You are on page 1of 117

SURVEY OF THE RECENT

LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE


IN FAMILY LAWS
BY:
ALEX L. MONTECLAR
Dean
College of Law
University of San Carlos

RECENT LAWS AND SC RULES


WITH SALIENT FEATURES

R.A. 9255
An Act Allowing
Illegitimate Children to
Use the Surname of
their Father, amending
Article 176 of the
Family Code

Remember that
It allows illegitimate children to
use the surname of their father
provided their filiation has been
expressly recognized through
the following documents:
Record of Birth in the Civil
Registrar
Admission in Public Documents
Admission in Private Handwritten
Instruments

It amends Article 176 of the


Family Code and sets aside the
SC ruling in Mossesgeld vs. CA.

R.A. 9262
An Act Defining Violence Against Women
and Children, Providing Protective
Measures for Victims

It says that.
Violence must be AGAINST the Wife, exWife, a Woman with Whom the Person has
Sexual Relationship, their children, etc.
Specific on Acts Resulting to Physical,
Sexual, Psychological Harm, or Economic
Abuse, INCLUDING threats thereof.
Jurisdiction is with RTC designated as the
Family Court.
Protection Order is issued for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence against
women or child. It may be issued by the
Barangay Captain (BPO) or the Court
(TPO) or (PPO)

Protection Order shall prohibit respondent


from harming or communicating with the
petitioner. It may include removal from
the residence of the petitioner and staying
away from the residence, school, and place
of employment of the petitioner at specified
distance.
Respondent may be ordered to Support the
Petitioner. An appropriate percentage of
the income or salary of the respondent may
be withheld by the Court and
AUTOMATICALLY remitted to the
victim.

PPO may be filed by


Offended Party
Parents or guardians of the offended party
DSWD
Police Officers
Punong Barangay
Lawyer, counsel, therapist
At least 2 concerned responsible citizens.

Violence Against Women and Children is a Public


Crime.
In cases of Legal Separation, where violence is
alleged as a ground, Art. 58 of the FC shall not
apply.

Victims Who Are Found to Be Suffering


from Battered Woman Syndrome do not
incur criminal or civil liability even in the
absence of any element of self defense.
Victim shall be entitled to custody and
support.
Barangay Captain or the Court hearing the
Application for Protection Order should not
Attempt to force or unduly Influence
Petitioner to Compromise or Abandon her
Claim.
Victim is entitled to Paid Leave of Absence
up to Ten Days in Addition to Other Paid
Leaves under the Labor Code

A.M. 02-11-10-SC
Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity
and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages

It says that:
ONLY the Husband and the Wife can file a
Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity.
In case of Voidable Marriages, the action may be
filed by the parties or their parents or guardians
depending upon the grounds.
A petition must be verified and signed
PERSONALLY by the petitioner.
Copy of the Petition MUST BE SERVED to the
Sol. Gen and Office of the Prosecutor WITHIN
FIVE (5) DAYS from filing and submit proof of
compliance.

It further says that:


No Motion to Dismiss except on the Ground of
Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter or
over a person shall be allowed.
Pre-trial is Mandatory
Trial must be done PERSONALLY by the Judge
Decision must state that the Decree of Nullity or
Annulment shall be issued ONLY after
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLES 50 and 52.
NO appeal unless a Motion for Reconsideration or
New Trial was filed.

It finally says that:


Liquidation, Partition, and Distribution, custody,
support of common children, and the Delivery of
Presumptive Legitime shall Take Place AFTER
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
It is the DUTY OF THE PREVAILING PARTY to
CAUSE THE REGISTRATION of the DECREE
of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage.

A.M. NO. 02-11-11SC


RULE ON LEGAL
SEPARATION

It says that:
Petition may be DENIED or DISMISSED
if any of the GROUNDS stated in Art. 56
FC is present.
Donations made by innocent spouse in
favor of the Offending Spouse may be
Revoked.
In case of RECONCILIATION, the
Spouses shall File a JOINT
MANIFESTATION under OATH with the
court.

