Persons and Family Relations Cases Slides

04-07 Persons Cases
Atty. Melencio S. Sta. Maria
2004 Cases
Psychological Incapacity
Dedel vs. Court of Appeals (421 SCRA 461) vs

CASE ISSUE:
W/N aberrant sexual behavior f ll within psychological b t l b h i falls ithi h l i l incapacity D met S while working at the advertising business of his father. The acquaintance led to courtship then to the exchange of marital vows before the City Court of Pasay. The marriage was consummated, producing four children. But S turned out to be an irresponsible and immature wife by having several sexual relationships with other men. To cure such illness, she was confined to a hospital in Makati City. Despite the treatment, S did not stop her illicit relationship with her last paramour, M whom she married and with whom she also h d t M, h h i d d ith h h l had two children. M had to leave the country, leaving S and their two children behind. Without anything left, S went back to D who wholly accepted her again. But not long after, S abandoned D to follow M with her two children. D filed a petition for declaration of nullity, citing Psychological Incapacity. G.R. No. 151867. January 29, 2004
FACTS:
Dedel vs. Court of Appeals (421 SCRA 461) vs

LESSONS:
The respondents sexual infidelity perversion or respondent s infidelity, abandonment can hardly qualify as being mentally or physically ill to such extent that she could not have known the obligations she was assuming, or knowing them, could not h t have given a valid assumption thereof. Neither could i lid ti th f N ith ld her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality, making the respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of a marital state, not merely to her youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity. Moreover Moreover, the respondents promiscuity did not exist prior to or at the inception of the marriage. In fact, there was a blissful marital union at its celebration, producing four children. Article A ti l 36 is not to be equated with legal separation. i tt b t d ith l l ti
G.R. No. 151867. January 29, 2004
Bigamy
Morigo vs. People (422 SCRA 376) vs

CASE ISSUE: Bigamy FACTS: M and B got married by signing a marriage contract. B went back to Canada where she was working, and thereafter filed b kt C d h h ki d th ft fil d with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against M which was granted. M then married L. Less than a year after the marriage, M filed a petition for Judicial Declaration of Nullity with B on the ground that no actual marriage ceremony took place. M was then charged him with the crime of bigamy and he was subsequently found guilty. While the criminal case was q y g y pending in the Court of Appeals, the Judicial Declaration of Nullity of marriage between M and B was handed down.
G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004
Bigamy
Morigo vs. People (422 SCRA 376) vs

LESSONS: The elements of bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case the first spouse is absent; said spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) the offender contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid were it not for the existence of the first. In this case, the second marriage is not bigamous because the first marriage was void ab initio due to the fact that no fi i id b i i i d h f h marriage ceremony was solemnized at all. Legally speaking, there is no first marriage to speak of. The mere signing of a marriage contract without the presence of a solemnizing officer bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus needs no judicial declaration of nullity. The existence and the validity of the first marriage g g y, g being an essential element of bigamy, it is but logical that a conviction for the said offense may not be sustained when there is no first marriage to speak of. G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004
Bigamy
Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272) vs

CASE ISSUE: W/N a judicial declaration of nullity of a second or subsequent marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity is a defense in a criminal case of bigamy. FACTS: V contracted marriage with L. After a year, V informed L that he had been previously married to H five years previously. Thereafter, V contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain N. Wh t i N When L learned of thi thi d marriage, she filed a l d f this third i h fil d complaint for bigamy against V. V claims as a defense that the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is an indicator that this marriage lacks the essential requisites for validity. This retroacts to the date of celebration of the second marriage, and there being no valid second marriage, there can be no bigamy.
G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004
Bigamy
Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272) vs

LESSONS: Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. The declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that Vs d f h l l d h marriage to L lacks the essential requisites for validity. Although judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of marriage, there still exists legal effects. Marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences such as incurring criminal liability for bigamy.
G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004
Conjugal Partnership of Gains
Ching vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 357) vs

CASE ISSUE: Presumption of Conjugality of Property FACTS: A is the Vice-President of PBM Inc., which obtained a loan from ABC Bank. A executed a continuing guarantee with the bank Bank binding himself to jointly and severally guarantee the loan. PBM Inc. defaulted on the loan, and as a consequence the deputy sheriff of the trial court levied on attachment the 100,000 100 000 common shares of C Corporation in A's name. h f C i i A' A's wife E filed a Motion to Set Aside the levy on the attachment. She alleged that the stocks were acquired by her and her husband during their marriage out of conjugal funds and therefore cannot be used to pay off her husbands exclusive liability.
G.R. No. 124642. February 23, 2004
Ching vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 357) vs

LESSONS: All properties acquired during marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it is proven that the property is exclusively the husbands or the wifes. Whoever claims that the property acquired by the spouses during their marriage is not conjugal partnership property b d h l h but is exclusive owned by one of them as his personal property is burdened to prove the source of the money utilized to purchase the property. It is necessary to have clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence to overcome the i f d i i id h presumption of the conjugal nature of the property acquired during the marriage. For the conjugal partnership to be liable for an obligation, there must be some showing that some advantage accrued to the spouses. The benefits must be those directly resulting from the obligation. They cannot merely be a by-product or spin-off of the obligation.
G.R. No. 124642. February 23, 2004
Support
Lam vs. Chua (426 SCRA 29) vs

CASE ISSUE: Nature of Judgment for Support FACTS: J & A were married and had one son, P. A petitioned the court for the declaration of nullity of her d h f h d l f ll fh marriage to J, based on psychological incapacity. There was no prayer for support of P, but the court granted the same. The case was submitted for decision. Thereafter, A filed an urgent motion to re-open which was granted by the Pasay RTC. She presented two marriage licenses of previous marriages of J as additional evidence. The court then d a d the marriage of J & A as void for being ou declared a ag o a od o b g bigamous and ordered J to contribute monthly support to P amounting to 20,000 pesos. J contested this order on the basis that there was already a Compromise Agreement p previously approved by the Makati RTC which stipulated the y pp y p specific contributions of both spouses with regard to the support of the child. G.R. No. 131286. March 18, 2004
Support
Lam vs. Chua (426 SCRA 29) vs

LESSONS: Judgment for support DOES NOT become final The ...Judgment final. right to support is of such nature that its allowance is provisional...it cannot be regarded as subject to final determination.... Since support is provisional, meaning it is l l always subject to b modification, depending upon the needs of the child and capabilities of the parents to give support... RES JUDICATA should not apply.
G.R. No. 131286. March 18, 2004
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals (427 SCRA 439) vs

CASE ISSUE: Presumption of Conjugality of Property FACTS: A & B were validly married in 1926. In 1945, A cohabited with C and since then no longer lived with his legitimate family then, family. In 1998, B, the wife, sought reconveyance of several properties, claiming that they were conjugal properties with A. C, the concubine, contends that Article 148 of the Family Code applies to those properties. li h i LESSONS: The Family Code provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property relations b h l i between A & B even if they married h i d before the effectivity of the Family Code. Under the Family Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage, the presumption is that they are conjugal property. The burden of proof is on the party claiming otherwise. G.R. No. 143286. April 14, 2004
Villanueva vs Court of Appeals (427 SCRA 439) vs.

The cohabitation of a spouse with another person, even for a long period does not sever the tie of a subsisting period, previous marriage. Otherwise, the law would be giving a stamp of approval to an act that is both illegal and immoral. Reliance on Article 148 is misplaced There must be proof of misplaced. actual joint contribution by the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. Otherwise, there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing sharing.
G.R. No. 143286. April 14, 2004
Filiation
Eceta vs. Eceta (428 SCRA 783) vs

CASE ISSUE: Filiation FACTS: I and R were married and had a son, V. I passed away in 1962 leaving his wife and son as his compulsory heirs. Sometime in heirs 1977, V fathered a daughter, T. V predeceased his mother, and left her and illegitimate daughter as his heirs. In 1991, T filed a case before the RTC of QC, for Partition and Accounting with Damages against her grandmother R, A i ihD i h d h R alleging that by V's death she has become co-owner and coheir of a property in Cubao. R asserts that the property is paraphernal, thus she owns it exclusively. T established filiation with V by presenting an authenticated birth certificate. V signed Ts birth certificate acknowledging paternity over her.
G.R. No. 157037. May 20, 2004
Filiation
Eceta vs. Eceta (428 SCRA 783) vs

LESSONS: Filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is children children established by:
A record of birth appearing in civil register or final judgment Admission of legitimate filiation in public document or private handwritten i t h d itt instrument and signed by parent concerned. t d i db t d Open and continuous possession of status of legitimate child Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval.
G.R. No. 157037. May 20, 2004
Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735) vs

CASE ISSUE: W/N the Molina doctrine and requisites for psychological incapacity listed in Santos vs. Court of Appeals apply to a mixed marriage (marriage between a foreigner and Filipino) FACTS:
T, a Japanese citizen, married L, a Filipina with whom he had a daughter. One month after marriage T returned to Japan with a promise to come back to the Philippines by Christmas. T sent money for support for 2 months only and never sent money for support again. T pp y y pp g visited the Philippines but did not even meet up with his wife L and their child. L filed a declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity, as evidenced by her being abandoned by T and that no support came after 2 months. RTC and CA rule that the marriage is null t ft th d l th t th i i ll and void because of psychological incapacity. CA states that Molina and Santos cases do not apply to case at bar since T is Japanese. OSG petitions for review to the SC and the SC declares that there is lack of evidence to support declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity.
G.R. No. 149498. May 20, 2004
Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735) vs

LESSONS:
Molina doctrine does not require personal medical examination of the person who is psychologically incapacitated to marry. However, evidence of medical and clinical finding of any illness constituting psychological incapacity will greatly help. This can be done by an expert witness Mere abandonment is not constitutive of psychological incapacity. There must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage. In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We cannot pp y be lenient in the application of the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.
G.R. No. 149498. May 20, 2004
Article 148
Joaquino vs. Reyes (434 SCRA 260) vs

CASE ISSUE: Property Relations under Article 148 of the Family Code FACTS: L is the legal wife of R, while M is Rs paramour. A piece of property in BF Homes Paranaque was purchased for f h df M, with Rs salaries as a corporate executive and a loan secured from Commonwealth Insurance Corporation being used to fund the purchase of said property as M had no income. Upon R's death, ownership of the property was disputed. L demands that it be reconveyance, claiming that it was part of L & R's conjugal partnership of gains. M, on the other hand, claims co-ownership under Article 148.
G.R. No. 154645. July 13, 2004
Article 148
Joaquino vs. Reyes (434 SCRA 260) vs

LESSONS: Article 148 is the property regime that will apply in case where the partners have a legal impediment to marry each other.
In this property regime, only the property acquired by them through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common and in proportion to their respective contributions.
The registration of a property in the name of the paramour who had no income whatsoever at the time of the donation by a husband is tantamount to a donation which is void under Article 87 of the Family Code. The paramour then holds the property under a constructive trust under Article 1456 in favor of the conjugal partnership of the husband with the legitimate spouse. h sband ith spo se
G.R. No. 154645. July 13, 2004
Collusion
Corpus vs. Ochotorena (435 SCRA 447) vs

CASE ISSUE: Report of Public Prosecutor on Collusion as a Requirement FACTS:
A filed a petition for the declaration of nullity for his marriage to B. Judge granted the petition without the report of the Public Prosecutor investigating possible collusion between the parties.
LESSONS:
Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states: "If the , defending party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated." Thus, the report of the Public Prosecutor is a condition sine qua non for further proceedings to go on in the case. This is true even if during the hearing the fiscal p g g participated and p cross-examined the witnesses.
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1861. July 30, 2004
Collusion
Abalos vs. Macatangay (439 SCRA 649) vs

