Sayson vs CA

FACTS:

Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot five children, namely, Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios, and Teodoro.
Eleno died on Nov. 10, 1952, and Rafaela on May 15, 1976. Teodoro, who had married Isabel Bautista,
died on Mar. 23, 1972. His wife died nine years later, on Mar. 26, 1981. Their properties were left in the
possession of Delia, Edmundo, and Doribel, all surnamed Sayson, who claim to be their children.

On Apr. 25, 1983, Eleno and Rafaela’s other children, together with Juana (Isabel’s mother), filed a
complaint for partition of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabel. Delia, Edmundo (both legally
adopted) and Doribel (the legitimate daughter), who alleged successional rights to the estate as the
decedents’ lawful descendants, resisted said complaint and filed their own complaint for the partition of
the intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela, claiming that they are entitled to inherit Teodoro’s share in his
parents’ estate by right of representation.

Both cases were decided in favor of Delia, Edmundo, and Doribel.

The trial court declared them entitled to inherit by right of representation from Eleno and Rafaela. The
complaint for partition of Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios, and Juana were also dismissed.

On appeal, the CA modified the decision, disqualifying Delia and Edmundo from inheriting from the estate
of the deceased spouses Eleno and Rafaela. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

1. WON Delia and Edmudo, Teodoro and Isabel’s legally adopted children, can inherit from their adoptive
parents.

2. Whether Delia, Edmundo and Doribel are entitled to inherit their father’s share in the estate of his
(Teodoro) parents’ estate by right of representation.

HELD:

1. Yes, Doribel, as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and Isabel Sayson, and Delia and Edmundo, as
their adopted children, are the exclusive heirs to the intestate estate of the deceased couple. It is
consistent with Article 979 of the Civil Code:

Art. 979. Legitimate children and their descendants succeed the parents and other ascendants,
without distinction as to sex or age, and even if they should come from different marriages.

An adopted child succeeds to the property of the adopting parents in the same manner as a
legitimate child.

The philosophy underlying this article is that a person's love descends first to his children and
grandchildren before it ascends to his parents and thereafter spreads among his collateral relatives.
It is also supposed that one of his purposes in acquiring properties is to leave them eventually to his
children as a token of his love for them and as a provision for their continued care even after he is
gone from this earth

2. YES as to Doribel, but NO as to Delia and Edmundo.

 There is no question that as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro and thus granddaughter of Eleno and
Rafaela, Doribel has a right to represent her deceased father in the distribution of the intestate estate
of her grandparents. Under Art. 981 (NCC), she is entitled to the share her father would have directly
inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the shares of her grandparents’ other children.

But a different conclusion must be reached in the case of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the
grandparents were total strangers. While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, those rights do not include the right of
representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between only the adopting parents and
the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relatives of either party.

In sum Delia and Edmundo as the adopted children and Doribel as the legitimate daughter of Teodoro
Sayson and Isabel Bautista, are their exclusive heirs and are under no obligation to share the estate of
their parents with the petitioners. The CA was correct however, in holding that only Doribel has the right
of representation in the inheritance of her grandparents’ intestate estate, the other private respondents
being only the adoptive children of the deceased Teodoro.
Unson III vs Navarro

FACTS:

Miguel Unson III and Edita Araneta were married on April 19, 1971. Out of the marriage, Teresa was born
on December 1, 1971. However, on July 13, 1974, they executed an agreement for the separation of their
properties that was approved by the Court. They have in fact been living separately since June 1972.

Custody to Teresa was not contained in the agreement as the estranged spouses privately agreed that
they would share custody over her. Teresa would stay at her father’s home during school days and would
spend the weekend in her mother’s place.

However, things turned sour in the early part of 1978, when petitioner found out the following
information regarding his wife:

(1) she was in a relation with her brother-in-law and godfather of their child (a former seminarian at
that), Maria Teresa;

(2) that the brother-in-law was being treated for manic depressive disorder

(3) the illicit affair produced 2 children

(4) that Edita and her brother-in-law embraced a Protestant faith.

Thereafter, Miguel started withholding Teresa from seeing her mother.