A.M. 02-11-12 SC
RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER

It says that.
This Rule Refers to the Provisional Orders issued by the court during
the PENDENCY of the case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
Annulment of Marriage, and Legal Separation.
The provisional Orders may refer to Spousal Support, Child Support,
Visitation Rights, Hold Departure Order, and Order of Protection.
These provisional orders may be issued by the court motu propio or
upon application under oath by any party with or without a bond.
Hold Departure Order may be issued by the Court motu proprio or
upon application under oath to prevent the departure of the child of
the parties during the pendency of the case.
Order of Protection may be issued by the Court to prevent a party
from Harassing or Intimidating the other party or child, or to stay
away from the other party.

A.M. 02-11-12 SC
RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER

A.M. NO. 03-04-04-SC


RULE ON CUSTODY OF MINORS AND
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
RELATION TO THE CUSTODY OF
MINORS

It says that..
It can be filed by any person who
have rightful custody of the minor.
Motion to Dismiss is NOT allowed.
Answer must be VERIFIED and filed
within FIVE days from RECEIPT Of
summons.
After Answer or Expiration of the
Period, the Court may Require a
Social Worker to CONDUCT a study
of the Child and the Parties and
Submit Report.

It further says that..


Pre-trial is MANDATORY. During the
Pre-trial the case may be referred to
MEDIATION.
After Answer, the court may award
PROVISIONAL ORDER awarding
custody of the child. Doing so, the
court shall consider the BEST
INTEREST OF THE CHILD.
HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER may
be issued MOTU PROPIO

It finally says that..


The Court may Issue Protection Order.
Judgment may award custody of the child to
EITHER PARENTS or TO OTHER PERSON, if
both are unfit.
NO APPEAL shall be allowed unless the appellant
filed a MOTION FOR RECON or NEW TRIAL
within 15 DAYS from notice of judgment.
APPEAL is by Notice of Appeal.
Petition for Habeas Corpus involving CUSTODY
OF MINOR must be FILED in the FAMILY
COURT. The WRIT will be ENFORCEABLE
ONLY in the JUDICIAL REGION to which the
FAMILY COURT belongs.

UPDATES IN JURISPRUDENCE

MARRIAGE

Silverio vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, Oct.


22, 2007)
Sex reassignment or sex change
does not make a man into a
woman.
The sex of a person is determined
at the time of birth. There is yet no
law legally recognizing sex
reassignment, thus, the
determination of a persons sex at
the time of his birth, if not attended
by error, is immutable.

Morigo vs. People (G.R. No. 145226, Feb.


6, 2004)

Absence
of
marriage
ceremony
renders
the
marriage null and void

Sevilla vs. Cardenas


(G.R. 167684, July 31, 2006)
No
marriage
license
certification issued by the Local
Civil
Registrar
must
categorically state that the
document does not exist in his
office or that it could not be
found in the register despite
diligent search.

Marriage license
xxxx xxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
xxxxxx

Alcantara vs. Alcantara


(G.R. No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007)
Absence of marriage
license renders the
marriage void. The
absence
must
be
apparent
on the
marriage contract.

Marriage license
xxxx xxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
xxxxxx

Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals.


(505 SCRA, Oct. 27, 2006)
A threat from NPA on petitioner to marry
respondent is not so overwhelming as to
deprive him of the will to enter
voluntarily the marriage thus, it is not
sufficient to annul the marriage .

Abunado vs. People (G.R. No. 159218,


March 30, 2004)
Annulment of marriage is not a
prejudicial question to bigamy case.

Duncan vs. Glaxo (G.R. No. 162994, Sept.


17, 2004)
Marriage prohibition in employment
contract is valid as it is reasonable under
the circumstance because relationship of
employees of competing companies may
prejudice the interest of the company.

Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol


(G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006)
The company policy provides that no
employee of the company can marry each
other. The company policy is an invalid
exercise of management prerogative for
the failure of the employer to present any
evidence of business necessity of the nospouse employment policy. Absence of
such a bona fide occupational
qualification renders the policy invalid.

Alvarez vs. Ramirez


(G.R. No. 143439, Oct. 14, 2005)
Marital disqualification rule does not
apply if the relationship of the spouses is
already so strained that there is no more
harmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed.

Conjuangco vs. Palma


(A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005)
Cotracting a bigamous marriage is a
ground for disbarment of a lawyer.