CASE ISSUE: Validity of contract entered into by only one spouse FACTS:
With a purported Special Power of Attorney from his wife B, A executed an RMOA binding himself and his conjugal Makati property to M M. Subsequently, B executed a Special Power of Attorney appointing her sister to act for and in her behalf, transfer the said property respondent. ot a d a ed de e sa d p ope ty a d ed co p a t Both A and B failed to deliver said property and so M filed a complaint for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the complaint because of the Special Power of Attorney ostensibly issued by B to A was void for it was falsified. Hence, the trial court concluded that the Special Powers of Attorney could not have authorized A to sell the property to the respondent. CA reversed the decision of TC for assuming that the Special Power of Attorney was void, it cannot affect the transaction between B and M. However, it held that the RMOA executed by A in favor of respondent was valid to effect the sale of A conjugal share in the property property.
G.R. No. 155043. September 30, 2004
Collusion
Abalos vs. Macatangay (439 SCRA 649) vs

LESSONS: Prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest partnership of each spouse in the conjugal assets, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and settlement settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnerships after its dissolution. The Family Code requires WRITTEN consent of the other spouse or authority of the court for the disposition or encumbrance of conjugal partnership by the other spouse if the former spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal partnership. Otherwise, the disposition is void.
G.R. No. 155043. September 30, 2004
Parental Authority
Briones vs. Miguel (440 SCRA 455) vs

CASE ISSUE: Parental authority over an illegitimate child child. FACTS: J and L has an illegitimate child named M. J f l d a Petition for Habeas Corpus to obtain custody over his filed f b b d h minor illegitimate child who allegedly was not returned to him by L family. He argued that L left their son in the care of her parents since she was already living in Japan and married to a Japanese national. H further alleged that he has the J i l He f h ll d h h h h capability to support and educate his son. LESSONS: A ti l 176 of the Family Code provides that Article f th F il C d id th t 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. This i the Thi is th rule regardless of whether th father admits l dl f h th the f th d it paternity. G.R. No. 156343. October 18, 2004
Parental Authority
Briones vs. Miguel (440 SCRA 455) vs

Article 213 of the Family Code provides that no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, except mother when the court finds cause to order otherwise. Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mothers unfitness to exercise sole parental authority, shall justify her deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody to someone else else. The father, however, shall not be deprived of visitorial right over his recognized illegitimate children in view of the constitutionally protected inherent and natural right of parents over their children children.
G.R. No. 156343. October 18, 2004
Filiation
Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals (441 SCRA 96) vs

CASE ISSUE: Proof required to establish filiation FACTS: F filed a petition for recognition and support on behalf of her son X. She alleged that after separating from her husband in X 1981, she worked for Cs house as a maid. She and C had several sexual encounters and she claims that C is the father of her child X. In support of this, she presents Xs birth and baptismal certificates both prepared without the knowledge certificates, and consent of C. LESSONS: A certificate of Live Birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. Th l The local civil registrar h no authority t record the paternity l i il i t has th it to d th t it of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person. G.R. No. 124814. October 21, 2004
Filiation
Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals (441 SCRA 96) vs

The fact that Fs husband is living and there is a valid subsisting marriage between them gives rise to the presumption that a child born within marriage is legitimate even though mother may have declared against legitimacy. Presumption of legitimacy doesnt flow out of a declaration in statute but is based on broad principles of natural justice justice.
G.R. No. 124814. October 21, 2004
Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco (441 SCRA 422) vs.

CASE ISSUE: Psychological incapacity alleged FACTS: After 24 years of married life together, M filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with J on the ground of Psychological Incapacity. M alleged that throughout their marriage, J was domineering, selfish, and volatile; that she complained about almost everything; that she did not give him moral support nor hi h h i hi l showed respect to his position as a judge of the MTC; and, that her psychological incapacity was rooted in her unhappy childhood. J said that she still loved her husband despite all his philandering, that he just invented malicious stories against her so that he could marry his paramour, that they still lived together in Malolos, Bulacan; and, that she supported him in all his endeavors. J alleged that she had a happy childhood and was raised in a happy family. G.R. No. 158896. October 27, 2004
Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco (441 SCRA 422) vs.

LESSONS: Supreme Court held in Republic vs Dagdag that psychological Incapacity must be judged on a case to case basis. It should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes the party to be truly incognitive of the basic covenants that must be assumed and discharged by b h b d dd h db parties to the marriage. It must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities do not constitute p y psychological incapacity. Regrettably, there are g p y g y, situations where neither law nor society can provide the specific answers to every individual problem. G.R. No. 158896. October 27, 2004
Abuse of Right Doctrine
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. CA (445 SCRA 500)

CASE ISSUE:
Entitlement to moral damages
FACTS:
Spouses G owned seven parcels of land which they used as collateral to secure a loan for their poultry project from the DBP. The spouses subsequently entered into an agreement with E for him to pay to the bank the principal and remaining interest balance in in exchange for ownership of such lots. Come maturity time, DBP wrote a letter addressed to the spouses demanding for the payment of their remaining balance, but they did not pay or even respond to the bank. Seven months after, DBP wrote a demand letter coupled with a reminder of the upcoming maturity of their loan. When the bank, despite its efforts, did not receive any response from bank efforts the spouses, it proceeded with the extrajudicial foreclosure of the secured parcels of land. Because of this, E filed a complaint claiming for injunction and payment g part of the spouses, they also filed a complaint p , y p of damages. On the p alleging, among others, that they are entitled to compensation for moral damages brought about by the pre-mature foreclosure.
G.R. No. 137916. December 8, 2004
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. CA (445 SCRA 500)

LESSONS:
One may seek for compensation of moral damages through the Abuse of Rights Doctrine found in Article 19 of the Civil Code. This states that, Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. faith. The said doctrine has the following elements: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. For as long as these three are present, then the doctrine shall apply. And the test used to prove the existence of these three elements is by proving the presence of malice which is construed as bad faith or bad motive. In the case at bar, moral damages cannot be granted to the petitioners since although the foreclosure was pre-mature, DBP made efforts as manifested in the letters of notice it sent to the spouses to let them know the status of their loans as well as the legal implications of such. Hence, the absence of DBPs malice in doing such action.
G.R. No. 137916. December 8, 2004
2005 Cases
Summary Judicial Proceeding
Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (449 SCRA 57) vs

CASE ISSUE: Summary judicial proceedings as immediately final and immediately executory. FACTS: After going abroad and having no contact with her husband for nine (9) years, G filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court seeking judicial declaration of presumptive death under the Rules on Summary Judicial Proceedings in Family Law of her husband, F, for the purpose of remarriage. The RTC granted the petition. The Solicitor General filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC. From here, the Solicitor General elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which then ruled that the CA had no jurisdiction over the case.
G.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005
Summary Judicial Proceeding
Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (449 SCRA 57) vs

LESSONS: y yj p g Article 247 of the Family Code: Summary judicial proceedings have no reglementary period within which to perfect an appeal because these judgments are immediately final and executory. There is a big difference between having an appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction being that the decision sought to be appealed is immediately final and executory, and the denial of the appeal for lack of merit. The RTC committed a grave error by allowing the case to be elevated to the CA. Meanwhile, the CA committed an error by trying the case even if it did not have jurisdiction.
G.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005
Custody
Tan vs. Adre (450 SCRA 145) vs

CASE ISSUE: g y Awarding custody to the mother. FACTS: T was the respondent in a habeas corpus case filed by his wife, R. J issued the writ and ordered T to bring before the court the body of their daughter, C. J provisionally turned over the custody of the child to the mother. T alleges the following: at the order o ssu g t e t co st tutes o 1. That t e o de of J issuing the writ constitutes abuse of authority 2. That the order of J ordering the provisional custody of the four-year-old child to her mother constitutes ignorance of the law because R is an unfit mother mother.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898. January 31, 2005
Custody
Tan vs. Adre (450 SCRA 145) vs

LESSONS: g y The law grants the mother custody of the child under seven (7) years of age. Article 213: In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. Court The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven (7) years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. Be it noted that the questioned order was only provisional. As the term implies, provisional means temporary, preliminary or tentative. The provisional custody granted to the mother of the child does not preclude complainant from p o g t e co pe g easo s c ted proving the compelling reasons cited by him which ca be c can properly ventilated in a full-blown hearing scheduled by the court for that purpose.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898. January 31, 2005
Property Regimes of Unions Without Marriage
Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction Corp. (451 SCRA 494)
CASE ISSUE: p y g p Property regime of co-ownership. FACTS: J married E on 15 January 1983.On 15 February 1985, E executed an Affidavit of Waiver, claiming that he was waiving any claims he had over the property E, then General Manager and President of Reach Out Trading International, International bought 7 500 bags of cement worth 7,500 P768,750.00 from Master Iron Works & Construction Corporation (MIWCC). Failing to pay for it, MIWCC filed a complaint against him and RTC rendered judgment in favor of MIWCC. MIWCC The Sheriff issued a Notice of Levy on Execution/Attachment over the two lots mentioned to cover the balance of the amount due.
G.R. No. 151967. February 16, 2005
Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction Corp. (451 SCRA 494)
J filed an Affidavit of Third Party Claim over the two parcels of land; she also filed a complaint against MIWCC and the ; p g Sheriff. She alleged that her husband has no claim over the two lots as evidenced by the Affidavit of Waiver executed by her husband. But before J could present her evidences, she filed an annulment case against E on the ground that the latter is already married, and that their marriage was declared null and void for being bigamous.
LESSONS: In cases of cohabitation not falling in Art. 147 of the Family Code, Art. 148 will apply. In cohabitation not falling under the preceding article, only the properties a qu d by both of the parties through their p op acquired bo o pa oug actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common on proportion to their respective contributions. Art. 256 of the Family code states that the law can be applied retroactively if it does not prejudice vested or acquired rights rights.
G.R. No. 151967. February 16, 2005
Charges and Obligations
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo (453 SCRA 283)
CASE ISSUES:
Whether or not the mortgage constituted by the late M on the g g y property as co-owner is valid as to his undivided share. Whether or not the conjugal partnership (CP) is liable for the payment of the loan obtained by the late M.
FACTS:
M and D were married on August 1967 without a marriage settlement. They purchased a house and lot in San Pablo City during their marriage, but the Deed of Sale was executed only in favor of M, without the knowledge and consent of D. The loan remained outstanding upon maturity so H instituted an extrajudicial foreclosure proceeding on the mortgaged property. A Certificate of Sale was issued to H as the highest bidder and consolidated the ownership of the property. D instituted a case for the nullity of contracts of sale and other damages in the RTC, which ruled in her favor. So did the CA. G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005
Charges and Obligations
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Dailo (453 SCRA 283)
LESSONS: p j g p Article 105: The Chapter on the Conjugal Partnership of Gains in the Family Code was made applicable to CPG already established before its effectivity, unless vested rights have already been acquired under the Civil Code or other laws Article 124: In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or In otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority or the written di iti b ith t th it th itt consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void It is not only the share of the nonconsenting spouse that is void, but the entire encumbrance or disposition. The burden of proof that the debt redounded to the benefit of the family must be proven by the creditor for the CPG to be liable.
G.R. No. 153802. March 11, 2005
Change of Name In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wong (454 SCRA 155)
CASE ISSUE: pp g Whether or not dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article 174 of the Family Code on the basis of convenience for the childs best interest. FACTS: FACTS Spouses X and Y had minor A when they were not married to each other yet. Their subsequent marriage brought about the g legitimation of A. The spouses plan to have his education completed in Singapore and to stay there for good. Since in Singapore people do not carry their middle names, and because their doing so would provoke embarrassment Y, the mother, filed embarrassment, Y mother in the RTC a petition for a change in name and/or correction/cancellation of entry of As name by dropping the mothers surname. The trial court denied the petition. A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the SC. SC denied the petition.
G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005
Change of Name In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wong (454 SCRA 155)
LESSONS: g g , p p For the grant of a change of name, there must be proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. The petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name name. The evidence need only be satisfactory to the court and not all the best evidence available. The court should be mindful of the consequent results in the event of this grant.
G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005
Buenaventura vs. CA (454 SCRA 261) vs

