juan had
acknowledgment that Philippine Courts do not take judicial notice Mercedes donate the subject property to Kristoff. In April 2011,
of foreign judgments and laws. This means that the foreign Kristoff offered the sale of the property to Julieta’s brother, Felix,
judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under the who is also the administrator of the lot owned by Julieta, which is
rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law adjacent to the subject property.
to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
Racho v. Tanaka Juan and Mercedes appear to have been married before the
Recognition of Foreign Divorce effectivity of the Family Code on Aug. 3, 1988 and the presumption
is that when there is no indication that the spouses have adopted a To Liberato’s surprise, Liezl introduced him to her lover as her elder
different property regime, the property relations shall be governed brother. Liberato went along with the charade, and allowed Liezl to
by the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. Art. 119 of the Civil share her bed with her lover as she threatened to leave their home.
Code states that “in the absence of marriage settlements, or when
the same are void the system of relative community or conjugal Liezl then left Liberato a second time. Liberato tried to move on and
partnership of gains as established in this Code, shall govern the left for Singapore to work in 2008. Though abroad, he continued to
property relations between husband and wife.” woo his wife back, but found out that Liezl already cohabited with
her lover. This prompted Liberato to file a petition for declaration of
Likewise, Art. 105 of the Family Code supersedes the terms of the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
conjugal partnership under the Civil Code. Since the subject
property was acquired on March 19, 1967 or before the effectivity Held:
of the Family Code, it formed part of their conjugal partnership. To entitle a petitioner spouse to a declaration of the nullity of his or
Hence, Juan and Mercedes are the absolute owners of their her marriage, the totality of the evidence must sufficiently prove
undivided one-half interests over the subject property. that the respondent spouse's psychological incapacity was grave,
incurable and existing prior to the time of the marriage.
Republic v. Mola Cruz
Psychological incapacity Although sexual infidelity and abandonment are grounds for legal
separation, the courts found that such infidelity was duly connected
Liberato was married to Liezl and they moved to Japan because Liezl with the aberrant acts of Liezl as actual manifestations of her
worked as an entertainer in Japan and eventually, Liberato found histrionic personality disorder. These traits were especially reflected
work as a construction worker. While living in Japan Liezl started to in Liezl's highly unusual acts of allowing her Japanese boyfriend to
act differently. The couple later returned to the Philippines after stay in the marital abode, sharing the marital bed with his Japanese
Liezl was released from detention due to overstaying in Japan. It boyfriend and introducing her husband as her elder brother, all
was then that Liezl confessed to Liberato that she had a romantic done under the threat of desertion. Such blatant insensitivity and
affair with a Japanese man. Despite the confession, Liezl did not end lack of regard for the sanctity of the marital bond and home cannot
the illicit relationship, which caused Liberato such stress that he was be expected from a married person who reasonably understand the
hospitalized. Liberato expressed his willingness to forgive Liezl but principle and responsibilities of marriage.
she chose to walk away from their marriage.
It is clear from the records how much petitioner must love his wife
The couple reconciled after respondent made efforts to woo Liezl to endure the pain and humiliation she callously caused him in the
back. However, Liberato found Liezl's Japanese lover in their house. hope that their relationship could still work out. Clearly, Liezl does
not recognize the marital responsibilities that came when she percentage of the income or salary of the defendant or respondent
married petitioner. The severance of their marital vinculum will by the employer, which shall be remitted directly to the
better protect the state's interest to preserve the sanctity of complainant.
marriage and family.

Support (Anti-Violence Against Women and Children)

AAA filed an action for support against her husband, BBB who was a
retired military person before the RTC of Isabela, Basilan. The RTC
ordered the issuance of a Permanent Protection Order decreeing
the respondent to support the petitioner and the minor child
consisting of 50% of his monthly pension to be withheld regularly by
the Pension Gratuity Management Center of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines in Taguig.

The SC cited the case of ​Republic v. Yahon ​where the Court therein
held that PGMC may be ordered to automatically deduct a portion
from the retirement benefits of its member-recipients for direct
remittance to the latter’s legal spouse in compliance with the
protection order of the court, pursuant to the provisions of RA 9260

The Court declared therein that the Anti-VAWC law which is a

special law; a later enactment; a support enforcement legislation;
and one that addresses one form of violence, which is economic
abuse against women and children should be construed as laying
down an exception to the general rule that retirement benefits are
exempt from execution. The Court therein noted that RA 9262
expreselly authorized the courts to order the withholding of a