ROSE BUNAGAN-BANSIG

v.
ATTY. ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA

A.C. No. 5581, January 14, 2014

Article 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a

previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the
subsequent marriage, the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years and
the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.
xxx

FACTS:

This is disbarment case filed by Rose against Atty. Rogelio (Rogelio) on the
ground of Gross Immoral Conduct. In her complaint, Rose narrated that Rogelio and
Gracemarie R. Bunagan (Gracemarie), Rose’s sister entered into marriage on May 8,
1997. However, Rogelio contracted a second marriage with one Ma. Cielo Paz Torres
Alba (Cielo), in January 8, 1998, while his marriage with Gracemarie was still valid and
subsisting.

ISSUE:

What is the status of Rogelio’s marriage to (a) Gracemarie and (b) Cielo?

Ruling:

(a)Rogelio and Gracemarie’s marriage is valid, while (b)Rogelio and Cielo’s

marriage is void.

Under Article 41 of the Family Code, a marriage contracted by any person

during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless
before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse has been absent
for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the
absent spouse was already dead.

In this case, there was preponderant evidence that Rogelio contracted a second
marriage while his marriage with Gracemarie was still subsisting.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, we find respondent ATTY. ROGELIO

JUAN A. CELERA, guilty of grossly immoral conduct and willful disobedience of
lawful orders rendering him unworthy of continuing membership in the legal
profession. He is thus ordered DISBARRED from the practice of law and his name
stricken of the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.”

THELMA M. ARANAS
V.
 TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO

This case focuses on the nitty-gritty of land titled, property, and succession and I
think I do not have to include it in my report.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

V.
RODOLFO O. DE GRACIA
G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014

Psychological incapacity

Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. (as amended by E.O. No. 227)

FACTS:

Rodolfo met Natividad when they were high school students, and he was
forced to marry her barely three months into their courtship in light of her accidental
pregnancy. Rodolfo and Natividad have two children. When Rodolfo decided to join
and train with the army, Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house
without his consent. Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with another
man and bore him a child. Natividad later contracted a second marriage with another
man named and lived with him since.

Rodolfo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground

that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. Natividad and Rodolfo underwent the same psychiatric examination. Dr.
Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad are psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Natividad is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the

essential marital.

RULING:

Yes, Natividad is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential

marital.

Psychological incapacity, as contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code,

refers to to no less than a mental, not merely physical, incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants—to live together,
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support—that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. There is hardly any
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
“psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.

In this case, the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Zalsos did not explain in
reasonable detail how Natividad’s condition could be characterized as grave,
deeply–rooted, and incurable within the jurisprudential parameters of psychological
incapacity. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests which she
administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause
of Natividad’s condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties’
marriage. Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad’s behavior in relation
to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently described in Dr.
Zalsos’s report.

GRACE M. GRANDE
V.
PATRICIO T. ANTONIO
G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this
Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their
filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth
appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private
handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to
institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime.
The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a
legitimate child. (as amended by RA 9255)

FACTS:

Grace and Patricio lived together as husband and wife, although Antonio was at the
time already married to someone else.

They had two sons, Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick, who are both minors. They were
not expressly recognized by respondent as his own in the Record of Births of the
children in the Civil Registry.

The parties’ relationship, however, eventually turned sour, and Grande left for the
United States with her two children.

Patricio filed for recognition of the filiation of the two children with the prayer for
correction or change of the surname of the minors from Grande to Antonio. He also
prayed for a judicial conferment of parental authority, parental custody, and an official
declaration of his children’s surname as Antonio citing the “best interest of the child”.
ISSUE:

a. Whether or not the father can exercise parental authority and consequently,
custody, over his illegitimate children upon his recognition of their filiation

b. Whether or not the father has the right to compel the use of his surname by his
illegitimate children upon his recognition of their filiation

RULING:

a.
No, petitioner cannot exercise custody over the children.

Parental authority over minor children is lodged by on the mother, by virtue of

Article 176 of the Family Code. Since parental authority is given to the mother, then
custody over the minor children also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be
unfit.

In this case, Antonio failed to prove that Grande committed any act that
adversely affected the welfare of the children or rendered her unsuitable to raise the
minors; she cannot be deprived of her sole parental custody over their children.

b.
No, the acknowledged illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use the
surname of his illegitimate father.

Under Section 1 of RA 9255, which amended to Article 176 of the Family

Code, the illegitimate child may use the surname of their father if their filiation has
been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the
civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father. The clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal use of the
word “may” in Art. 176 renders the use of an illegitimate father’s surname
discretionary. Therefore, the illegitimate children are given the choice onth surnames
by which they will be known.