CASE ISSUE: p Whether or not the provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42, and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains applies to a marriage declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity incapacity. FACTS: , , A and B married. A, the husband, filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage on he ground that he and B, the wife, were psychologically incapacitated. The Trial Court declared the marriage void but awarded B moral and exemplary damages. The retirement benefits of A damages and the shares of stock in Manila Memorial Park were ordered to be liquidated and partitioned equally among them, based on the regime of CPG.
G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
Buenaventura vs. CA (454 SCRA 261) vs

LESSONS: g predicated not on the The award of moral damages should be p mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of her disability yet willfully concealed the same same. Since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive of the basic marital obligations, it removes the basis for the contention that A purposely deceived B. Therefore, the award of moral damages was without basis in Th f th d f ld ith t b i i law and in fact. The provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42, and 43 of the Family Code do not apply to cases that do not 3o t e a y ot app y t at ot involve the nullity of a marriage due to psychological incapacity. Rather, the general rule applies, which is that in case the marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable and to be liquidated partitioned and liquidated, partitioned, distributed is that of equal co-ownership.
G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
Adoption
In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (454 SCRA 541)
CASE ISSUE: g , p p y Whether or not an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name. FACTS: FACTS C filed for the adoption of his minor illegitimate child, S. When the Trial Court granted such, she was proclaimed to be known and registered in the Local Civil Registrar as Stephanie Nathy Catindig C then filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie be allowed to use her biological mothers surname Garcia as her middle name. h G i h iddl Trial Court denied Cs motion holding that there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use his or her mother s mothers surname as middle name; hence, this petition.
G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
Adoption
In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia (454 SCRA 541)
LESSONS: The law is silent on whether or not an adopted child may use his or her mothers surname as middle name. It is equally silent on what an adoptee should and could use as a middle name. It is a settled rule that adoption statutes are to be interpreted liberally in favor of adoption. Moreover, Art 10 of the Civil Code provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation of application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. An adopted child is deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopter; thus an adopted child should enjoy all the rights of a legitimate child including the use of the mothers surname as the middle name. Art 189(3) of the Family Code and Sec 18, Art V of RA 8552 (law on adoption) provide that the adoptee remains an intestate heir of his or her biological parent. Hence, the use of the mothers surname as middle name will maintain the maternal li t l lineage.
G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005
Presumptive Death/Summary Judicial Proceeding
Republic vs. CA (G.R. No. 163604, 05-06-05) vs (G R No 163604

CASE ISSUE: j presumptive death in the p Petition for judicial declaration of p nature of a summary proceeding. FACTS: A filed for a judicial declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of contracting a subsequent valid marriage, which was granted by the RTC of Catbalogan. The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal, but was appeal disapproved by the Court of Appeals, ruling that the declaration of presumptive death is a special proceeding.
G.R. No. 163604. May 6, 2005
Presumptive Death/Summary Judicial Proceeding
Republic vs. CA (G.R. No. 163604, 05-06-05) vs (G R No 163604

LESSONS: ( ) y p p Article 41 (2) of the Family Code: For the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage where the prior spouse has been absent for four consecutive years, the spouse present must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absent spouse.
G.R. No. 163604. May 6, 2005
Paternity and Filiation
Rivero vs. CA (458 SCRA 714) vs

CASE ISSUE:
Whether or not a compromise agreement between an illegitimate and legitimate child regarding the estate of their deceased father is valid.
FACTS:
B was an illegitimate son of A. Upon the latter s death S B s mother, and A latters death, S, Bs mother his guardian ad litem filed for the compulsory recognition as the illegitimate child and for the administration and partition of As estate. M, a legitimate daughter of A, in behalf of herself and her two brothers g who were of unsound mind, contested the recognition of filiation of B and the appointment of S as administrator. While the case for the settlement of the estate and the appointment of administrator was pending in court, B and M executed a compromise agreement wherein the latter recognized the former as the illegitimate son of her deceased father the consideration for which was the amount of Php father, 6,000,000 to be taken from the estate, the waiver of other claims, and the waiver by the siblings of their counterclaims against B. The brothers, represented by their uncle H, assailed the propriety of the appointment of their sister as administrator and questioned the validity of the judgment as their sister was not authorized to enter into the compromise agreement on their behalf.
G.R. No. 141273. May 17, 2005
Rivero vs. CA (458 SCRA 714) vs

LESSON: ( ) p p Article 2035(1) of the New Civil Code: No compromise upon the civil status of persons shall be valid. 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 It cannot be left to the absence. will or agreement of the parties. A compromise is a contract whereby parties, making reciprocal concerns, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. Lik any other contract, the terms and l d d Like th t t th t d conditions of a compromise agreement must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy, and public order. Otherwise, the same shall be null and void, and vests no rights and holds no obligation to any party. It produces no legal effect at all.
G.R. No. 141273. May 17, 2005
Marital Consent
Pelayo vs. Perez (459 SCRA 475) vs

CASE ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of sale is null and void due to lack of marital consent. FACTS: B conveyed to M two (2) parcels of land through a deed of sale, for his services as attorney-in-fact in negotiating with the illegal occupants in an ejectment suit. A, the wife, signed only on the third page as a witness, which caused the registration of the deed of sale to be denied. M denied sought for the signature of A on the first and second pages, but the latter refused to do so. Subsequently, B claimed that the deed was null and void because it was executed without As consent He cited Article A s consent. 166 of the New Civil Code, which provides: unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifes consent.
G.R. No. 141323. June 8, 2005
Marital Consent
Pelayo vs. Perez (459 SCRA 475) vs

LESSONS: p The lack of consent from the other spouse does not automatically make the disposition or alienation of a property null and void. The contract is merely annullable at the instance of the wife. A wifes consent to the disposition of a property does not wife s always have to be express. For so long as the actions of the wife show such consent or approval, the disposition is valid.
G.R. No. 141323. June 8, 2005
Paternity & Filiation: DNA Testing
Agustin vs. CA (460 SCRA 315) vs

CASE ISSUE: y g p Admissibility of DNA testing as valid proof of filiation. FACTS: F and her son, M, sued his biological father, B, for support before the RTC of Quezon City. B refused to acknowledge the child and claim that the signature and community tax certificate attributed to him in acknowledgment of Ms birth certificate were falsified Ms falsified. F and M moved for the issuance of an order directing all parties to submit themselves to DNA testing. B opposed said moved to dismiss the complaint, which the RTC denied. CA affirmed the RTC d i i ffi d h decision. B files this petition, positing that DNA testing is not recognized by this court as a conclusive means of proving paternity, and the compulsory DNA testing violates his right to privacy and against self-incrimination.
G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005
Agustin vs. CA (460 SCRA 315) vs

LESSONS: Tayag vs. CA: a natural child having a right to compel acknowledgement, acknowledgement but who has not been in fact legally acknowledged, may maintain partition proceedings for the division of the inheritance his coheirs. In other words, there is no absolute necessity requiring that the action to compel the acknowledgement should have been instituted and prosecuted t a successful conclusion prior to the action in t d to f l l i i t th ti i which that same plaintiff seeks additional relief in the character of heir. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the main issues in both cases are. The court upheld the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and the admissibility of the results thereof as evidence. The right against self-incrimination is simply against l i legal process of extracting from the lips of the l f i f h li f h accused an admission of guilt, and is not against all compulsion. In the same manner, the right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy.
G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005
Herrera vs. Alba (460 SCRA 197) vs

CASE ISSUE: y g p Admissibility of DNA testing as valid proof of filiation. FACTS: 13-year old R, represented by mother A, filed a petition for recognition, support and damages against the father, H. H denied that he was the biological father of the child, and that he had physical contact with the mother. The court ordered H to take DNA paternity testing H files a testing. motion for reconsideration on the grounds that 1) the test is inconclusive, and 2) that the test is unconstitutional because it violates his rights against self-incrimination. The CA affirms the court decision.
G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005
Herrera vs. Alba (460 SCRA 197) vs

LESSONS: g g g DNA testing does not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. The right applies only to forced communication/testimony obtained by using physical or moral compulsion. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. Trial courts require at least 99.9% as minimum value of the probability of paternity. If the value is less than 9.9%, the result is merely a corrobative evidence; and if th value is lt i l b ti id d the l i 99.9% or higher, there is a presumption of paternity, but still subject to being refuted. Philippine courts should follow the Vallejo standard in pp e cou ts s ou d o o t e a ejo sta da d assessing the probative value of DNA testing as evidence (i.e. how the samples were collected and handled; analytical procedure used; adherence to set standards; and the qualification of the analyst)
G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005
Parental Authority
Pablo-Gualberto vs. Gualberto (461 SCRA 450) vs

CASE ISSUE: Custody of a common child FACTS: C filed at the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage to J, with an ancillary prayer for custody pendente lite of their almost 4 year old common son R who was 4-year-old son, R, allegedly taken away by J from their conjugal home and his school upon her decision to abandon C. C, hoping that he would be awarded custody pendente lite, hired a logistic officer named S to conduct surveillance on his g wife and came to the conclusion that his wife was engaged in a lesbian relationship with one N in Cebu City. Moreover, the findings of S were corroborated by B, a house helper of the spouses, when one time, she saw J slapping her child which meant that she didnt care for the child didn t child.
G.R. No. 154994. June 28, 2005
Parental Authority
Pablo-Gualberto vs. Gualberto (461 SCRA 450) vs

LESSONS: The general rule that children below seven years of age shall not be separated from their mother finds its raison detre in d etre the basic need of the minor children for their mothers care. However, if there are compelling reasons determined by the court of the mothers unfitness portrayed by her neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, d d k drug addiction, maltreatment of th child, ddi ti lt t t f the hild insanity or affliction of a communicable disease, a mother is not to be preferred in awarding custody of children under seven years of age. Lesbianism is not a compelling reason to deprive the mothers custody of a child below seven years of age in so far as it does not negatively influence the moral and social outlook of the child. Sexual preference or moral laxity alone does not prove parental neglect or i l l incompetence. N Not even the f h fact that a h mother is a prostitute or has been unfaithful to her husband would render her unfit to have custody of her minor child. To deprive the wife 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.
G.R. No. 154994. June 28, 2005
Judicial Declaration of Nullity
Cojuangco vs. Palma (462 SCRA 310) vs

CASE ISSUE: j y Good faith in judicial declaration of nullity FACTS: P married C in Hong Kong on 22 June 1982, despite his subsisting marriage with H. On 8 November 1982, E, father of C, filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent. On 15 September 2004, the Supreme Court found P guilty of 2004 grossly immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment from the practice of law.
A.C. No. 2474. June 30, 2005
Judicial Declaration of Nullity
Cojuangco vs. Palma (462 SCRA 310) vs

LESSONS: y y p , While a lawyer may have provided well for his children, he must not forget that he has also duties to his wife as a husband including the obligation to live with her, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and to render help and support. Most importantly he is obliged to remain faithful to her until death. (Article 68 of the Family Code) The act of a lawyer marrying someone while he still has a subsisting marriage constitutes grossly immoral conduct which is a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 hi h i d f di b t d S ti 27 R l of the Revised Rules of Court.
A.C. No. 2474. June 30, 2005
Alba vs. CA (465 SCRA 495) vs

CASE ISSUE: g Which surname an illegitimate child should bear. FACTS:
R filed petitions for cancellation of the following in the certificate of J: (1) information having reference to him as the father of the child, (2) the surname Herrera appended to the childs name, (3) his alleged marriage with the natural mother of the child. R claims that he married only once and never contracted y marriage with the mother of J, nor fathered him. In support, he presented certifications from the LCR stating that there is no record of marriage. The SC ruled that the petition of R be granted since there is no evidence that would prove that such marriage existed nor that he is the natural father of the child. Also, the evidence that the mother presented had no probative vale, being that they were mere photocopies and had no record of any original document
G.R. No. 164041. July 29, 2005
Alba vs. CA (465 SCRA 495, 07-29-05) vs 495

