ee JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. JUDY A. LARDIZABAL eee PUP Collegeof Law Manila — |2 ri Topic: Recognition of Foreign Divorce Marlyn Monton Nullada v. The Hon. Civil Registrar of Manila, Akira Ito, Shin Ito And All Persons Who Have or Lee Vanek CS ere ees PeedFACTS: Ue Soleo OM SALOU ol recognition of foreign divorce decree and cancellation of CNC rom CLARE MAL o mT re tam VLCC Mola ago NO) Cary of Court, in relation to Article 26 of the Family Code, by CWE Mie nae a ROMO MUN C MC meClialepca t-te) July 29, 1997, she and Akira got married in Katsushika-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, as evidenced by a Report of Marriage that was Festal by the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan. The document was registered with both the Office of the Local Civil Registry of Manila and the then National Statistics Office, Civil Registry Division. The union of Marlyn and Akira eens) in the birth of a child, Shin Ito. Their relationship, however, eventually turned sour and so they later decided to obtain divorce by mutual agreement. In 2009, Akira and secured a divorce decree in Japan.RTC Decision: The trial court denied the petition. For the trial court, the fact that Marlyn also agreed to the divorce and jointly filed for it with Akira barred the application of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, which would DEM ane Coli te iat) nome eLe 0 OCU Laver Lig the alien spouse had validly obtained a divorce. While the intent of the law is to equalize Filipinos with their foreigner spouses who are free to marry again after the divorce, the Filipino spouse cannot invoke the intention of equity behind the law when he or she is an initiator or _ active participant in procuring the divorce.ISSUE: a Whether or not Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code has a restrictive application so as to apply only in cases where it is the alien spouse aoe 0 sn amen -M ho] ge mr Lae MOLAR WN -IK aT -3 divorce was mutually agreed upon by the spouses?SC Decision: Held: The legal provision that is pertinent to the case is Patra WL Mel minal ees Mae tks Art, 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in Flaselcel emma \A Mee Memeo ieee ct Meee Ae TUTOR an le MCU Camel UM CteN oraz le) LU Mmertalena oe those Pirie | under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), [36, 37] and 38. ee Mura a Ma Ue ela ueUeCee og ty Aen Coat leie leo Lalo Meee ot 1d 0g obtained abroad by the alien spouse Seibel uae to remarry, the Filipino spouse shalt Touran mele aan ia Cla eal have capacity to —SCR On uN Mele eee Wee ee Se cu Res Cen ae ont ue ecm ac ie ee Un an CMC M TU ee ire Ma Tee ae MRM gs oc Ua ee Aa RR memes Une enforcement of a foreign judgment was filed, as the trial court eee Wee Rew een eeu Reon Rea ey Mn ee ae male a ac) Ce em CRU et ema a abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in the Philippines or in another Cree Omi Om meee Ones Ao ue a Mec Retiss held that Article 26 of the Family Code should apply even if it was Manalo who filed for divorce. The decree made the uae nC mu Rn Cue nr ka Cen mC mmm ir cy RR ee Uo Re cma hc) eee eee OCMC occ inconsequential. La!le Tie) ao a nae 1) a validly obtained abroad by the alien capacitating him or| OMe a aT ee Deco) Pee LAN eT kL lc) validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not PU remit eit Ml a Mela mal) arn lglg Ie cg OE el selmi ie meen mab) ao) EyofeVr en maleic oe a ee Pierce meen emir ag the statute; neither can We put words in the mouths of the lawmakers. "The legislature is presumed to know that meaning of the words, to have used words advisedly, and OMe eMC) MS Meee celts art are found in the statute. Verba legis non est eee me eR ks Role eee ene el be)t Ce) boro oy- LaeApplying the same legal considerations and consideri ESC tare MOM nr- Lala ule oe eo UU Ae Lol TC Leora) Me | ole rf MALT LUT LUV e) 96.) eu MCU rusas Sic mniee Cuma) rsa ce cee Mn se coh merece + While opposition to the foregoing interpretation is commonly Peleg m ae ee me Mar lan ism ea Came lies) (ay not an absolute and unbending rule. The second paragraph of PN esa eM Mole Melt Se SL La Cte Re rat oe + Applying the foregoing to the present case, the assailed ram Erm ee asa ete Rell Oa Nee mM ar Mee eee celal s Pisa WL Mem Mall Vale Mec RUM