Delgado Vda. De la Rosa vs. Heirs of


Damian (January 27, 2006)
Absence of marriage certificate in the
civil registry does not conclusively prove
that there was no marriage. If a man and
woman have lived together as husband
and wife for a long period they are
presumed to have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. Marriage contract
is not the only evidence of marriage as it
can also be proven by other documents
especially if they have already been
living together as husband and wife.

De Castro vs. De Castro


(G.R. No. 160172, Feb. 13, 2008)
The validity of a void marriage may be
collaterally attacked. Thus, even in action
for Support, the court may pass upon the
validity of the marriage so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case.

Ancheta vs. Ancheta


(G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004)
In cases of Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage and Annulment of Mariage, no
declaration of default can be issued by
the court despite the failure of the
defendant to file answer.

Lam vs. Chua


(G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004)
The court cannot grant the nullity of
marriage on the basis of evidences
presented but not alleged in the
complaint. However, since the defendant
did not question it, then he is now
estopped to question it.

Tribiana vs. Tribiana


(G.R. No.137359, Sept. 13, 2004)
The condition precedent under Art. 151
of the Family Code that in a suit between
members of the same family, there must
be an allegation of earnest effort to
compromise, is deemed complied with
when the parties have passed through the
barangay level for conciliation as shown
by the certification issued by the
barangay.

ARTICLE 26
OF THE FAMILY CODE

Republic vs. Orbecido III


(G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005)
A Filipino spouse who acquired a foreign
nationality and thereafter divorced the
other spouse capacitates the latter to also
remarry.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
(Art. 36 F.C.)

Dedel vs. C.A.


(G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004)

Personality disorder, sexual infidelity


or perversion and abandonment do not
constitute psychological incapacity.
Likewise, trial court has no jurisdiction
to dissolve church marriage.

Tenebro vs. C.A.


(G.R. No. 150758, Feb. 18, 2004)
Judicial declaration of nullity of the
second marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity is not a defense
in the bigamy case

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano


(G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004)
Art. 36 applies to mixed marriage. There
is no difference between a Filipino
spouse and an alien spouse in so far as
psychological incapacity is concerned.

Corpus vs. Ochotorena


(A.M. RTJ 04-1861, July 30, 2004)
No collusion report of the Public
Prosecutor is a condition sine qua non for
further proceedings to go on in
declaration of nullity of marriage cases.

Carating-Siayungco vs. Siayungco (G.R.


No. 158896, Oct. 29, 2004)
Irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities do not
constitute psychological incapacity. An
unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and
void marriage. Burden of proof to show
nullity belongs to the plaintiff.

Tenorio vs. Tenorio (G.R.No. 138490,


November 24, 2004)
Failure to furnish a copy of the Formal
Offer of Exhibits to the OSG and the
Prosecutor is fatal to the petition. The
belated furnishing of the offer may cause
the dismissal of the case. However, the
case may be refilled as the dismissal is
not on the merit but on technicality, thus,
res judicata will not set in.

Buenaventura vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 127358,


March 31, 2005)
Award of Moral Damages in Art. 36
cases is not proper.

Republic vs. Iyoy


(G.R. No. 152577, Sept. 21, 2005)
The fact that the wife has already
abandoned the husband, obtained a
divorce against him in the U.S., and
married an American, is no justification
to file a declaration of nullity of marriage
under Art. 36. Psychological Incapacity
must be manifested before the marriage,
it must be grave, and incurable.

Gonzales vs. Gonzales (478 SCRA 327,


Dec. 16, 2005)
A marriage declared void on the ground
of psychological incapacity is governed
by co-ownership under Art. 147 F.C.

Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, March


10, 2006)
The findings of psychiatrist and clinical
psychologist that the wife is a
pathological liar coupled with the
decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal of
the Archdiocese of Manila annulling the
marriage on the ground of the parties lack
of due discretion is sufficient to establish
psychological incapacity of the wife
under Article 36 of the Family Code .

Republic vs. Melgar


(G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006)
While an actual, medical, psychiatric, or
psychological examination is not a
condition sine qua non to a finding of
psychological incapacity, an expert
witness would have strengthened her
claim. Petitioners failure to present one
is fatal to her case.