LESSONS: [ ] y y Under Article 176[40] of the Family Code as amended by RA9255, illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers surname. It is only when said child is recognized that he may use his father s surname fathers surname, reflecting his status as an acknowledged illegitimate child. In the present case, it is clear that the minor is an illegitimate child because there was never a valid marriage. Considering that the l tt th t th latter strongly asserts that h is not the father of t l t th t he i t th f th f petitioner minor, the latter is therefore an unrecognized illegitimate child. As such, he must bear the surname of his mother.
G.R. No. 164041. July 29, 2005
FEBTC vs Pacilan, Jr. (465 SCRA 372) Pacilan Jr

CASE ISSUE: Abuse of Rights FACTS:
Respondent opened a current account with petitioners Bacolod Branch. Respondent issued four checks, the total of which exceeded his current account. Petitioner bank closed respondents current account because of improper handling. The following day, petitioner accepted deposit by respondent to cover the overdraft. Respondents checks were subsequently dishonored. Respondent wrote a letter to petitioner complaining that the closure was unjustified. Respondent then filed a complaint based on Article 19 of the Civil Code claiming that petitioner preempted his deposits and exposed him to criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. RTC granted moral and exemplary damages; CA affirmed with modification.
465 SCRA 372. July 25, 2005
FEBTC vs Pacilan, Jr. (465 SCRA 372) Pacilan Jr

LESSONS:
The elements of abuse of rights in Article 19 are: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Since the law always presumes good faith, any person seeking award for damages must prove that the other acted in bad faith or ill-motive. Based on the Rules and Regulations Governing the Establishment and Operation of Regular Demand Deposits: 10) The Bank reserves the right to close an account if the depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient funds and/or uncollected deposits. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that the individual was injured in contemplation of i h h i di id l i j di l i f law. Thus there must first be a breach of some duty and the breach of some duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.
465 SCRA 372, July 25, 2005
Support
Zaguirre vs Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, 08-03-05) (A C No 4921

CASE ISSUE: Support FACTS: C, who was already married with three children, had an affair with Z, while C was reviewing for the bar, Z got pregnant and C, who was then already a lawyer, executed a notarized affidavit acknowledging the child as his with a promise to support said child. Upon the birth of the child, however, C started to refuse recognizing the child and from giving any form of support. C was found guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct and was given a penalty of Indefinite Suspension. C filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) asking forgiveness from the Supreme Court. Z opposed Cs MR since C is still not supporting his child with Z. Cs wife argued that Z should have filed a case for support where the paternity of the child could be determined and not use the present administrative case to get support from C.
A.C. No. 4921. August 03, 2005
Support
Zaguirre vs Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, 08-03-05) (A C No 4921

LESSONS: Zs claim for support of her child should be addressed Zs to the proper court in a proper case. Cs MR was granted and his indefinite suspension is reduced to two years.
A.C. No. 4921. August 03, 2005
Paternity and Filiation; Birth Certificate; Names
Concepcion vs CA and Almonte (G.R. No. 123450, 0831-05)

CASE ISSUE: Paternity and filiation; Birth Certificate FACTS: December 29, 1989 C and private respondent A got married December 8, 1990 - A gave birth to J g ground of bigamy; Alleged that A g y; g C filed an annulment case against A on the g married M on December 10, 1980 and said marriage was never annulled RTC declared As first marriage valid and subsisting and annulled her marriage with C because it is bigamous J - declared as illegitimate child; custody was granted to A, visitation rights to C Motion for Reconsideration - she claimed that there was nothing in the law granting visitation rights in favor of the putative father of an illegitimate child and claimed that the child should use her surname instead. (RTC denied) Upon appeal to CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC but reversed its ruling upon reconsideration. J was declared to be the legitimate child of A and M, and was not even related to C in the eyes of the law. Presentation of Birth Certificate is only a prima facie evidence of legitimacy/illegitimacy; The valid marriage between A and M constitutes a legal quasi-conclusive presumption
G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
Paternity and Filiation; Birth Certificate; Names
Concepcion vs. CA and Almonte (G.R. No. 123450, 08-31-05)

LESSONS:
What should be taken into consideration is the best interests of the at s ou d ta e to co s de at o s t e best te ests o t e child The law upholds the presumption of legitimacy A child born inside a valid marriage is legitimate (Art. 164 Civil Code); the child of a void bigamous marriage is not illegitimate but a legitimate child of the first valid and subsisting marriage. The biological father is not even related to the said child (in the eyes of the law) thus should not be granted visitation rights Only the law determines who are the legitimate or illegitimate children for f ones legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever b compromised l ll be d Only the husband (not the father) and in proper cases, his heirs may impugn the legitimacy of the child (Art. 170 Civil Code) Any declaration by the mother against his legitimacy has no probative value. value Birth Certificate only prima facie proof of filiation Filiation is created through marriage, thus the valid marriage outweighs the birth certificate
G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
Paternity and Filiation; Birth Certificate
Angeles vs Maglaya (469 SCRA 363)

CASE ISSUE: Paternity and Filiation; Birth Certificate FACTS: M, respondent, filed a petition for letters of administration and her appointment as administratix of the intestate estate of A in the Regional Trial Court at Caloocan City on March 25, 1998. Respondent claims to be the sole legitimate child of A and G, the supposed first wife of A. B petitioner opposed respondent s claims and prayed that B, petitioner, respondents she be made the administratix of As estate having married the latter civilly and in religious rites. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in crediting respondent with the legal presumption of legitimacy which should flow from a lawful marriage between A and G given that no sufficient evidence was provided by the respondent to prove a valid marriage between A and G had taken place place.
G.R. No. 153798. September 02, 2005
Paternity and Filiation; Birth Certificate
Angeles vs Maglaya (469 SCRA 363)

LESSONS: The presumption of legitimacy in the Family Code Code actually fixes a status for the child born in wedlock, and that civil status cannot be attacked collaterally. The legitimate filiation of a child is a matter fixed by g y law itself. It cannot be made dependent on the declaration of the attending physician or midwife, or that of the mother of the newborn child. P Papers, d documents, even the birth certificate, if h bi h ifi unsigned by the Father and photographs are not sufficient evidence of filiation or recognition. A legitimate child is a product of and, therefore, of, and therefore implies a valid and lawful marriage. Absent any proof of a lawful union, there can also be no legitimate filiation between parents and child.
G.R. No. 153798. September 02, 2005
Marriage Prohibition
Duncan vs GLAXO (438 SCRA 343)

CASE ISSUE: W/N Gs policy regarding the marriage of its employees to employees of Gs rival companies is contrary to public policy, morals and good customs. FACTS: T was employed by G as a medical representative. He was assigned to market G s products in the Camarines Sur Camarines Norte sales area. Gs Sur-Camarines Upon employment, T signed an employment contract wherein he agreed, among others, to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies; and if management found that such relationship posed a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company. nonetheless, T became romantically involved with B, an employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm, A. The two eventually married. Ts superiors informed him that his marriage to B had g g given rise to a conflict of interest. Negotiations ensued with T adverting to his wifes possible resignation from A and G making it known that they preferred to retain his services owing to his good performance. Yet no resolution came to pass.
438 SCRA 343. September 19, 2005
Duncan vs GLAXO (438 SCRA 343)

LESSONS: 19 21 Articles 19-21 of the Civil Code on Human relations will not apply in this case. No person or in this case juridical person abused the rights of T and B to get involved in their relationship even to get married. married As a matter of fact, the company even gave T time to resolve such dilemma. T assailing that he was maltreated is not justified because Glaxo was able to prove why they had to do such measures, and why such events took place, and that as matter of fact Glaxo even gave consideration to him and his family which is why they gave such reassigned him to another work place
What constitutes Conjugal Property
Vda De Ramones vs Agbayani (471 SCRA 306)

CASE ISSUE: W/N sale is valid / l ld FACTS: S and R are married and owned a 358-square meter lot. lot May 23 1979 S sold the property to A without 23, 1979, knowledge of the wife R. March 7, 1980 S died and subsequently, A built a septic tank on the said lot. A filed to recover property that was sold to her by S. June p p y y 27, 1983, Trial court decided that sale is void. October 11, 1995, Court of Appeals reversed the decision, property is valid
G.R. No. 137808. September 20, 2005
What constitutes Conjugal Property
Vda De Ramones vs Agbayani (471 SCRA 306)

LESSONS: Sale is valid but voidable Article 166 of the Civil Code valid, voidable. prohibits alienation or encumbrance of real property by the husband without the consent of the wife. However, it should be read with article 173 which states that such contract that without prior knowledge of the other spouse can ask the court for annulment any contract within (10) ten years. There is no proof that Aldegonda didn t didnt ask for the courts for the annulment of the Deed of Sale. And now that the prescription period has ended, the sale is valid and enforceable
G.R. No. 137808. September 20, 2005
Abuse of Rights Doctrine
Public Estates Authority vs Chu (470 SCRA 495)

CASE ISSUE: W/N there is a valid b / h l d basis f the award of damages in for h d fd favor of respondent FACTS: Sometime in June 1993, PEA, without notice and due 1993 PEA process, entered the property of Chu and bulldozed the land, destroying her black pepper plantation, causing damage to her operations and depriving her of the g p p g means of livelihood. Chu filed a complaint but PEA contented that Chu failed to present evidence of ownership of property. Nevertheless, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Chu, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The decision granted Chu 2 million pesos by way of compensatory damages and an additional 100,000 as attorneys fees, plus costs of suit.
G.R. No. 145291. September 21, 2005
Public Estates Authority vs Chu (470 SCRA 495)

LESSONS: damages, Although the respondent is indeed entitled to damages the evidence on record does not justify the granting of such damages for Chu. The respondents cause for action before the trial court is not premised on any contract quasi-contract, delict, or contract, quasi contract delict quasi-delict which could have justified the grant of compensatory damages. Actual and compensatory damages, to be recoverable, must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. tb ith bl d f t i t Petitioner was not able to present evidence of ownership aside from her bare testimony. At best, her demand for damages can be anchored on the abuse of rights doctrine under Article 19 of the Civil Code which provides: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Thus, the amount P250,000 should suffice in the case at hand. G.R. No. 145291. September 21, 2005
Legal Separation; Divorce; Prosecuting Attorney; Psychological Incapacity
Republic vs Iyoy (470 SCRA 508)

CASE ISSUE: Psychological Incapacity; validity of divorce by a former Filipino citizen who became an alien by subsequent marriage while still a Filipino at the time of divorce; capacity of Solicitor General to intervene in nullity cases. FACTS:
The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner RP, through the OSG prays for the reversal of the Decision of the CA and the RTC of Cebu, Branch 22 in both cases declaring the marriage of C and F null and void on the basis of Article 36 (Psychological Incapacity). C filed declaration of nullity of marriage on 25 March 1997 to annul their marriage dated 16 December 1961 at Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City null and void alleging that F was hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant. C and F had five children. Sometime in 1984, F left C and children and the youngest then six years old to C care for the U.S.A. Subsequently, F married an American and prior to her naturalization as an American, F divorced C. The divorce in 1984 the marriage to the American husband in 1985 and the acquisition of American citizenship in 1988. Thereafter, F came back to the Philippines on various instances and openly used the surname of Fs American husband and lived with Fs American Family here and abroad. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals granted the petition for declaration of nullity stating the clear showing of psychological incapacity to perform marital obligations.
G.R. No. 152577. September 21, 2005
Legal Separation; Divorce; Prosecuting Attorney; Psychological Incapacity
Republic vs Iyoy (470 SCRA 508)

