G.R. No.

182894 – April 22, 2014

Fe Floro Valino vs Rosario D. Adriano, Florante D. Adriano, Ruben D. Adriano, Maria Teresa Adriano
Ongoco, Victoria Adriano Bayona, and Leah Antonette D. Adriano

Mendozal, J.

Case Background: Petition by Valino for entitlement of remains of her husband, Atty. Adriano Adriano.

Facts: Atty. Adriano Adriano (of Pelaez Adriano and Gregorio Law Office) married Rosario Adriano on
11/15/55 and had 6 children; 2 sons, Florante and Ruben, 3 daughters, Rosario, Victoria, and Maria Teresa,
1 adopted daughter, Leah Antonette. Atty. Adriano and wife Rosario’s marriage fell apart resulting in their
separation. Atty. Adriano then courted Valino – his client – and remarried while promising financial
support to his previous family. Atty. Adriano died in 1992 of acute emphysema. Since Rosario and her
family were in the U.S. for Christmas, Valino prepared and paid for the funeral and burial processes of
Atty. Adriano. Rosario requested that the internment be delayed until her return but were ignored. The
remains of Atty. Adriano were interred at the Valino mausoleum at Manila Memorial Park – the Adriano
family were unable to attend. Rosario et al. filed suit against Valino on claims they were deprived of the
chance to view Atty. Adriano’s body before burial and that the burial in Manila Memorial Park was against
Adriano’s wishes. Rosario et al. demanded actual, moral, and exemplary damages be paid alongside
attorney’s fees, and that the remains be transferred to the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches,
QC. Valino counterclaimed that Rosario had been separated from her husband for more than 20 years
before remarrying and claimed that Valino had been introduced to family and friends as the wife of
Adriano. Valino admitted that Atty. Adriano continued to support Rosario et al. and despite that only
Valino paid for the medical expenses of Atty. Adriano’s health. It was also claimed that Rosario et al. had
full knowledge that Adriano was in a coma and dying but still left for the U.S. Valino then claimed that it
was Adriano’s last wish to be interred in Manila Memorial Park and stated she suffered moral and
exemplary damages (and atty’s fees) as a result of the suit brought by Rosario et al.

Issue: Who is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano Adriano?

Held: Petition denied. Rosario is the legal spouse of Atty. Adriano, as the Philippines not a common law
state, and is entitled to the remains. However, due to the good intentions of Valino, no actual, exemplary,
or moral damages are awarded to Rosario et al.; attorney’s fees are also not awarded in this case. Valino
had no substantial evidence proving the deceased’s last wish to be buried in Manila.

Art. 305 (Civil Code) and Art. 199 (Family Code) specifies those who are entitled to funeral arrangements
of the deceased; Art. 305 (CC) sets the rights to arrange funerals for relatives in accordance with Art. 294
(CC), eldest descendant/ascendant takes better right; Art. 199 (FC) Whenever 2 or more are obliged to
support, liability devolves in the order of spouse, descendants of nearest degree, ascendants of nearest
degree, then eldest sibling. Furthermore, Art. 308 (CC) states that no human remains shall be retained,
interred, disposed, or exhumed without consent of persons stated in Arts. 294 and 305. Ultimately, Sec.
1103 of Revised Administrative Code states that the surviving legal spouse of the deceased has the duty
to bury.
Dissenting Opinion:

Leonen, J.

The case itself is not about which common-law wife has more rights over the corpse of a husband but
about which between them knows the deceased’s actual wishes. Leonen votes to set aside the decision
of the CoA in CA-G.R. CV No. 61613 (10/2/06) and to dismiss Rosario et al.’s complaint for damages.

Leonen disagrees with the interpretation of Art. 305 (CC) in relation to Art. 199 (FC). Art. 305 (CC) should
only be considered when the deceased has left no explicit instructions regarding burial, and when none
among the deceased’s surviving relations are willing to make the funeral arrangements resulting in
conflict.

The express wishes of the deceased must take precedence in light of Art. 307 (CC) The funeral shall be in
accordance with the expressed wishes of the deceased. In the absence of such expression, his religious
beliefs or affiliation shall determine the funeral rites. In case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall be
decided upon by the person obliged to make arrangements for the same, after consulting the other
members of the family. The ponencia’s opinion concerning the wishes were stated only to be the “form
of the funeral” and was more concerned on who had the right to the funeral. The rights pointed out by
the ponencia must not be considered waived or renounced except upon the clear and satisfactory proof
of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end. There is neither indication nor have there
been any allegations that Atty. Adriano did not freely and voluntarily relay his last wishes to his common-
law wife, petitioner Fe. Atty. Adriano, therefore, did not waive his right to determine where he should be
buried, in favor of the persons indicated in Article 305 in relation to Article 199.

The ponencia also noted there was "animosity" between Atty. Adriano and respondents when he was
still alive. He and his legal spouse, respondent Rosario, have been separated-in-fact for more than thirty
(30) years, and he has not been in contact with his children, the other respondents, for about the same
period of time. They did not even visit him when he fell ill and was on his deathbed; it was only after he
died that they came, asserting their rights to his remains.

It is unfortunate that the ponencia would rather uphold the wishes of his estranged family rather than
give the deceased his final request. Part of life is the ability to control how one wishes to be
memorialized, and such right should remain with the deceased. It is only when the deceased has not left
any express instructions that the right is given to the persons specified under the law.

Given the circumstances, the remains of Atty. Adriano should remain in the Floro family mausoleum at
the Manila Memorial Park.