On 28 December 1979, the respondent judge ordered the petitioner to produce the child, Maria Teresa
Unson, his daughter barely eight years of age, with private respondent Edita N. Araneta and return her
to the custody of the later, further obliging petitioner to "continue his support of said daughter by
providing for her education and medical needs.”

ISSUE:

Can the child stay with her mother given the immoral relationship the mother entered into? NO.

RULING:

In all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical,
education, social, and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources
and social and moral situations of the contending parents. It is in the best interest of the child Teresa to
be freed from the obviously unwholesome and immoral influence of the situation in which Edita has
placed herself. It might warp the moral and social outlook of Teresa who is now in her formative and most
impressionable stage in her life.

No respectable father, properly concerned with the moral well-being of his child, specially a girl, can be
expected to have a different attitude than Miguel's in this case. Under the circumstances shown in
record, the Court finds no alternative than to grant Edita no more than visitorial rights over the child in
question.

The Court granted that the child stay with Miguel.

Lim-Lua vs Lua

Facts:

Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Danilo Yua. In her prayer
for support pendente lite for herself and her two children, petitioner sought the amount of 50,000php as
monthly support, citing respondent’s huge earnings from salaries and dividends in several companies
and businesses here and abroad.

The RTC granted Susan support pendente lite of 250,000php. And since according to Art. 203 of the
Family Code, support is demandable from the time plaintiff needed the said support but is payable only
from the date of judicial demand, retroactive support should also be given by Danilo in the amount of
1,750,000php.

Danilo filed for Motion for Reconsideration asserting that petitioner is not entitled to spousal support
considering that she does not maintain for herself a separate dwelling from their children and respondent
has continued to support the family for their sustenance and well- being in accordance with family’s social
and financial standing.

The husband also asserted that the P250,000 monthly support and the 1,750,000.00 retroactive support
is unreasonable and beyond the intendment of the law for not having considered the needs of the
respondent.

His MR was denied thus he appealed to the CA wherein the monthly support was decreased
to P115,000.00. The ruling was no longer questioned by both parties.

The controversy between the parties resurfaced when Danilo only delivered 162,651.90php, explaining
that he deducted from the total amount in arrears (P2,645,000.00) the sum of P2,482,348.16,
representing the advances he gave to the petitioner and his children, in the form of two cars, tuition fees,
travel expenses, and credit card purchases.

The Trial Court rejected Danilo’s interpretation of the CA decision.

CA ruled in favor of the husband, ruling that the expenses incurred by the husband should be considered
as advances which may be properly deducted from the support in arrears due to the petitioner and the
two children. It ordered the deduction of the amount of PhP3,428,813.80 from the current total support
in arrears of Danilo to his wife, Susan Lim Lua and their two children.

ISSUE:

WON certain expenses already incurred by the respondent may be deducted from the total support in
arrears owed to the petitioner and her children.

RULING

The pertinent provision of the Family Code of the Philippines provides:

Article 194. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall
include his schooling or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of
majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from place of
work.

Susan contends that the CA should not have allowed the deduction of the 2 cars and their maintenance
costs from their support as these items are not indispensable to the sustenance of the family or in
keeping them alive.

Danilo on the other hand content that the Volkwagen Beetle and BMW 316i are to be considered as
advances for support, considering their status. Being children of parents belonging to the upper-class
society, the cars are indispensable to the children’s day-to-day living (they have never commuted their
entire life).

As a matter of law, the amount of support which those related by marriage and family relationship is
generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to
the needs of the recipient.[18] Such support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance,
dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial
capacity of the family.

The CA should not have allowed all the expenses incurred by respondent to be credited against the
accrued support pendente lite. The value of two expensive cars bought by respondent for his children
plus their maintenance cost, travel expenses of petitioner and Angelli, purchases through credit
card of items other than groceries and dry goods (clothing) should have been disallowed, as
these bear no relation to a judgment awarding support pendente lite.

The SC partly granted CA’s decision. First is to resume payment of his monthly support of PhP115,000.00
pesos starting from the time payment of this amount was deferred by him. Second, that only the amount
of Php 648,102.29 may be allowed as deductions from the accrued support pendente lite for petitioner
and her children and not PhP3,428,813.80 (rendered by the CA).