33. Limjuco vs.

Pedro Fragrante

Facts:
-Pedro Fragrante, a Filipino Citizen at the time of his death, applied for a certificate of public
convenience to install and maintain an ice plant in San Juan.
-His intestate estate is financially capable of maintaining proposed service.
-The Public Service Commission issued a certificate of public convenience to Intestate Estate of
the deceased authorizing said estate through its special or Juridical Administrator, appointed by
the proper court of competent jurisdiction, to maintain and operate the said plant. Petitioner claims
that the granting of a certificate of public convenience applied to the estate is a contravention of
law.

Issue: W/N the estate of Fragante be extended an artificial judicial personality

Ruling: Yes. Both the personality and citizenship of Pedro Fragante must be deemed extended,
within the meaning and intent of the Public Service Act, as amended, in harmony with the
constitution.

The term person used in Book I must be deemed to include artificial or juridical persons, for
otherwise these latter would be without the constitutional guarantee against being deprived of
property without due process of law, or the immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Notes:

Public Service Act - an act to recognize the public service commission, prescribe its powers and
duties, define and regulate public services, provide and fix the rates and quota of expenses to be
paid by the same for other purposes.
36. Frivaldo vs. COMELEC

Facts:
-On March 20, 1995, private respondent Juan G. Frivaldo filed his certificate of candidacy for the
office of Governor of Sorsogon in the May 1995 elections.
-On March 23, 1995, petitioner Raul Lee, another candidate, filed a petition with the COMELEC
praying that Frivaldo be “disqualified from seeking or holding any public office or position by
reason of not yet being a citizen of the Philippines,”
-And that his certificate of candidacy be canceled.
-On June 30, 1995, Frivaldo took his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after his
petition for repatriation was granted.

Issue:
1. W/N Frivaldo is a Filipino Citizen and is qualified for an electoral position

Ruling:
No. Frivaldo is not a Filipino Citizen and had not complied with the constitutional position under
Art. 11 Sec. 9 that all public officials owe the state allegiance at all times. He also did not comply
with the specific requirement that “candidate for local elective office must be a Filipino Citizen
under Sec. 42 of the electoral code. Frivaldo did not undergo an official renouncement of his U.S
citizenship. Wherefore, petition of Frivaldo is hereby dismissed and be declared not a citizen of
the Philippines and therefore disqualified in running for office.
37. Estrada (complainant) vs. Escritor (respondent)

Facts:
-Escritor is the court interpreter of RTC branch 253 of Las Pinas City.
-Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and
having a child with the latter while she was still married.
-Estrada believes that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of
the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that
the court condones her act.
-Escritor admitted the above mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross
immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s witness and
WatchTower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her
religious beliefs.
-Escritor further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance
with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s witnesses who have been abandoned by their
spouses to enter into marital relations.
-The declaration makes the union moral and binding with the congregation throughout the world
except in countries where divorce is allowed

Issue:
W/N respondent’s faith shall justify her alleged “immoral acts”

Ruling:
-Yes. Respondent’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for
exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.
-The Supreme Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms-
including religious freedom- may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred
freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state
interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of
the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest
exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the infinite.
42. Cosca (complainants) vs. Palaypayon (respondent)

Facts:
-complainants are employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camsur.
-respondent judge Lucio Palaypayon is the presiding judge of the same court while Nelia
Esmeralda-baroy is the clerk of court.
-An administrative complaint was filed with the office of the court administrator charging
respondents, among others, illegal solemnization of marriage.
-Complainants alleged that respondent judge solemnized 6 marriages even without the requisite
marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any marriage license
number.
-The respondent judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of the
solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be
submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony.
-Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar.

Issue:
W/N a marriage solemnized without valid marriage license is null and void
W/N the private respondents are guilty of violating the provision of Article 4 of the family code.