Ulam Ue eee ae Cem CMEC Rca eM Cd mutual agreement of Marlyn and Aldra was not Brice Li PN) rei ee ee Me lace oa (oie SmeeNa meakecseend Topic: Filiation Heirs of Paula C. Fabillar, as Represented by Aureo’ Fabillar v. Miguel M., Paller, Florentina P. Abayan, and Demetria P. Sagales G.R. No. 231459, January 21, 2019FACTS: This is a.case of Recovery of Ownership, Possession, and Damages filed by respondents Miguel Paller, Florentina Acayan and Demetria’ Sagales against Spouses Custodio and Paula Fabillar. Respondents claimed that, the subject land was a portion of a bigger parcel of land originally Owned by their grandfather, Marcelino Paller ieee ne): After the latter's death, or sometime in 1929 or 1932, his children. We Ambrosio), along several others, orally partitioned y properties and took possession of their respective shares. In 1995, respondent Demetria, daughter of Ambrosio, mo! the subject land to Felix R. Aide with right to ete her return from Manila in 2000, she redeemed the discovered that the Custodios took Sager of the lal Baia 2 vacate therefrom despite demands; hei complaint. DOES 2a Ta menieesnendNS eneesead The Custodios claimed to be legitimate and compulsory heirs of Marcelino who can validly and legally possess the subject land which has not been Beale and thus, commonly owned by his heirs. They further averred that Ambrosio is not a child of Marcelino and, as such, has no right to claim the subject land. The respondents presented before the MCTC a copy of Ambrosio'’s baptismal certificate to support their claim.TS eniecneed MCTC, RTC and CA Decisions: The MCTC declared respondents as the lawful owners of the su! and ordered the Custodios to surrender the ownership and Aneel possession of the subject land, and to pay actual damages, attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. It gave weight to the baptismal certificate as sufficient and competent proof of Ambrosio's filiation with Marcelino which _ the Custodios failed to successfully overthrow. eM otESol Mews) olen manera re men e eNO guar aolitiie ality ay | Custodios’ failure to rebut: (a) Ambrosio’s baptismal certificate indicating that his father is Marcelino, concluding the same to be proof of h pedigree; and (b) eee Possession in the concept of owner. The CA affirmed the RTC Decision, finding Marcelino to be ie Z Ambrosio, thereby declaring that respondents, as ey r Lit WAoar-) Aas over the subject land. 15 eec SMe eas ris Za Cl Issue: Whether Ambrosio is an Heir of Marcelino, thereby giving respondents ownership of the disputed property over the Custodios.SC Decision: In the absence of the record of birth and admission of legitimate filiation, Article 172 of the Family Code (Code) provides that filiation shall be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Such other proof of one’s filiation may be a baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. (Rules). Article 175 of the same Code also allows illegitimate children to establish their filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as that of tet foneONAL SIO OLR STA onl) UNV 1e CTL) volar aie Le MEM NaC eT U AaZ|UIo) prove filiation only if considered alongside other evidence of filiation. Because the putative parent has no hand in the preparation of a baptismal certificate, the same has scant evidentiary value if taken in isolation; while it may be considered a UUme eee MOA a reales the administration of the sacrament on the date specified, but not the veracity of the entries with iccyeoel aa om nme heey As_ such, a baptismal certificate alone is not PT iiaen comes \ meme lace Mitcleconmer- lire ln ant foro ge MLL Samora Mol Cult) (re Ce ule} instead of relying only on a canonical record. (eae) ceIn this case, the MCTC, the RTC, and the CA did not f4at aca ee Ucar Ice CT Leelee ificate of Ambrosio that would menial i a Pun cct GL eee ee EUR Car cea Ce CMM MM eT Cael CRC ce simee Teele MR Ta MKT ale Sale cee e- le) nn Day Se ee ea CEA ATTCTOaLCOLOELLARET Can TU OMS era aoe ae | Fear aes eel i ete STs Pik aaa filiation/parentage nor of the status of legitimacy or Hite Pe) ee ee) \ lars eae ae ms petitioner CEN eet admitted cura ELUM ters UasLeroy 1 among them, the Court finds pea ee Be RR MUL Cee cme gly Mula viuts Millar ea! SR cc rE eo lal Ui locos d ome) Meee Mn nema UC Parr ieee Cian rel lO als) a eeeTopic: Easement a Sps. Tedy Garcia and Pilar Garcia V. Loreta T. Santos, Winston Santos and Conchita Tan G.R. No. 228334, June 17, 2019(Senge FACTS: The instant case stemmed from a Complaint for "[easements of light, air and view..” filed by the Sps. Garcia against the respondents Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos (the Sps. Santos) before the Regional Trial Court of lloilo City, Branch 31 (RTC). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 09-30023. As alleged in the Complaint, the Sps. Garcia are the registered owners of Lot 2, Blk. 1, San Jose Street, — Southville Subdivision, Molo, ere City (subject ies as) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title rein) BRU cllon EN MeN MRelCe eel ele Routt)(Seixas The subject property, which has been occupied by the Sps. Garcia for about eleven ( 11) years, has a one-storey residential house erected thereon. The bought the property in October 1998 from Sps. Santos, and at the time of the purchase of Lot 2, the one storey house was already constructed. Also, at the time of the acquisition of the adjoining lot, Lot 1, which is also owned by the Sps. Santos, was an idle land without any improvements. Lot 1 remained empty until the Sps. Santos started _ the construction of a two-storey residential house therein on January 24, 2009. a Z| ENS Meanie eel ele Recs)(sae The building constructed on Lot 1 is taller than the Sps. Garcia's one-storey residential house. As such, the Sps. Santos’ building allegedly obstructed the Sps. Garcia's right to light, air, and view. The Sps. Garcia likewise alleged that the said structure constructed on Lot 1 is at a distance of less than three meters away from the boundary line, in alleged violation of their easement. Hence, Sps. Garcia filed a Complaint easements of light, air and view, against Sps. Santos..Sens In their Amended Answer with Counterclaim the respondents asserted that Tan was incorrectly impleaded. Further, the respondents argued that the Sps. Garcia failed to allege how they acquired the easement of light and view either by prescription or title. The respondents maintained that the mere presence of windows on the one-storey house of the Sps. Garcia in itself does not give rise to an easement by title, stressing that there was no tenement standing on Lot 1 at the time of the construction of the one-storey house standing on the subject property. The Re lead also argued that the Sps. Garcia also failed to acquire an — easement by prescription because they never alleged that they made a formal prohibition of the _ construction of a taller structure on Lot 1. meer elsesSeas RTC and CA Decisions: The RTC held that the Sps. Garcia never acquired any easement of light and view either by title or by prescription. Agreeing in toto with the RTC, the CA held that the | Sps. Garcia never acquired an easement of light and ~—_ view under the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code.SC Decision: Yes, they acquired an easement of light and view. Article 616 of the Civil Code states that easements may be classified into positive and negative easements. A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner Cole nea a(n aie molt tLe emo l Wan Meena an ty) to be done or of doing it himself. Omni Ut AeeMmi ste) Menta eer (e inen yt fren heey Molt mL ale ee (goat) ele}| something which he could lawfully do if the easement veiASR Me Lie eC OCCU AT UU) Se sem eens CULTS consequential in determining how an easement is acquired. According to Article 621 of the Civil Code, in order to acquire easements by prescription in positive Terme erro ei mallee ne mice) the day on which the owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made use of the easement, eee MOR cam ime men ead (cuales With respect to negative easements, the le sliall Perales M VAC mL ne) ihm of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument Te eee mei ten oom man Parle ie Cc crate Melt al rein iancele | Colao 3 Emre ae uae \ Poet eee a Ce A‘As a general rule, an easement of light and view is a positive emma Le while it is a negative one if the window or opening is ce mT een ee ane hens Cee Oa Gee nT ASE RTE ea Sut baa Colt Colm rola aCe LL PENA asm cul ur me ame meC Ooi CUT Fa In the instant case, it is not disputed that the windows and Creal ea