Peres-Ferrarin vs. Ferrarin


(G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006)
Respondents leaving the house attitude
whenever the spouses quarelled, violent
tendencies during epileptic attacks,
abandonment and lack of support, and his
preference to spend more time with his
bandmates than his family, were not rooted on
some incapacitating psychological condition but
a mere refusal to assume the essential marital
obligations. There is no evidence that the
defects were incurable and already present at the
inception of the marriage.

Mallion vs. Alcantara (G.R. No. 141528,


October 31, 2006)
Husband filed a case of Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage because of psychological incapacity
against his wife. The court dismissed it for lack
of merit. Later on, he filed again a case of
declaration of nullity but this time on the ground
of lack of valid marriage license. The RTC
dismissed it on the ground of res judicata. The
S.C. affirmed the dismissal because although the
two cases are based of different grounds, they
are of the same cause of action, which is to
declare the marriage void. Moreover, when
plaintiff filed the first case, he should have
included therein all possible grounds (lack of
valid license), otherwise, they are deemed
waived.

Paras vs. Paras


(G.R. No. 147824, Aug 2, 2007)
Infidelity, not providing support, dissipating her
business, forging her signature, and being
remiss in his duties as a husband and a father are
not psychological incapacity per se. Even if all
the allegation in the complaint are true, such
traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to
become an ideal husband and father. There is no
proof of juridical antecedence and incurability
which are two of the essential requisites of
psychological incapacity.

DECLARATION OF
PRESUMPTIVE DEATH

Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (G.R. No.


160258, Jan. 19, 2005)
Declaration of presumptive death falls
under summary judicial proceedings and
is therefore immediately final and
executory. Appeal to the Court of
Appeals by the Sol. Gen. Is not proper.

Manuel vs. People (G.R. No. 165842, Nov.


29, 2005)
The fact that the wife has been absent for
21 years does not create a presumption of
death to justify the husband to marry
again, thus, he can be charged for bigamy

Republic vs. C.A.


(477 SCRA 276, December 9, 2005)
Presumptive death must be anchored on
well founded belief that the spouse must
have already been dead. The present
spouse must exert every deligent effort to
locate the absent spouse and must present
convincing proof to warrant the
presumption of death.

SSS vs. Vda. De Bailon (G.R. No. 165545,


March 24, 2006)
Declaration of presumptive death by the
RTC cannot be overturned by the Social
Security Commission. To annul
subsequent marriage absentee spouse
must execute affidavit of reappearance or
go to court.

LEGAL SEPARATION

Ong vs. Ong (G.R. No. 153206, Oct. 23,


2006)
Abandonment referred to in the Family
Code is one without justifiable cause for
more than one year.

PROPERTY RELATIONS

Vilaranda vs. Villaranda (G.R. No. 153447,


Feb. 23, 2004)
Without the wifes consent, the
husbands alienation or encumbrance of
conjugal property prior to the effectivity
of the Family Code is not void, but
merely voidable.

Joaquino vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 154645, July


13, 2004)
Property relation of people living together
without marriage or under a void marriage is
governed by co-ownerships under Art. 147 or
Art. 148. If they have no impediment to marry
each other then they are governed by Art. 147,
otherwise, Art. 148 will apply. Art. 148 requires
actual contribution. Registration of property
under the name of the paramour is tantamount to
a donation which is not allowed under Art. 84
F.C., and so a constructive trust under Art. 1456
C.C. is created in favor of the legal wife

Abalos vs. Macatangay


(G.R. No. 155043, Sept. 30, 2004)
Disposition or encumbrance of a conjugal
property requires authority of the court or
a WRITTEN consent of the other spouse,
otherwise, it is null and void

Ching vs. C.A.


(G.R. No. 124642, Feb. 23, 2004)
All properties acquired during marriage
is presumed to be conjugal and it cannot
be made to answer for the loan obligation
of the husband in the absence of proof
that the obligation redounded to the
benefit of the family.