Ruling:
-Yes. the Family Code patiently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a
valid marriage license except in the cases provided therein. Complementarily, it declares that the
absence of any of the essential requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio. In the
case at bar, the marriage was celebrated without marriage license, thus it is null and void.
-Yes. Guilty of violating Article 4 which states that, “the absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio.”
45. Aranas (petitioner) vs Judge Ociano (respondent)

Facts:
-Petitioner Mercedita Mata Arañes charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law. -
Respondent is the Presiding Judge of the MTCt of Balatan, Camarines Sur. Petitioner alleges that
respondent judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Orobia without the
requisite marriage license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction.
-They lived together as husband and wife on the strength of this marriage until her husband passed
away.
-However, since the marriage was a nullity, petitioner's right to inherit the "vast properties" left by
Orobia was not recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the pensions of Orobia.
-Petitioner prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for his illegal acts and
unethical misrepresentations which allegedly caused her so much hardships, embarrassment and
sufferings.

Issue: W/N the respondent Judge acted in gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized the
marriage of the petitioner without a valid marriage license and outside of his territorial jurisdiction.

Ruling:
Yes. Respondent judge should be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage
license. In People vs. Lara, the Court held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the
marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or
even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage
license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge
did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect,
respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.

No. The Supreme Court held that His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he
allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid
liability for violating the law on marriage. In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing
the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and
subjects him to administrative liability.
48. Lim Tanhu vs Romelete

Facts:
-respondent Tan alleged that she "is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan, who was a partner in
the commercial partnership.
-defendants managed to use the funds of the partnership to purchase lands and buildings in the
cities of Cebu, Lapulapu, Mandaue, and the municipalities of Talisay and Minglanilla, some of
which were hidden
- sometime in the month of November, 1967, defendants, particularly Antonio Lim Tanhu, by
means of fraud, deceit and misrepresentations did then and there, induce and convince the plaintiff
to execute a quitclaim of all her rights and interests, in the assets of the... partnership of Glory
Commercial Company,
-said quitclaim is null and void, executed through fraud and without any legal effect.
-The original of said quitclaim is in the possession of the adverse party, defendant Antonio Lim
Tanhu... according to them, that proper liquidation had been regularly made... of the business of
the partnership and Tee Hoon used to receive his just share until his death, as a result of which the
partnership was dissolved and what corresponded to him were all given to his wife and children.
Issue: W/N plaintiff’s claim of being a common-law wife has weight and baring in the Philippine
court and that she has claims over the business her common-law husband had

Ruling: No. Under Article 55 of the Civil Code, the declaration of the contracting parties that they
take each other as husband and wife "shall be set forth in an instrument" signed by the parties as
well as by their witnesses and the person solemnizing the marriage. Accordingly, the... primary
evidence of a marriage must be an authentic copy of the marriage contract. While a marriage may
also be proved by other competent evidence, the absence of the contract must first be satisfactorily
explained. Indeed, not only does this document prove that plaintiff's relation to the deceased was
that of a common-law wife but that they had settled their property interest with the payment to her
of P40,000.
In the light of all these circumstances, We find no alternative but to hold that plaintiff Tan Put's
allegation that she is the widow of Tee Hoon Lim Po Chuan has not been satisfactorily established
and that, on the contrary, the evidence on record convincingly shows that her... relation with said
deceased was that of a common-law wife and furthermore, that all her claims against the company
and its surviving partners as well as those against the estate of the deceased have already been
settled and paid.
51. Van Dorm vs Romillo

Facts: Petitioner Alicia Reyes Van is citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard
Upton is a citizen of the United States, were married on 1972 at Hongkong.

-On 1982, they got divorced in Nevada, United States; and the petitioner remarried to Theodore
Van Dorn.

-On July 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner, asking that the petitioner be
ordered to render an accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila, and be declared with right to
manage the conjugal property.

-Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous
judgement in the divorce proceeding before Nevada Court where respondent acknowledged that
they had no community property.

-The lower court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the property involved is located
in the Philippines, that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case.