LESSONS:
Psychological incapacity must be manifested before the marriage, following the doctrines of Santos v. CA, Republic v. Court of Appeals and C.A. and Marcos v. Marcos and established by the totality of the evidence presented during in trial, even if expert witness is not required. Article 36 contemplates the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations at the time of the marriage and not a divorce law. The court resolves any doubt in favor of the marriage. A divorced obtained by a Filipino citizen who subsequently became an alien at the time when he or she is still a Filipino citizen does not capacitate the other spouse to remarry since technically, he or she was still bound by th t i t h i ll h h till b db Philippine laws on duties, status, condition and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws do not recognize divorce A solicitor general or his or her associates have capacity to intervene although generally a solicitor general or his or her associates have capacity only to intervene in cases involving the State as the People of the Philippines. However, once a case is elevated to the Court of Appeals, then a solicitor general or his or her associates can validly intervene. As summarized in the case of Ancheta v. Ancheta, Malcampo-Sin v. Sin. The Office of the Solicitor General may intervene proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages before the RTC and on appeal to higher courts.
G.R. No. 152577. September 21, 2005
Art 26: Divorce
Republic vs Orbecido (472 SCRA 114)

CASE ISSUE: Divorce FACTS: C and L were married with two children. L left for the United States and became a naturalized American citizen, thereafter obtaining a valid divorce decree capacitating her to contract a subsequent marriage to a foreigner. C then filed a petition for authority to remarry under Article 26(2) of the Family Code Code. The Office of the Solicitor General contends that the invoked article was not applicable and raises this pure question of law.
G.R. No. 154380. October 05, 2005
Art 26: Divorce
Republic vs Orbecido (472 SCRA 114)

LESSONS: citizen, Article 26(2) should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. For the application of Article 26(2) there must have been a 26(2), valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino and a foreigner, and that a valid divorce decree is obtained by the alien spouse capacitating her to remarry. Th reckoning point i not the citizenship of th parties at the The k i i t is t th iti hi f the ti t th time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained by the alien spouse. Annulment or Legal Separation need not be the proper remedies for such would be in the case of the former, long, tedious, and infeasible, and in the case of the latter, is futile to sever marital ties.
G.R. No. 154380. October 05, 2005
Marital Disqualification Rule
Alvarez vs Ramirez (473 SCRA 72)

CASE ISSUE: Marital Disqualification Rule l lf l FACTS: E, estranged wife of M testifies as a witness against the latter for arson. Such was committed in the dwelling of arson S, sister of E. M, through counsel, filed a motion to disqualify E from testifying against him pursuant to Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court on marital disqualification which provides that during the marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the th consent of the affected spouse. t f th ff t d Exceptions to such are in civil cases filed by one against the other, in criminal cases for a crime committed by one against the other or the others direct descendants other s or ascendants.
G.R. No. 143439. October 14, 2005
Marital Disqualification Rule
Alvarez vs Ramirez (473 SCRA 72)

LESSONS: Section 22, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court: 22 Marital Disqualification Rule will not be applied because the preservation of the marriage between M and E is no longer an interest the State aims to protect. The reasons for the Marital Disqualification Rule, mainly to uphold the marriage and guard private life, are defeated. The offense of arson attributed to M directly impairs the conjugal relation. He knew fully well of E s relation Es presence in the house while committing said act. This is totally alien to the harmony and confidence the disqualification seeks to protect. In laying the truth before the courts so that the guilty may be punished and the innocent exonerated, the State must have the right to offer the direct testimony of E even against the objection of M because it was him e en beca se as who gave rise to such necessity.
G.R. No. 143439. October 14, 2005
Family Home
Gomez vs Sta Ines (473 SCRA 25)

CASE ISSUE: W/N said property could be sold FACTS:
P (deceased), mother of J and S, entrusted rice land in Nueva Vizcaya to M J and S demanded for an accounting of the produce of said rice lands while under the management of M and for the return of the TCT to the property. Trial court rendered judgment against Marietta and ordered her to deliver the owner s copy of the TCT and to pay damages owners In order to satisfy damages, a writ of execution was issued, by virtue of which, a parcel of land in Nueva Vizcaya registered in Mariettas name was sold at a public auction wherein J was the highest bidder A complaint for the annulment of the sale was filed before the RTC in Nueva Vizcaya by Ms husband, H together with their children, on the ground that said house and lot sold during the public auction is their family residence and is thus exempt from execution under Article 155 of the Family Code. Respondents assert that the house and lot was constituted jointly by H and M as their family home from the time they occupied it in 1972
G.R. No. 132537. October 14, 2005
Family Home
Gomez vs Sta Ines (473 SCRA 25)

LESSONS: Code Under Article 155 of the Family Code, the family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale, or attachment, except for, among other things, debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home. While respondents contend that the said house and lot was constituted jointly by H and M as their family home in1972, it is not deemed constituted as such at the time M incurred her debts U d prevailing j i Under ili jurisprudence, it i d d is deemed constituted as th d tit t d the family home only upon the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 The complaint against M was instituted in 1986 to for acts committed as early as 1977, thus, her liability arose years before the levied property was constituted as the family home in 1988 The liability incurred by M falls within the exception provided y y p p for in Article 155 of the Family Code: debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home. G.R. No. 132537. October 14, 2005
Abuse of Right Doctrine; Parties to a Marriage; Presumptive Death/Declaration of Absence; Bigamy
Manuel vs People of the Philippines (477 SCRA 476

CASE ISSUE: W/N the presumption of death arose as a matter of law / h fd h fl W/N A could be found guilty of bigamy W/N moral damages could be awarded to C FACTS: A married B. Subsequently, A married C. A never informed C that he was previously married. A then abandoned C. A was charged with bigamy A avers that C bigamy. when he married C, B had been absent for 21 years and thus under Article 390 of the Civil Code, she was presumed dead as a matter of law.
G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005
Abuse of Right Doctrine; Parties to a Marriage; Presumptive Death/Declaration of Absence; Bigamy
Manuel vs People of the Philippines (477 SCRA 476)

LESSONS: Before entering into a subsequent marriage, one must marriage acquire a judicial decree of nullity to protect the subsequent marriage from being possibly liable for bigamy Abuse of rights doctrine is a catch all provision used in cases where the law is insufficient to demand damages from the offending party F a marriage to be declared void, one must go to the For i b d l d id h proper courts
G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005
Birth Certificate
Ceruila vs Delantar (477 SCRA 134)

CASE ISSUE: Annulment and cancellation of birth certificate FACTS: Petitioners-spouses Ceruila filed an action with the RTC Manila to expunge the birth certificate of R, the child involved in the rape case of J The RTC granted the petition and the CA nullified the same on the ground that R and her guardian DSWD was never served summons
G.R. No. 140305. December 09, 2005
Birth Certificate
Ceruila vs Delantar (477 SCRA 134)

LESSONS: The service of summons cannot be replaced by publication and such replacement is only allowed when there is earnest effort to implead the concerned party to the case A person has standing to be impleaded as a party on matters concerning his or her birth; is an indispensable party and absent such, the judgment has no legal effect. A correction in the records of the birth certificate beyond clerical errors must be adversarial in nature and not summary. The Court of Appeals does not have power to substitute its own findings to that of the Regional Trial Court and must remand the case in special proceedings and the CA may only annul the judgment of the RTC on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. It is not enough that a partys name be included in the caption but the party himself or herself has to be duly notified
G.R. No. 140305. December 09, 2005
Presumptive Death/Declaration of Absence
Republic vs Court of Appeals (477 SCRA 276)

CASE ISSUE: W/N petition for judicial declaration of presumptive death should be granted FACTS:
A is married to L A is complaining about Ls way of living saying that if she should continue to stay out late at night with friends maybe she should just leave and go back to her parents One night, when A arrives home late from work, L was nowhere to be found fo nd A went to look for her at her parents house, ats house and even sought the help of the Barangay captain A went to Manila to look for L, again he met up with Ls friend J to see if she saw L A also reported Ls disappearance to the NBI L, Ls A filed for judicial declaration of presumptive death and the RTC of Catbalogan granted petition The OSG appealed such decision to the CA where the CA held that A was not able to establish well-founded belief that his wife is dead well founded
477 SCRA 276. December 09, 2005
Presumptive Death/Declaration of Absence
Republic vs Court of Appeals (477 SCRA 276)

LESSONS: It is explicitly provided in Article 41 of the Family Code the the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead It must be a result of proper honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether he/she is still dead or alive. The court held that there was no well founded belief on As part because of the following reasons: 1. 1 A failed t present a witness other than the Barangay f il d to t it th th th B captain ( Ls parents, J (whom he claims to always speak with regarding Ls whereabouts) did not even appear as witnesses) 2. A failed to inquire about Ls disappearance prior to filing the petition for judicial declaration of presumptive death at the RTC (the court said that if he made the inquiry prior to the filing of petition then it could have been more credible) 477 SCRA 276. December 09, 2005
Article 147
Gonzales vs Gonzales (478 SCRA 327)

CASE ISSUE: W/N properties should b equally d d d b / h ld be ll divided between the h parties FACTS: Petitioner and respondent got married on February 4 4, 1979 after living together as husband and wife for two years. Prior to marriage, petitioner had let the respondent manage his pizza business. On October 29, 1992, respondent (E) filed a case for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity against F. The Trial Court granted the petition for nullity and ordered the dissolution and equal distribution of the properties between the two parties (on such ruling the petitioner did not agree).
478 SCRA 327. December 16, 2005
Article 147
Gonzales vs Gonzales (478 SCRA 327)

LESSONS:
The marriage between the two parties was declared void void. Hence, the manner of dividing the properties of both spouses shall be governed by Article 147 of the Family Code, which applies the rules on co-ownership. Article 147 contemplates a situation wherein both parties are capacitated to marry who live together exclusively without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. Article 147 creates a presumption that properties acquired during the cohabitation of the parties have been acquired d h h b f h h b d through their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. It further provides that a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have h f h ll b d d h contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the formers efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
478 SCRA 327. December 16, 2005
2006 Cases
Presumption of Marriage
Delgado Vda. de la Rosa vs. Heirs o Marciana e gado da a osa s e s of a c a a Rustia Vda. de Damian (480 SCRA 334)
FACTS: FACTS The case revolves around the determination of the correct heirs to G and J, which depends on whether the two were y validly married or not. Petitioners, the siblings of J and their children, claim that there was no marriage. They claim that there is no record of the contested marriage in the civil registry and present a witness who testifies that while the couple lived together as husband and wife, they were never married. A baptismal certificate which lists J as "Seorita" was also presented. Respondents, on the other hand, present various public documents indicating the two are married, including passports, veteran's claims, and titles.
G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006
LESSONS:
Rule 131 Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that the 131, presumption "that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage" is satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence In this case, evidence. case both their cohabitation and reputation give rise to the presumption that a valid marriage existed between G and J. Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage marriage in fact took place. Once the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but must at least be enough to strengthen the presumption of marriage. In this case, the public documents indicating the existence of a marriage are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and adequately support the presumption. presumption No clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was presented by petitioners. G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006
LESSONS:
In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans toward jurisdiction legitimizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in fact married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they hold themselves out to be they would be living in be, constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Always presume marriage.
G.R. No. 155733. January 27, 2006
Pintiano-Anno vs. A Pi ti A Anno (480 SCRA 490)

FACTS: D and A were married on January 23, 1963. They had no d i d J 23 1963 Th h d children. D alleges that during their marriage, they acquired a 4hectare public, unregistered, agricultural land in La p , g , g Trinidad, Benguet. In 1996, A waived his rights to a portion of the said land to P. In 1997, A conveyed the remainder of the land to P through a Deed of Sale. These were done without the Sale knowledge and consent of D. D filed an action at the MTC for cancellation of the waiver and deed of sale, claiming the land was conjugal property. She presented their marriage certificate dated 1963 and a 1974 tax declaration over the property which contained only As name. MTC ruled in favor of D but on appeal, the RTC ruled that the land belonged to A. The CA and SC upheld the RTC ruling.
G.R. No. 163743. January 27, 2006
Pintiano-Anno vs. A Pi ti A Anno (480 SCRA 490)