Villanueva vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 143286, April


14, 2004)
Presumption of conjugality of property
acquired during the marriage. The
contention of a concubine that Art. 148
will apply is misplaced as there is no
proof of her actual contribution. The fact
that some properties were placed in the
name of the concubine is of no moment.
She failed to prove that these properties
were bought with her exclusive money.

Francisco vs. Master Iron Works &


Construction (G.R. No. 151967, Feb. 16,
2005)
In a bigamous marriage, the property
relation of the parties shall be governed
by co-ownership under Art. 148 of the
Family Code. Co-ownership applies only
when there is actual contribution from
both parties.

Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs.


Dailo (G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005)
Mortgage on conjugal property executed
by the husband without the wifes
consent is void. It is not only the share
of the non consenting spouse that is void,
but the entire encumbrance itself

Pelayo vs. Perez (G.R. No. 141323, June 8,


2005)
Under Art. 166 of the Civil Code, lack of
consent of one spouse to the sale of
conjugal properties by the other spouse
does not automatically make the
disposition null and void. The contract is
merely voidable at the instance of the
wife.The wifes consent does not always
have to be express as it may be implied.

Vda de Ramones vs. Agbayani (G.R. No.


137808, Sept. 20, 2005)
Same as the Pelayo vs. Peres ruling.
Failure to nullify the sale within 10 years
(Art. 166 and173 C.C.) makes the sale
valid. The action of the wife to annul the
sale has already prescribed.

Pintiano-Anno vs. Anno


(G.R. No. 163743, Jan. 27, 2006)
For presumption of conjugality to apply,
the one invoking it must first prove that
the subject property was acquired during
the marriage. Failure to prove will mean
that the property is not conjugal

Go vs. Yamane
(G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006)
Mere registration of the property in the
name of the wife does not destroy its
conjugal nature. It cannot be made to
answer for the personal obligation of the
wife unless it redounded to the benefit of
the partnership

Bautista vs. Silva


(502 SCRA 334, Sept. 19, 2006)
Sale of conjugal property by the husband
without the consent of the wife is null
and void. The nullity is not only as to the
share of the wife but of the entire
property. The buyer here cannot be
considered a buyer in good faith.

Ferrer vs. Ferrer


(G.R. No. 166496, November 9, 2006)
Improvements made on the exclusive property
of the husband using the conjugal funds is
governed by Article 120 F.C. Ownership of both
the land and improvement belong to the owner
of the property that cost more. In the case at
bar, the land appear to be more valuable than the
improvement, so the property becomes
exclusive property of the husband, subject to
reimbursement of the cost of improvement to
the conjugal partnership.

Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro (G.R.


No. 168698, Nov. 29, 2006)
Proof of actual contribution is required
for Article 148 of the Family Code to
apply. If the man who claims to be the
source of the money used to buy the
property fails to prove his actual
contribution then he is not entitled to a
share. Article 148 is intended to fill up
the hiatus in Art. 144 of the Civil Code

Carandang vs. Heirs of Quirino De Guzman


(G.R. No. 160347, Nov. 29, 2006)
Obligation entered into by the husband
and wife are chargeable against the
conjugal partnership. The spouses will
be solidarily liable.

SBTC vs. Mar Tierra Corp.


(G.R. No. 143382, Nov. 29, 2006)
When the husband acted as guarantor or
surety for the loan of another, he does not
act for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership as the benefit is clearly
intended for a third party. Thus, creditor
cannot attach the conjugal house and lot.
He has the burden of proving that
conjugal partnership is benefited from the
transaction.

MBTC vs. Tan


(G.R. No. 163712, November 30, 2006)
The bank foreclosed the 4 parcels of land
mortgaged by the (H) husband. One of the 4
titles is registered in the name of H married to
W. The wife questioned the foreclosure on that
land which she claimed to be conjugal.
The court ruled that the words married to W is
merely descriptive of the civil status of H, and it
is not proof that such property is conjugal. The
presumption under Article 116 of the Family
Code cannot apply without proof that the
acquisition was during the marriage. Proof of
acquisition is a condition sine qua non for the
operation of the presumption in favor of
conjugal ownership.