OMe meTme CC latest ence Mine) receiving light and view due to the structure built by the Sps. Santos on Lot 1, are made in the wall of Sps. Garcia's one-storey-house. There is no party wall alleged to be co- Peeters | qThe Court held that the easement of light and view Tm nme MR LCs) Q ee eI Ta-f-1 a) C0 ol MC s°41 en cannot be acquired by prescription except where Tide nam aL Olam Less 9 (eMC leieme Lika anid Trae me ao Larne 1 ei) a Wa cele} prohibited the owner of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful but for the Chala as The phrase “formal act" would require not merely any writing, ee al Me GU Ue em eel Cus a) ee We CoM MS ean MA Cele AU 1K) that the period of prescription for the acquisition of an Tulum ee UR Amir mel ale OD Bice a Su) ee eRe ote se abo (CAMB Me UMM Melee Melee emcee OC mae MUU mma susan ht aaPanic uman oe Cor M em aar Ta am aK Oar (11e OV a= based their holdings that the Sps. Garcia “never acquired an easement of light and view under Article 668 of the Civil Code for failure to serve a notarial prohibition." It is not disputed that the Sps. Garcia never sent the Sps. Santos any formal notice or notarial feycelt LeC AMUN Maw lac mm cele iegt (ola <9 any building of higher height on Lot 1. Hence, the RTC and CA made the conclusion that the Sps. Garcia failed to acquire an easement of light and view in relation to the adjacent Lot 1. |Nevertheless, the Court finds that the aforesaid hol of the R TC and CA, Special 18th Division is incorrect view of Article 624 of the Civil Code. Article 624 - The Existence of an Apparent Sign of Easement between Two Estates formerly owned by a Single Owner considered a Title to Easement of Light Eure pee sock ey uae ie rast cue neon eee mc Be ue mu es Mesh Reema mee enn me rcs may continue actively and passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the contrary should be provided in the title of RACs ACU Ue ee eich tus Pee eae cM us Re emake ad the division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.BU ute moma al ee uae meee | ar lela Relae |) ea ICR Z Ri ET ee R Use Rag ue Re cn ae in aU CUA Ce a om ceo ene Rau eat ine ae ean) eae ee OC Ur ahead Praca em ir meme init es mT cne) Ti Cun Se Om Se Mes Re PISCr name Caecum cs mi Cs estate or portion of the estate, an apparent visible sign OM uae cee cme celi co Canta V CMT tg) ao a ee UE eA ue eu Cun auch uCis are ae MMe ian Cee such as the existence of a door and windows, continues to remain and subsist, unless, at the time the ownership eee ome ele MC MCR tet geen CAT Pure RIO ac Uta auCLnCs Mee UMe ce mena CMT smth ct Taleo es (leThis is precisely the situation that has occurred in the instant em OME ce ey acl es Re Cee MUe Soma meet ess Re ee une ue ee ee Pes On the subject property, a one-storey house laden with Pee Ree Re i ee eeu Rae ls) | openings remained open. Bae ee) (ad Se Ue Pe eo Mat CMe) ‘of the Sps. fee PCR See Uma Ru so) cola EXeee er rR ae aeRO BE Uno Cadel) Ca Re eee RU eu ee a Pee eee rece ates mae i) DU ee ee UR eee Negative easement that may only be acquired by Peta ee Rue RUT aun och Roni) ee ae le BU ee au eu ae MC a MC es ka De a a Cg eo) eee So pee mC CM in te a boundary line of the adjoining estate must be at least three Peat etc Lee e esac SleTse’ Topic: Wills & Succession In the matter of the petition for the probate of the will of Consuelo Santiago Garcia Vs. Natividad (CF get FW t- 1p ey) G.R. No. 204793. June 8, 2020 oN MReicel 20) Te RS euso alFACTS: Consuelo was married to Anastacio Garcia (Anastacio) who passed away on August 14, 1985. They had 2 daughters, Remedios Garcia Tanchanco (Remedios) and Natividad Garcia Santos (Natividad). Remedios predeceased Consuelo in 1985, and left behind I Kemmony Cel xtaam@r-e- LUM ole (oP Aes] hee Lalo OE 1an(-1C-} Tanchanco. On April 4, 199, Consuelo passed away at 91 years old, leaving behind an estate consisting of several personal and real properties.OAT Ta AU Co alae Cee intestate estate of Consuelo before the RTC Pasay City UREA eM amt Me Rem ela ead Me CC ELT Mee CMC Cc mateTg Remedios), Melissa and Gerard (issues of Rodolfo, son of eae mM ees Mn Me st AT POUL ulema CG Me acme ert Pee Cee cle eae mem Clana} amma CME MT CM eam srt ame EST e ae ie ice) So CCC eo oe PCa ace Umea manele Ear CoM lee Uela CMP Ame Te Lalu MOT LMeL ae-LUg—r- [oh bi CoE