LESSONS: The Family Code provides that properties acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage shall be presumed to be conjugal property. This provision is applicable even to conjugal partnerships established prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, without prejudice to vested rights already Code acquired under the Civil Code or other laws. For this presumption of conjugality to apply, the one invoking it must first p g prove that subject p p j property y was acquired during the marriage. The plaintiff must produce a preponderance of evidence showing that the property was acquired during the marriage. Tax declarations especially of untitled lands are credible declarations, lands, proof of ownership and are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
G.R. No. 163743. January 27, 2006
Marriage Contract
Orfila O fil vs. Arellano (482 SCRA 280) A ll
FACTS: FACTS O, a court personnel, charged A, her co-worker, for slapping her in the face because of unpaid interest due in a debt. 3 witnesses corroborated the event. Consequently, A denied this and contended that O falsified her Service Record by stating that she was born in 1942. However, Os marriage contract dated 1956 revealed that she was 22 at the time of marriage This showed that she marriage. was actually born in 1934. O denied this and contended that she was in good faith believing she was born in 1942. She contends that she was asked by her father to sign a document without her knowing the contents thereof. d ih h k i h h f Moreover, she alleges that she only finished Grade 2; as a result, only knew how to write her name but not read.
A. M. No. P-06-2110/A.M. No. P-03-1692. February 13, 2006
Marriage Contract
Orfila O fil vs. Arellano (482 SCRA 280) A ll
LESSONS: A marriage contract is a public document that needs , y no authentication. As such, it cannot be overcome by the testimony of one of the contracting parties. Although a birth certificate is best evidence for date of birth, the evidence present contradicts it in this case. There was absence of birth records in the Office of Municipal Registrar of Carigara, Leyte and in the National Statistics Office. Moreover, evidence from her Personal Data Sheet shows that she was able to finish high school. Moreover, Moreover her signature in the marriage contract was legible and neatly written which contradicts her allegations.
A. M. No. P-06-2110/A.M. No. P-03-1692. February 13, 2006
Filiation
Social Security System v. Aguas (483 SCRA 383) S i lS it S t A
FACTS: FACTS R, respondent, filed a claim with the SSS for death benefits when her husband, P, a member of SSS and pensioner, p passed away on December 8. 1996. She indicated in her y claim that P had a child with her, J born on October 29, 1991. Her claim was settled. Later, SSS received a letter from L, sister of the deceased, contesting Rs Claim She asserts that R abandoned her R s Claim. brother for more than six years and lived with another man, and that P had no legal children with R, but that she has a child with the other man, D. In support of her statements she produced a birth certificate of a child born h d d bi h ifi f hild b to R and D, who according to the certificate was married on November 1 1990. She also assailed that his brother was incapable of having children.
G.R. No. 165546. February 27, 2006
Filiation
FACTS: FACTS In view of this SSS stopped payment and asked respondents to refund the amount already given to them. , g R and her child, J sought for reconsideration and countered that she did not leave his husband and that J was Ps daughter. As evidence, she produced an authenticated copy of Js birth certificate with Ps signature as the father. SSS asked experts to attest if the signature was indeed Ps Ps and they affirmed. R asserts that J is entitled to the benefits.
G.R. No. 165546. February 27, 2006
Filiation

LESSONS:
J is the legitimate daughter of P. We can glean from the date P on Js birth certificate and the death of P that she was born inside a valid marriage. Under article 164 of the Family Code, children conceived and born during parents marriage is legitimate. legitimate There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born on wedlock are legitimate This presumption indeed becomes legitimate. conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual relations with his wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way that sexual intercourse is not possible or (c) serious illness of the husband which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse husband, intercourse.
G.R. No. 165546. February 27, 2006
Filiation

LESSONS: Quite remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods in remarkably Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171, of the Family Code, the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed and unassailable. Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a purely personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs. In g , p , the case, there is no clear showing that P challenged the legitimacy of J. Hence, her legitimacy cannot be contested. The presumption of her legitimacy is further strengthened by her birth certificate signed, which has been verified, by P. A birth certificate signed by the father is competent evidence of paternity.
G.R. No. 165546. February 27, 2006
Antonio A t i vs. R Reyes (G R N 155880 03 10 06) (G.R. No. 155880, 03-10-06)

FACTS:
A fil d f a petition for the declaration of nullity of his filed for titi f th d l ti f llit f hi marriage with R putting forth the latters psychological incapacity as a ground. Such was alleged because of Rs persistent lying about herself, the people around her, her occupation, i ti income, educational attainment and other events d ti l tt i t d th t or things. His allegations were supported by findings of a psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist, saying that she is a pathological liar. R likewise offered a psychological evaluation to counter the allegations. Court granted the declaration of nullity. The Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila annulled the marriage of the parties on the ground of the parties lack of due discretion. Then, an appeal to the Court of Appeals was made, reversing RTC s decision RTCs decision, holding the insufficiency of evidence to establish respondents psychological incapacity. G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006

LESSONS: In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, Justice Vitug said that vs Appeals psychological incapacity should refer to less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Such a view was furthered in the Molina case. Justice Panganiban observed that the evidence to establish g psychological incapacity must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto. Since then, psychological incapacity is considered a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006

LESSONS: Though Article 36 contemplates only psychological incapacity to comply, it has been consistently recognized that the intent of the Family Code Committee was to allow some resiliency in its application. The preference was for the judge to interpret the provision on a case to case basis case-to-case guided by the experience, in the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church tribunals, which although not binding on civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law. And while Church thought on psychological incapacity is merely persuasive on the trial courts, judicial decisions of Supreme Court interpreting ,j p p g psychological incapacity are binding on lower courts.
G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006

LESSONS: The guidelines of Molina case applied here which the Court believes the petitioner has observed, are the following: The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. The root cause of psychological incapacity must be: - Medically identified - Alleged in the complaint - Sufficiently proven by experts - Clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must be proven to be existent at the time of marriage celebration. Such incapacity must also be shown to be clinically permanent or incurable. Incurability may be absolute or even relative to the other spouse.
G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006

LESSONS:
The guidelines of Molina case applied here which the Court believes the petitioner has observed, are the following: [continued] Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of the marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. Th essential marital obligations must b th The ti l it l bli ti t be those embraced by b db Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such noncomplied marital obligations must b stated i th petition, li d it l bli ti t be t t d in the titi proved by evidence and included in the text of the decision. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006

LESSONS: Psychological incapacity is incurable and that such must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. However, in formulating the doctrinal rule, the Court in Santos omitted any reference to incurability as a characteristic of psychological incapacity incapacity. The intendment of the law was to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of p personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter y y insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
G.R. No. 155880. March 10, 2006
Custody
Yu Y vs. Yu (484 SCRA 485) Y

FACTS: S Spouses E and C are estranged and are contesting the d t d d t ti th custody of their daughter B. The case revolves around the determination of which of two courts has jurisdiction to adjudicate such custody. E filed a petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage with the Pasig RTC. C then filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Pasay RTC, praying for, among other things, things the award of B s sole custody to her. Not to be B's her outdone, E filed a motion for custody in his petition for declaration of nullity before the Pasig RTC.
G.R. No. 164915. March 10, 2006
Custody
Yu Y vs. Yu (484 SCRA 485) Y

LESSONS:
Articles 49 and 50 of the Family Code empowers the Court to provide for the custody and support of the common children during the pendency of actions for and the final judgment for the annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage. Therefore, the issue of custody is deemed pleaded in a case of declaration of nullity of marriage, with the only exception being if such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Furthermore, Section 21 of the Rule on Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages directs the court taking jurisdiction over a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to resolve the custody of common children, by mere motion of either party. This means that the filing of a separate action is not necessary necessary. In this case, by petitioners filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of the custody of Bianca as an incident thereof. The Pasig RTC, not th Pasay RTC, th th f Th P i RTC t the P RTC therefore d id f decides the issue of custody. G.R. No. 164915. March 10, 2006
Bigamy / Annulment
SSS vs. J Jarque Vd de Bailon (485 SCRA 376) Vda. d B il

FACTS:
April 25 1955 A il 25, 1955: C married A. i dA December 10, 1970: C filed a petition to declare A presumptively dead, which was granted by the CFI of Sorsogon August 8, 1993: C marries T January 30, 1998: C dies; T files with the SSS to claim all the benefits/pension for the deceased Alleged children from the 1st and 3rd wives appear, court battle for the pension and other benefits begin SSC overturns original decision of g g giving p g pension to T; CA reversed this decision; SC upheld the intermediate appellate courts decision
G.R. No. 165545. March 24, 2006
Bigamy / Annulment
SSS vs. J Jarque Vd de Bailon (485 SCRA 376) Vda. d B il

LESSONS: SSC has no jurisdiction over cases wherein the validity of a marriage is being questioned much less overturn the decision of the CFI. To annul the subsequent marriage, absentee spouse should have recorded an affidavit of reappearance or gone to the courts.
G.R. No. 165545. March 24, 2006
Republic vs. Melgar & Melgar (486 SCRA 177) R bli M l M l

FACTS: N and E were married in 1965. The union begot 5 children d i d i 1965 Th i b t hild On 1996, N filed a declaration for Nullity based on the abovementioned grounds. The summons were served however the husband failed to file an answer and his appearance, thus prompting the Public Prosecutor to investigate if there was a collusion, he found none. Th prosecutions main evidence was only the testimony of The ti i id l th t ti f Norma, the Lower Court ruled in favor of the respondent, citing Ns testimony as its sole basis in ruling in their favor. The OSG lifted app a d to the CA, CA affirmed RTCs O G d appealed o , a d decision. OSG appealed to the SC, SC ruled in favor of the State, citing that the alleged cause given by N was not a basis to rule that the marriage is void ab initio due to Psychological Incapacity.
G.R. No. 139676. March 31, 2006

LESSONS:
The party alleging that the marriage is void ab initio pursuant to Article 36 must make sure that he states that the psychological incapacity exists at the time of the marriage. In Santos vs. CA, the Court declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical gravity antecedence, and incurability. In cases of nullity due to psychological incapacity, the petitioner must make sure that the guidelines laid down in the case of R f Republic vs M li bli Molina must be followed. t b f ll d It is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing the essential marital obligations due to some psychological, NOT PHYSICAL, illness. While an actual medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination is not a conditio sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity, an expert witness would have g g p y g strengthened Normas claim of Es alleged psychological incapacity. Petitioners omission to present one is fatal to her posItion. G.R. No. 139676. March 31, 2006

LESSONS: Psychological incapacity must be established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial. 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.
G.R. No. 139676. March 31, 2006
Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol (487 SCRA 228) St P C ti Si b l

FACTS: R Respondents were all regular employees of St Paper d t ll l l f Star P Corporation, that is engaged in trading principally paper products S and C resigned after marrying a co-employee pursuant g y g p y p to the company policy which stated that: New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has a relative, up to the 3rd degree of relationship, relationship already employed by the company In case of two of our employees (both singles, one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above E was dismissed for her alleged immoral conduct when she got pregnant by a married man
G.R. No. 164774. April 12, 2006
Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol (487 SCRA 228) St P C ti Si b l

LESSONS:
The company policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative for the failure of employer to present any evidence of business necessity of the no-spouse employment policy Absence of such a bona fide occupational qualification, a rule denying employment to one spouse due to the current employment of the other spouse in the same office is invalid Bona fide occupational qualification reasonable demands of the business require a distinction based on marital status and there is no better available or acceptable policy t t d th i b tt il bl t bl li which would better accomplish the business purpose Requirement of reasonableness must be clearly established to uphold such a policy Although there is no express statute prohibiting marital discrimination, the protection given to labor is vast and extensive it is provided for in the Constitution and the Labor , , g Code, thus, the dismissal of E is illegal
G.R. No. 164774. April 12, 2006
Property Relations
Go G vs. Yamane (489 SCRA 107) Y

