MODULE 14

1. Republic vs. Yolan da Cadacio Granada, G.R. No. 187512, June 13, 2012
FACTS:
 Cyrus and Yolanda Granada got married in 1993.
 Cyrus went to Taiwan to seek employment. Yolanda claimed that she did not at all
receive any communication from her husband, not-withstanding her efforts to locate him.
 They had asked all relatives regarding Cyrus’ whereabouts to no avail.
 After 9 years of waiting, Yolanda filed a petition to have Cyrus declared presumptive
death. On 2005, RTC rendered a decision that Cyrus is presumptively dead.
 RP represented by the OSG filed a motion for reconsideration with the stand that Yolanda
failed to exert earnest efforts to locate Cyrus.
 Yolanda filed to dismiss on the grounds that the CA had no jurisdiction over the appeal.
ISSUE:
 Whether the order of the RTC is immediately final and executory and not subject to
appeal.
RULING:

The declaration for presumptive death is final and immediately executory. A petition for
declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for the purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding “as provided for” under
the Family Code. Taken together, Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code provide that
since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding, the judgment of
the court therein shall be immediately final and executory.

By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be
immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of
the trial court’s judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of
an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. 

2. Bernabe vs. Alejo, G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002

FACTS:

 Fiscal Bernabe allegedly had a son with his secretary Carolina Allejo, born in Sept. 18,
1981.

 Fiscal died on Aug. 1993 and his wife on Dec. 1993, leaving Ernestina as the sole heir.

 Then Carolina, in beahalf of Adrian filed a complaint praying that Adrian be declared an
illegitimate son of Fiscal.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not the Family Code can be applied retroactively.

 Whether or not Adrian Bernabe, an illegitimate son has a right to be recognized.

RULING:

 The Family Code should not be applied retroactively. The boy was born in 1981, his
rights are governed by the Civil Code, which allows him to file an action for recognition
within four years after the child has attained the age of majority, with this provision:

ART. 285. The action for the recognition of natural children may be brought only during
the lifetime of the presumed parents, except in the following cases:

(1) If the father or mother died during the minority of the child, in which case the latter
may file the action before the expiration of four years from the attainment of his majority;

(2) If after the death of the father or of the mother a document should appear of which
nothing had been heard and in which either or both parents recognize the child.

 The subsequent enactment of the Family Code did not take away that right because it
impairs a vested right.

3. Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010

FACTS:

 Maria Virginia V. Remo (Remo) is a Filipino citizen, married to Francisco R. Rallonza.

 Her Philippine passport, which was to expire on 27 October 2000, showed “Rallonza” as
her surname, “Maria Virginia” as her given name, and “Remo” as her middle name.
While her marriage was still subsisting, she applied for the renewal of her passport with
the Department of Foreign Affairs office in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., with a request to
revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not

RULING:

 The court ruled that Remo cannot use her maiden name while her marriage is subsisting.
 Once a married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may
not revert to the use of her maiden name, except in the following cases enumerated in
 Section 5(d) of RA 8239: (1) death of husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4) nullity
of marriage. 

4. Hatima Yasin vs. Shari'a District Court, Third Shari'a Judicial District; G.R. No. 94986,
Feb. 23, 1995

FACTS:

 Hatima Yasin filed a petition to resume the use of maiden name after the dissolution of
her marriage by divorce
 The court denied her petition on the ground that the petition is in the jurisdiction of the
change of name and it should be in compliance to the provisions of Rules 102 Rules of
Court.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not when marriage ceases to exist, women need to seek judicial confirmation
to change their civil status and revert back to their maiden name.

RULING:

 In an instant petition, petitioner does not seek to change her registered name, only to be
allowed to resume the use of her maiden name upon dissolution of marriage by virtue of a
decree of divorce granted in accordance with Muslim law.
 When the marriage ties or vinculum no longer exists as in the case of death of the
husband or divorce as authorized by the Muslim Code, the widow or divorcee need not
seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden
name as the use of her former husband's name is optional and not obligatory for her.

5. Cesario Ursua vs. CA, et. al., GR No. 112170, Apr. 10, 1996, 70 SCAD 123

FACTS:

 On May 9,1989, it was found out that the petitioner Cesario Ursua, a Community
Environment and Natural Resources officer was involved in the illegal cutting of
mahogany trees and illegally-cut logs in the area. So, a complaint was filed against him
which was initiated by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

 Petitioner wrote the name “Oscar Perez” in the visitor’s logbook and used the same in
receiving the copy of a complaint against him at the Office of the Ombudsman. This was
discovered and reported to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that the petitioner
be accordingly charged. Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of violating Sec.1 of C.A.
No. 142 as amended by R.A. No. 6085 otherwise known as “An Act to Regulate the Use
of Aliases“. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with some modification of
sentence.
Issue:

 Whether or not petitioner has violated Sec.1 of Commonwealth Act No.142 as amended
by R.A.6085 or otherwise known as An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases.

Ruling:

 No, the petitioner did not violateSec.1 of C.A No.142 as amended by R.A. 6085. The
court ruled that there is no evidence showing that he had used or was intending to used
that name in addition to his real name. That name was used in an isolated transaction
where he was not even legally required to expose his real identity. While the act may be
covered by other provisions of law, it does not constitute an offense within the concept of
C.A. No.142

 Section 1 of Commonwealth ActNo.142 provides that except as a pseudonym solely for

literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events
where the use of a pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any
name different from the one which he was registered at birth in the office of the civil
registry or with which he was baptized for the first time, or in case of an alien, with
which he was registered in the Bureau of Immigration upon entry, or such substitute
name as may have been authorized by a competent court provided, that persons whose
births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized,
have one one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in
the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and
one or two surnames.