Wa) aol Cola ice) Melman UUM UCe Meteo fs eT OME aM ae meer Me oe ae} q BY eo Clee Pec Lee ak 1 NVA Ln Al C1 4 Pala eae Co Nolet Mo mC aCe Cele ] rE em cells Ue LS Ued PeersSLCC eue iC MEUIe) SOMME ss Cs tee tee a Lad - will’s attestation clause did not state the number of pages - The will was written in Tagalog, not English usually used by (tC Muted sia cele: erties SUC e o mCom CLC LSS Colm Croll 8(e)4) ame Re a) See OE Url eRe ee Bae a eet elec b Oe Ms od Up LUC Peto Colt mn mot eae NOC MC De Le) Eee aetna uae mi met mcr was allegedly executed by Consuelo at the office of said DEL lan miCS enigeessead RTC Decision: The RTC disallowed probate of the will due to the observed aberrations, among others: Z - The witnesses and notary public were a law firm, which is also the counsel instant case. Z Ly - Nobody among Consuelo’s relatives execution of the will.J zg oe CA Decision: The CA reversed the RTC ruling, and held that: NG els oe eee hme - All witnesses in the execution of the wi that Consuelo has testamentary c due execution. - Alleged forgery was not sufficiently - Consuelo can understand Tagalog ce ae cee arising from attorney-cSC Decision: aE Te ol eo L-R-UTOMeUaT odae aL) CA as these were based on a careful consideration of the evidence and supported by prevailing law and jurisprudence. The Court concurs with the CA in Tel Mar ae Ma Oe eel Megs le) PoC la ea Melman CLM ie Ulera(o ne ea COMM Te oe.) or the undue duress was employed in the execution of the will in question.The law favors testacy over intestacy, and hence, probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Art 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of his property may be rendered nugatory. In a similar way, “testate proceedings for the settlement of estate of the decedent take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.” Boswil lien ie (mem al amend Maceo gama asl. iammel cla sal eye gy 9} goles 14 2 proceeding is the due execution or the extrinsic validity of the will, as provided by Section 1, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court. probate court cannot inquire into the intrinsic validity of the will or the disposition of the estate by the testator. DUE EXECUTION - whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by EV y (SenetPE lO ML ML La eco LU PMCS ee es Co CoC Eee CMT eC eee Pe eRe CR PRs eure lo ) ct) (iti) CS eae a mean Prem PCr an coe mer eT By PC Ae te Ree rare ee c uk oh no Ue Oe Lf See oo PUR AA lle) Pra RC lec Taleo Wee eRe Le Ue UG) pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of YU ie Lee ee Ctr cd el ala OM UMA TL nigel gic eco) Pep eeSMC lakh) Uae TM mel moe mem Nala * The purpose of the law is to make falsification Cl M Melee meine tay + In Singson vs. Florentino, the Court adopted a more liberal approach and allowed probate, even if the number of pages of the will was mentioned in the last part of the body of the will and not in the attestation clause. * This is based on the substantial compliance rule under Article 809 of the Civil Code.5 Nee) eed Cae neel a d-Ce mtn (ol 1-1 og fraud, or undue and improper pressure and influence, defects and imperfections in the form of attestation or in the language used enim meee ctilel-Tam ay aL aN Zl Ce Co co am OAL MR LMC lola > oolU Cle 14Le} attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Article 805. In Taboada vs. Hon. Rosal, the Court allowed probate of a will notwithstanding that the number of pages was stated not in the attestation clause but in the Acknowledgement. In Azuela vs. CA, the Court rules that there is substantial compliance if it is stated elsewhere in the will how many pages it is comprised of.caer en Ne uel Creu meeed mel mau REST) lem eM ace terrae ma ie POR we Mca M Care Nm on air) lima (5) na dahoon, kasama ang dahong kinaroroonan ng Let ole ote ela foe elec ea Meteee Eee er aL oy zl eR YUN Marae UTC MT Rel) of Ay of eighteen years of more, and not blind, deaf or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a witness to okey CsCl ule aCe Me bia PU Ture ama CoM lel amo olte Ly Ria BUS cy pe ae RE ure look Coe Tol Mast 1g fe Cu aU eo Me ere ue Brin aOR oes Pr ites aie without corroborating proof cannot be font lcree Perm RCM g CME met gat uit g cee Cel eM Cie mn ule ace) ae) Sol ghee ore meu rou Ome Mo estates col Me hoe a eit eet nal