FACTS: A lot in Baguio City is registered i the name of M, wife of l ti B i Cit i i t d in th fM if f L. Atty. DG who handled a case for wife and her sisters levied the said property to satisfy the lien for attorneys fees. The RTC of Baguio City held that the subject parcel of land was the paraphernal property of M and not the conjugal property of the spouses. Husband filed a motion for reconsideration, reconsideration which was denied The case was brought denied. to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court contends that, property acquired during marriage is presumed to be conjugal, unless the exclusive i i d b j l l h l i funds of one spouse are shown to have been used for the purpose. Husbands name appeared on the Transfer Certificate of Husband s Title (TCT) and the Deed of Absolute Sale. Both documents indicate that M was married to L.
G.R. No. 160762. May 3, 2006
Property Relations
Go G vs. Yamane (489 SCRA 107) Y

LESSONS: Property purchased by spouses during the existence of their marriage is presumed to be conjugal in nature, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. (Article 160) The nature of a property, whether conjugal or paraphernal, is determined by law and not by the will of one of the spouses. The mere registration of a property in the name of one spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature. Conjugal property cannot be held liable for the personal obligation contracted b one spouse, unless some advantage of benefit is shown to have accrued to the conjugal partnership.
G.R. No. 160762. May 3, 2006
Bigamy & Freedom of Religion
Alejandro Estrada vs. So edad Escritor eja d o s ada s Soledad sc o (492 SCRA 1)
FACTS:
Respondent S is a court interpreter in a Regional Trial Court, R d t i ti t t i R i lT i lC t living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child with this live-in arrangement. At the instance of complainant A, respondent was charged with committing disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Revised Administrative Code. Respondent asserted that as a member of the religious sect known as Jehovahs Witnesses, and having executed a , g Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness after ten years of living together, her conjugal arrangement is in conformity with her religious beliefs and has the approval of the congregation, therefore not constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct. g g The Court held that benevolent neutrality and accommodation is the spirit underlying the religious clause in the Constitution and that in deciding respondents plea of exemption based on the Free Exercise Clause, it is the compelling state interest test which must be applied. A.M. No. P-02-1651. June 22, 2006
FACTS: Th Court then remanded the complaint to the Offi of The C t th d d th l i t t th Office f the Court Administrator and ordered the Office of the Solicitor General to intervene, thereafter leaving the Court the task to determine whether the evidence adduced by the State proves its more compelling interest.
A.M. No. P-02-1651. June 22, 2006
LESSONS: The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause, provided that it does not offend compelling state interests. The OSG must then demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free exercise clause is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate g g goal of the state. The Constitution itself mandates the Court to make exemptions in cases involving criminal laws of general application, and under these distinct circumstances, such conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for there is a case for exemption from the law based on the fundamental right to freedom of religion. In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state.
A.M. No. P-02-1651. June 22, 2006
Adoption
Landigin vs. Republic o the Philippines a dg s epu c of e pp es (493 SCRA 383)

FACTS: M and A are married and bore three children. Aft M died, d i d db th hild After di d A left for Italy, re-married. The children were left with their grandmother. When their g grandmother died, Petitioner D, a citizen of the United , , States, of Filipino parentage and a resident of Guam, expressed her interest in adopting the three. However, petitioner failed to obtain the voluntary consent of A to the adoption. adoption Nevertheless, the trial court granted adoption. The Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed.
G.R. No. 164948. June 27, 2006
Adoption
Landigin vs. Republic o the Philippines a dg s epu c of e pp es (493 SCRA 383)

LESSONS: Republic Act No. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act states No that written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity for adoption. Regarding abandonment, there is no abandonment of a parent by means only of allowing the child to remain in the care of others. Abandonment is neglect and refusal to perform the filial and legal obligations of love and support which is given by A by constantly giving money to the children. Financial capacity is also an issue here since in adoption, the best interest of the child is important. It shows that the petitioner cant give it since she is supported by her own children and siblings.
G.R. No. 164948. June 27, 2006
Support
Mangonon vs. C M Court of Appeals (494 SCRA 1) t fA l

FACTS: B and F were civilly married and th f d i ill i d d the former gave birth to a bi th t twin children named Rebecca Angela (Rica) and Regina Isabel (Rina) The marriage was annulled due to lack of consent g It was within 7 months after the annulment, the petitioner gave birth to the twin sisters Belen, together with her 2nd husband raised the children as Federico h d t t ll F d i had totally abandoned th b d d them Petitioner, in behalf of the twins who were minors then, filed a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support with application for support pendente lite app a o o uppo p d At the time of the institution of the petition, the twins were about to enter college in the US and because Belen cannot afford the education of the twins, she asked for Federico and the latters father Francisco for general support and father, for payment of the college education for US$44,000.
G.R. No. 125041. June 30, 2006
Support

FACTS: B filed, on behalf of her then minor children R1 & R2, a fil d b h lf f h th i hild R2 petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support, with application for support pendente lite with the RTC of Makati. B alleged that she and F were civilly married, but said marriage was annulled due to the lack of the required consent. According to B, she raised her daughters with the assistance of her second husband as F had totally abandoned them. At the time the petition was filed, R1 & R2 were about to enter college in the USA to where they had moved. Despite their admissions to US universities, however, R1 & R2 h i d i i i ii h could not afford the cost of college education in the US. Thus, B demanded support from F and his father.
G.R. No. 125041. June 30, 2006
Support

LESSONS:
Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Court as regards pendente lite a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite before the rendition of the final judgment. The court does not need to look fully into the merits of the case before it can settle an application for the relief. The court is only tasked to determine relief the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application. In the case at bar, B was able to establish by prima facie proof the filiation of her twin daughters to F and their right to support pendente lite lite. It was held under Art. 199 of the Family Code, that the obligation to give support rests principally on those more closely related to the recipient. However, if it would be proven that those who are called upon to provide support do not have the means, the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the responsibility. In the case at bar, since it was established that F does not have the means to provide support, the grandfather of the twins would be liable liable.
G.R. No. 125041. June 30, 2006
Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris (495 SCRA 396) P F i F i

FACTS: A filed a petition for declaration of nullity in the Regional fil d titi f d l ti f llit i th R i l Trial Court of Pasig of petitioners marriage with B on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petition was denied as well as the motion for consideration for insufficient evidence. Respondents leaving the house attitude whenever the spouses quarreled, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, attacks abandonment and lack of support and his support, 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 obligations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It held that, evidence on record did not convincingly establish respondent suffering from psychological incapacity or that his defects were incurable and already present at the inception of marriage.
G.R. No. 162368. July 17, 2006

FACTS: P Psychologist, D D h l i t Dr. Dayan also f il d to establish the l failed t t bli h th substance of respondents psychological incapacity. The petition for review on certiorari and the motion for consideration with the Supreme Court were both denied.
G.R. No. 162368. July 17, 2006

LESSONS: The facts of the case are the determinants of whether psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage. Psychological incapacity, to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the p p duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond is about to assume. Psychological incapacity refers to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Courts rely heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must b id tifi d as a psychological illness and t t be identified h l i l ill d its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.
G.R. No. 162368. July 17, 2006
Filiation
Rivera vs. Heirs o Romualdo Villanueva e a s e s of o ua do a ue a (496 SCRA 135)

FACTS: P titi Petitioners were claiming t b h lf brothers of A, decedent l i i to be half b th fA d d t and filed for partition of properties. As common law husband B and their alleged daughter C (a respondent in this case), opposed the partition. The lower courts held that C was the illegitimate daughter of A based solely on her birth certificate.
G.R. No. 141501. July 21, 2006
Filiation
Rivera vs. Heirs o Romualdo Villanueva e a s e s of o ua do a ue a (496 SCRA 135)

LESSONS: SC ruled that despite being listed as adopted in the birth adopted certificate by both A and B, the mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption, and does not confer upon the child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights of such child. It is well-settled that a record of birth is merely prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, not conclusive , evidence of the truthfulness of the statements made there by the interested parties. It was insufficiently established that C was A biological daughter, daughter nor even her adopted daughter. Thus, she daughter Thus cannot inherit from A.
G.R. No. 141501. July 21, 2006
Neglect of Child
De G D Guzman vs. P Perez (496 SCRA 474)

FACTS: R got S pregnant while both of them were still in law t t hil b th f th till i l school. They did not get married. She gave birth to A. R married another woman in 1991 with whom he begot two children. S had to work in Taiwan as a factory worker y to support her son. R, on the other hand, managed corporations and lived a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle. He only sent money for Ss schooling twice (1992 and 1993) and spent P7000 for the child s hospitalization childs in 1994. Other than that these, R never provided for any other financial support for his son. S wrote a letter to R in February 2000 to demand support for A hi h h l d f As high school education. R ignored the letter thus S i i d h l h filed a criminal complaint for abandonment and neglect of child under Article 59 (2) and (4) of PD 603.
G.R. No. 156013. July 25, 2006
Neglect of Child

FACTS: R claimed i hi counter-affidavit th t h hi l i d in his t ffid it that he himself is lf i financially incapacitated to support A and that he was just living off his fathers charity. S attached on her replyaffidavit a notarized copy of the General Information Sheet (GIS) of the RNCD Development Corporation which showed the petitioner owned P750, 000 worth of paid-up corporate shares.
G.R. No. 156013. July 25, 2006
Neglect of Child

LESSONS: R was guilty of neglect the child by not giving him the education which the familys station in life and financial conditions permit. There is a prima facie evidence that petitioner is in fact financially capable of supporting As education contrary to what he claimed. The contention that both parents should be guilty of neglecting the child s education in order for them to incur childs criminal liability is wrong. The crime can be committed by any parent. The law punishes the neglect of any parent falling under Article 59 (4) of PD 603. T allow the neglectful parent t shield himself from To ll th l tf l t to hi ld hi lf f criminal liability defeats the prescription that in all questions regarding the care, custody, education and property of the child, his welfare shall be the paramount consideration.
G.R. No. 156013. July 25, 2006
Bigamy
Tagabi, T b i T bi Tabaniag vs. T Tanque (496 SCRA 622)

CASE ISSUE: Di Direct attack vs. Collateral attack t tt k C ll t l tt k FACTS: A lot in Iloilo was held to be owned by G Later, P claimed G. Later a portion of the lot and planted palay and corn therein. The Bureau of Lands found that P encroached on a portion of Gs lot. G filed an action to recover ownership and possession. RTC ruled in f i l d i favor of G. P appealed. G filed a fG l d fil d motion to dismiss. CA ruled in favor of G.
G.R. No. 144024. July 27, 2006
Bigamy
Tagabi, T b i T bi Tabaniag vs. T Tanque (496 SCRA 622)

LESSONS:
Procedural rules ensure the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. A certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified, or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in , , y p g accordance with law. An action is considered as an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment p j g pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an action or proceeding is to annul, or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. i id h f
G.R. No. 144024. July 27, 2006
Marriage License
Sevilla S ill vs. Cardenas (497 SCRA 428) C d

FACTS: J filed a complaint before the RTC claiming that he was fil d l i tb f th l i i th t h only forced by the Cs father to marry C. He also claims that he never applied for the marriage license although a marriage license no. 2770792 was used for their marriage certificate and marriage contract. C refuted all of Js allegations. Js lawyer, Atty. A, had verified thrice with the Civil Registry of San Juan whether or not there exists a marriage license numbered 2770792. The Civil Registrar issued certifications from the Local Civil Registry of San Juan that "no marriage license no. 2770792 was ever issued by their office office. Pelita Mercader, Registrar Officer III of the Local Registry of San Juan identified the certificates issued by the Civil Registrar and testified that their office failed to locate the book wherein the marriage license no. 2770792 may have been registered.
G. R. No. 167684. July 31, 2006
Marriage License

FACTS: Th RTC declared their marriage null and void for the lack The d l d th i i ll d id f th l k of a marriage license. C filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals and the CA disagreed with the trial court. g Although Pelita Mercader testified that they failed to locate the book, their reason for this is that the employee who handled the book is already retired. This does not prove that there was no license issued issued.
G. R. No. 167684. July 31, 2006
Marriage License

LESSONS: Certifications issued by the Local Civil Registrar is given probative value but these certifications have to state that a document does not exist or a certain entry could no be found in the records of the Office of the Civil Registrar despite diligent search This certification will be enough search. proof or lack of absence of a record as stated in Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be p p g y y rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.
G. R. No. 167684. July 31, 2006
Family Home
Versola vs Court of Appeals (497 SCRA 385) vs.