Maquilan vs. Maquilan (G.R. No. 155409,


June 8, 2007)
Compromise Agreement entered into by the
husband and his wife who was already found
guilty of adultery to settle their conjugal
properties is valid. It is in the nature of
voluntary separation of property during the
marriage under Art. 136 of the Family Code.
The share of the spouse guilty of adultery is not
forfeited under Art. 43 (2) because it refers only
to termination of the subsequent marriage due to
the reappearance of the absent sp[ouse.

FAMILY HOME

Gomez vs. Sta. Ines


(G.R. No. 132537, Oct. 14, 2005)
Family home is not exempted for debts
incurred prior to the constitution of the
family home.

Versola vs. C.A.


(G.R. No. 164740, July 31, 2006)
The right to exemption is a personal
privilege granted to debtor and should
be claimed and proven by him before the
public auction. The S.C. ruled in favor of
the respondents due to failure of the
petitioner to prove that the house and lot
was their family home.

Patricio vs. Dario III


(G.R. No. 170829, Nov. 20, 2006)
Grandchild living with his parents in the
house of his grandmother is not
considered a minor beneficiary of the
said grandmother under Art. 159 F.C. So,
partition of the house can be effected
even if the said minor is still living in
said house.

SUPPORT

Lam vs. Chua (G.R. No. 131286, March 18,


2004)
Judgment for support does not become
final. It is always subject to
modification, depending upon the need of
the child and the capabilities of the
parents to give support. RES JUDICATA
will not apply here.

Zaguirre vs. Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, Aug.


3, 2005)
Support should be claimed in court. It
should not be raised as an ancilliary issue
in a disbarment case against the lawyer
father.

Mangonon vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 125041, June


30, 2006)
An action for support filed by the
legitimate children (twins) against their
father and grandfather will prosper.
Since the father was found to have no
means to provide support, then, the
grandfather of the twins would be liable.

Lacson vs. Lacson (G.R. No. 150644,


August 28, 2006)
Husbands contention that he should not
be made to pay support in arrears, since
no previous extrajudicial nor judicial
demands have been made by respondents
wife and children is untenable because of
the note of commitment to support given
by him before he left them. That note of
commitment renders the requisite
demand unnecessary

PATERNITY AND FILIATION

Potenciano vs. Reynoso


(G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003)
Filiation may be established by a
holographic as well as notarial wills, but
there is no need for it to be probated for
purposes of establishing filiation.

Arbolario vs. Court of Appeals (G.R.No.


129163, April 22, 2003)
Paternity and Filiation, or the lack of it, is
a relationship that must be judicially
established. Mere cohabitation of the
husband with another woman will not
give rise to a presumption of legitimacy
in favor of the children born of the
second marriage.

Rivero vs. Court of Appeals ( G.R. No.


141273, May 17, 2005)
Civil status of a person cannot be a
subject of a compromise agreement.. As
such, paternity and filiation, or the lack
of the same, is a relationship that must be
judicially established, and it is for the
court to determine its existence or
absence.

Arnel Agustin vs. Court of Appeals


(G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005)
The alleged father of an illegitimate child
can be compelled to submit himself to
DNA testing in action for support. It does
not violate the right of a person against
self-incrimination as the kernel of the
right is not against all compulsion but
against testimonial confession.

Rosendo Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No.


148220, June 15, 2005)
DNA test is now accepted as a valid probative
tool in this jurisdiction to determination. In
assessing its probative value, courts should
consider among others, the following date: 1.)
how the samples were collected, 2.) how they
were handled, 3.) the possibility of
contamination of samples, 4.) the procedures
followed in analyzing the samples, 5.) whether
or not the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and 6.)
qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests.

Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals


(G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005)
The status and filiation of a child cannot
be compromised. Art. 164 of the Family
Code provides that a child who is
conceived or born during the marriage of
his parents is legitimate. Considering that
Jose is not the child of Gerardo, the latter
has no visitorial right to speak of.

Angeles vs. Maglaya (G.R. No. 153798,


Sept. 2, 2005)
A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore,
implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the
element of a lawful union and there is strictly no
legitimate filiation to speak of. In this case,
there is absolutely no proof of marriage between
Francisco and Genoveva, the alleged parents of
petitioner. No marriage certificate or marriage
contract was offered in evidence. No
solemnizing officer was called to the witness
stand.