-Respondent avers that Divorce Decree abroad cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws of the
Philippines.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the divorce obtained the spouse valid to each of them.
(2) Whether or not Richard Upton may assert his right on conjugal properties.
Ruling:
-As to Richard Upton the divorce is binding on him as an American Citizen. As he is bound by the
Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose
decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
-Only Philippine Nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorce the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. Alicia Reyes under our National
law is still considered married to private respondent.
-However, petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and
render support to private respondent.
-latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She
should not be discriminated against her own country if the ends of justice are to be served.
54. Republic Vs. Tanedo-Manalo

Facts:

-Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a Japanese national, Yoshino Minoro.

-Manalo filed a case for divorce in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce decree dated
December 6, 2011, was granted.

-Manalo now wants to cancel the entry of marriage between her and Minoro from the Civil
Registry and to be allowed to reuse her maiden surname, Manalo.

-According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code,

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse incapacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law

Issue:

W/N Under Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code, can the Filipino spouse initiate the divorce
instead of the foreign spouse?

Ruling:

Yes. The Court ruled that in interpreting the law, the intent should be taken into consideration.
According to Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the Civil Code Revision Committee, the aim
of the amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of having the Filipino deemed still married to a
foreign spouse even though the latter is no longer married to the former. According to the Supreme
Court, the wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code requires only that there be a
valid divorce obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to who should file the divorce, i.e.,
whether it is the Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse. Also, even if assuming arguendo that the
provision should be interpreted that the divorce proceeding should be initiated by the foreign
spouse, the Court will not follow such interpretation since doing so would be contrary to the
legislative intent of the law.

In the issue of the application of Article 15 of the Civil Code in this case, the Court ruled that even
if Manalo should be bound by the nationality principle, blind adherence to it should not be allowed
if it will cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose rights
are equally protected by the law.

The Court also ruled that Article 26 of the Family Code is in violation of the equal protection
clause. They said that the limitation provided by Article 26 is based on a superficial, arbitrary, and
whimsical classification. The violation of the equal protection clause in this case is shown by the
discrimination against Filipino spouses who initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and Filipinos
who obtained a divorce decree because the foreign spouse had initiated the divorce proceedings.
Their circumstances are alike, and making a distinction between them as regards to the validity of
the divorce decree obtained would give one undue favor and unjustly discriminate against the
other.

The Court also said that it is the State’s duty not only to strengthen the solidarity of the Filipino
family but also to defend, among others, the right of children to special protection from all forms
of neglect abuse, cruelty, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. The State cannot
do this if the application of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is limited to only those
foreign divorces initiated by the foreign spouse.
57. Republic vs. CA and Molina

Facts:
-The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel
Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity.
-The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he
squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with
his wife in regard to their finances.
-In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel
quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later,
Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.

Issue: W/N the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling:
-The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid.
-What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
confliction personalities.
-It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential
marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness.
-Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would
comprise grounds for psychological incapacity.
-The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with
each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability.
-In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only
incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.
60. Antonio vs. Reyes
Facts:
-Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age met in 1989.
-Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a subsequent
church wedding at Pasig in December 1990.
- A child was born but died 5 months later.
-Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational
attainment and other events or things.
-She even did not conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as
adopted child of their family.
-They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for reconciliation, he finally left her for
good in November 1991.
-Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and void
anchored in Article 36 of the Family Code.

Issue: W/N Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their marriage
null and void.
Ruling: Yes. Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of
marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. The petitioner, aside from his own
testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and
extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on his
wife’s behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity. Respondent’s fantastic ability to
invent, fabricate stories and letters of fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-
believe that made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning
and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes’ psychological incapacity have been
medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. The gravity of
respondent’s psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was
appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
from contracting marriage without their consent. It would be difficult for an inveterate
pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust
and respect. Furthermore, Reyes’ case is incurable considering that petitioner tried to reconcile
with her but her behavior remain unchanged.

Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.