Estate of Ong vs. Diaz (G.R. No. 171713,


Dec. 17, 2007)
In a case for recognition and support
where the alleged father denied his
filiation, the court may order DNA
testing even after the death of the alleged
father.

PARENTAL AUTHORITY
AND
CUSTODY OF MINORS

Briones vs. Miguel


(G.R. No. 156343, Oct. 18, 2004)
Parental authority of an illegitimate child
is vested with the mother. The
recognition of the child by the father
could be a ground for ordering the latter
to give support but not the custody of the
child

Tan vs. Adre (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, Jan.


31, 2005)
The custody of the child below 7 yrs. of
age in the mother is provisional and does
not preclude the husband to prove
compelling reasons why the mother
should be deprived of such custody

Gualberto vs. Gualberto (G.R.No. 154994,


June 28, 2005)
Under Article 213 of the Family Code no child
under seven years of age shall be separated from
the mother, unless there are compelling reasons
to provide otherwise. The fact that the mother of
the child is a Lesbian is not a valid reason.
Not even the fact that the mother is a prostitute
or an unfaithful wife is sufficient. To deprive the
wife of custody, the husband must clearly
establish that her moral lapses have had an
adverse effect on the welfare of the child or
have distracted the offending spouse from
exercising proper parental care.

Yu vs. Yu (G.R. No. 164915, March 10,


2006)
The issue of custody of children shall be
resolved in the court where the
Declaration of nullity of marriage is
pending pursuant to Art. 49 and 50 F.C.
This means that the filing of a separate
action for custody is not necessary.

Hirsch vs. Court of Appeals


(G.R. No. 174485, July 11, 2007)
The grant of joint custody of the child by
the Court of Appeals is an abuse of
discretion. In all question regarding the
care and custody of the child, his/her
welfare is the paramount consideration.
The so-called tender- age presumption
under Art. 213 may be overcome only by
compelling reason or evidence of the
mothers unfitness. Here, the mother was
not shown to be unfit, thus sole custody
is awarded to her.

Madrinan vs. Madrinan (G.R. No. 159374,


July 12, 2007)
The Court of Appeals have the
jurisdiction to entertain a Petition for
Habeas Corpus in relation to Custody of
Minors cases. R.A. 8369 did not divest
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court of their jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases involving custody of
minors. The jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals was further affirmed by A.M.
03-03-04-SC.

Wilson Sy vs. Court of Appeals


(G.R. No. 124518, Dec. 27, 2007)
In a case for Habeas Corpus in relation to
custody of minors, the grant of support
even if it was not prayed for in the
complaint was declared valid as the
petitioner did not object to it when it was
raised during the trial of the case. He is
now estopped to question it as he is
deemed to have impliedly consented to it.

CHANGE OF NAME

In re Petition for Change of Name of Julian


Lin Carulasan Wong (G.R. No. 159966,
March 30, 2005)
A petition to drop the middle name of a
person in his birth certificate for
convenience is not allowed. A state has
an interest in the name of a person and it
cannot be changed except on grounds
provided for by law.

Cerila vs. Delantar (G.R. No. 140305, Dec.


9, 2005)
Annulment and cancellation of birth
certificate. A person whose birth
certificate is sought to be cancelled must
be impleaded and notified as a party,
otherwise, judgment is void. The
proceeding is adversarial and not
summary.

Republic vs. Carlito Kho


(G.R. No.170340, June 29, 2007)
Changes in the birth certificate that
pertains to citizenship and civil status
are substantial that warrants adversarial
proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. Respondent have complied with
the requirement under the law,thus, the
grant of the petition by the trial court is
proper.

ADOPTION

In the Matter of Adoption of Stephanie


Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No. 148311,
March 31, 2005)
An illegitimate child adopted by his own
father may use the surname of her mother
as her middle name.

Landigin vs. Republic


(G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006)
Adoption must be with the consent of the
surviving parent even if she is already
living abroad. Furthermore, the adopter
must also have the financial capacity to
adopt which is wanting in this case.

SURNAME

Alba vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 164041, July 29,


2005)
Illegitimate children must bear the
surname of the mother except when
recognized by the father (R.A. 9255)