Facts: S Spouses Versola purchased a house and lot f l h d h d l from L who h in turn owed private respondent, O, a certain amount of money To fix their debts, an agreement was made wherein the debts spouses would obtain a loan from A with their house and lot as mortgage and pay private respondent with said loan o A discovered that the property was being held as lien for another obligation of L so they did not release loan to the spouses P i t respondent fil d a Complaint f a Sum of Private d t filed C l i t for S f Money where the RTC as well as the CA ruled in her favor.
G.R. No. 164740. July 31, 2006
Family Home

Facts, continued: No other appeal was made so private respondent f l d a h l d d filed Motion for Execution (sale of the house and lot at a public auction), which was granted and the property was sold to private respondent Petitioners did not redeem their property during the period of redemption and filed their objections when private respondent filed an Ex parte Motion for Issuance of Confirmation of Judicial Sale of Real Property
G.R. No. 164740. July 31, 2006
Family Home

Lessons: Petitioners claim that the auction sale of the house and l h h l f h h d lot was invalid as it violated Articles 152-160 of the Family Code, which are provisions on the family home. Article 153 The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment o However, the right to exemption is a personal , g p p privilege granted to the debtor and such exemption should be claimed and proven by debtor before the public auction Th Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents The S C t l di f f th d t due to failure of petitioners to prove that the house and lot was their family home.
G.R. No. 164740. July 31, 2006
Filiation
Cruz vs. Cristobal (498 SCRA 37)

Facts: P titi Petitioners are M and A, heirs of the deceased S and E, dA h i f th d d dE claim they are legitimate children of B and I ( First Marriage) respondents N, F, U, and J are children of B Cristobal with p , , , his second wife D 18 June 1926 B purchased disputed parcel of land with 535 square meters located in San Juan, Metro Manila I 1930, B died intestate In 1930 di d i t t t More than six decades later, petitioners learned respondents executed an EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION of subject property and transferred its title to their names ubj p op y a d a d o a They filed a complaint for Annulment of Title and Damages before the RTC against respondents
G.R. No. 140422. August 07, 2006
Filiation

Facts, continued: T prove their fili ti To th i filiation with deceased B, Baptismal ith d d B B ti l Certificates of E, A, and the late S were presented while M ( born 31 January 1909) produced a Certification issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan Metro Manila attesting that records of birth for 1901,1909, 19321939, 1940, 1943, and 1948 were all destroyed They presented witness, T who testified petitioners enjoyed a common reputation in their community as children of B. with his first wife After trial, RTC dismissed the case saying petitioners were unable to prove filiation with B. Petitioners sought recourse to the Court of Appeals which ruled that although they were able to prove filiation through other means allowed by Rules of Court and Special Laws but affirmed the ruling of RTC barring right to recover their share of subject property due to laches
G.R. No. 140422. August 07, 2006
Filiation

Lesson: Th Court, in its ruling affirmed that the evidence The C t i it li ffi d th t th id presented by the petitioners to prove their Filiation was acceptable. The Court quoted Art.172 of the Family Code and emphasized the portion which said any other means allowed by Rules of Court and Special Laws and explained that this included the evidence the petitioners submitted Baptismal Certificates and the Certification from the Local Civil Registrar as well as the testimony of Ester Santos as g y to their common reputation of legitimacy.
G.R. No. 140422. August 07, 2006
Support
Lacson vs. Lacson (499 SCRA 677)

Facts: P titi Petitioner h b d l ft th conjugal h husband left the j l home. Si Since their th i separation, wife did not ask the husband for support, relying initially on a note of commitment by the husband to give support. Wife, in behalf of her two daughters, filed a complaint against husband for support RTC when first child was about to graduate from college. Husband contends that his lack of regular income and the unproductivity of the land he inherited, not his neglect, accounted for his failure at times to give regular support. Petitioner claims that he should not be made to pay support in arrears, since no previous extrajudicial nor judicial demand have been made by the respondents. SC held that requisite demand for support appears to have been already been made through the note that husband left in his wife.
G.R. No. 150644. August 28, 2006
Support
Lacson vs. Lacson (499 SCRA 677)

Lessons: A ki Asking one to comply with his obligation to support owing t l ith hi bli ti t t i to the urgency of the situation is no less than a demand because it came by way of a request or plea. Any third person may furnish support to a needy individual y p y pp y with the right of reimbursement from the person obliged to give support. Amount of support which those related by marriage and family relationship is generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to resources or means of the giver and to the needs of the recipient.
G.R. No. 150644. August 28, 2006
Unjust Enrichment
Villalva vs. RCBC Savings Bank (499 SCRA 774)

Facts: P titi Petitioner spouses i issued 48 checks to cover instalment d h k t i t l t payments due on promissory notes executed in favor Toyota, Quezon Avenue (TQA) for the purchase of a 93 Toyota Corolla. The promissory notes are secured by a Chattel Mortgage executed by the petitioner spouses in favor of TQA. Under the Deed of Chattel Mortgage, petitioners were to insure the vehicle against loss or damage damage. The promissory notes and chattel mortgage were assigned to RCBC Savings Bank. Evidence shows that petitioner spouses faithfully complied with obligation to insure the mortgage vehicle from 1993-1996. For the period of hi l f 1993 1996 F h i d f August 14, 1996-August 14,1997, petitioner spouses procured the necessary insurance but did not deliver the same until January 17,1997. Hence, respondent insured the mortgaged vehicle from October 21,1996-October 21, 1997.
G.R. No. 165661. August 28, 2006
Unjust Enrichment

Facts, continued: R Respondent sent l tt of demand to petitioners alleging d t t letter f d dt titi ll i unpaid obligations on promissory notes and mortgage, and demanded that petitioners surrender the mortgaged vehicle within five days from notice. Petitioner ignored demand letter. Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Replevin was then filed by respondent in MTC of Pasay. Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on the other hand was filed by petitioners. MTC ruled in favour of petitioners. RTC affirmed. CA reversed. Petition granted.
G.R. No. 165661. August 28, 2006
Unjust Enrichment

Lessons: P titi Petitioners did not d f lt i performance of th i t default in f f their obligation. As a rule, demand is required before a party may be considered in default. Due to mortgagees failure to notify the mortgagors prior to the application of the latters payments to the insurance premium, petitioners had not defaulted to their obligation. Respondents contend that its payment of insurance premiums on behalf of petitioners unjustly enriched the latter, in accordance with the provisions on quasicontractual obligations. Enrichment consists of every patrimonial, physical or moral advantage, so long as appreciable in money Petitioner spouses were not money. enriched when respondent obtained insurance coverage for the mortgaged vehicle as the petitioner spouses had already obtained the required insurance coverage from August 14, 1996-August 14,1997. 996 99
G.R. No. 165661. August 28, 2006
Waiver of Vested Right
Guy vs. Court of Appeals (502 SCRA 151)

Facts: RTC denied the Joint Manifestation to Dismiss and Court of Appeals affirmed the orders. Petitioner M contends that his diseased father, S, left no debts and that private respondents should have established their status as illegitimate children during the lifetime of S pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code Private respondent-minors K and O, represented by their mother R allege that they are the duly acknowledged illegitimate children of S who died intestate leaving an estate valued at P10,000,000.00 consisting of real and personal properties. Petitioner and his co-heirs assert that private respondents co heirs respondents claim had been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished by Rs Release and Waiver of Claim. Petition DENIED
G.R. No. 163707. September 15, 2006
Waiver of Vested Right
Guy vs. Court of Appeals (502 SCRA 151)

Lessons: Rs Release and Waiver Claim does not bar private Rs respondents from claiming successional rights. A waiver must be expressed in clear and equivocal terms. Article 1044 of the Civil Code provides that Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only be judicial authorization. o Parents and guardians may not renounce the inheritance of their wards without judicial approval. j pp Waiver cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.
G.R. No. 163707. September 15, 2006
Property Relations
Bautista vs. Silva (502 SCRA 334)

Facts: O M On March 3, 1988, P, husband of the respondent, executed h 3 1988 P h b d f th d t t d a deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioners by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney allegedly signed by N, the herein respondent. The respondent then found out about the transaction and filed a complaint for the annulment of the transaction by virtue of the prohibition contemplated under Art. 166 and Art 173 of the Civil Code Code. The trial court nullified the sale and the Court of Appeals affirmed said decision. Petitioners now appealed by Petition for Review on Certiorari contending that they are buyers for value in good faith and that if ever the SPA was a nullity, it only affects the share of the other spouse.
Property Relations
Bautista vs. Silva (502 SCRA 334)

Lessons: N llit of th sale of conjugal property contracted by the Nullity f the l f j l t t t d b th husband without the consent of the wife affects not only the share of the wife, but the entire property. All things being equal, a person transacting with a person g g q , p g p whose capacity to sell is restricted qualifies to be of good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller, as well as his capacity to sell, and he relied on the duly notarized special power of attorney attorney.
Mallion vs. Alcantara (506 SCRA 336)

Facts: O on O t b 24 1995, filed a case seeking the declaration October 24, 1995 fil d ki th d l ti of nullity of his marriage to E on the grounds of psychological incapacity (art. 36) RTC denies petition on the g p ground that p petitioner failed to adduce preponderant evidence. CA dismissed appeal in resolution because O failed to pay the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. period O files another case alleging that his marriage with E is null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. E prays that petition should be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata and forum shopping. RTC dismisses the second petition based on the grounds prayed upon by the E E.
G.R. No. 141528. October 31, 2006
Mallion vs. Alcantara (506 SCRA 336)

Lessons: Requirements of res judicata: (1) Final Judgment; (2) Court has jurisdiction; (3) Judgment or an order on the merits; (4) There is between the first and second actions identity of parties, of subject matter, and cause of action. Dual aspect of res judicata: bar by prior judgment/estoppel bar by verdict and conclusiveness of judgment First case and second case has different grounds but are the same cause of action. The cause of action is the declaration of nullity of petitioners marriage to respondent. llit f titi i t d t In the first case of psychological incapacity, petitioner impliedly conceded that the solemnization of marriage is valid since it is a requisite to raise the argument of psychological incapacity. In raising a case for declaration of nullity all possible grounds must be stated in the case.
G.R. No. 141528. October 31, 2006
Legal Separation
Ong vs. Ong (505 SCRA 76)

Facts: L ( titi (petitioner) filed a petition for legal separation against W ) fil d titi f l l ti i t (respondent) under Art.55(1) alleging the ground of repeated physical violence, threats, intimidation and grossly abusive conduct W denied the allegation claiming that although there was no day that he did not quarrel with L, it was not marked with physical violence RTC granted the petition for legal separation W appealed in the CA but it affirmed in toto the RTC decision In the appeal for a review, W contends that L filed the app a o , o d a d petition just to wrest the ownership and control of the conjugal properties and averred for the first time that since L was guilty of abandonment, the petition must be denied following Art 56(4) of the Family Code Art.
G.R. No. 153206. October 23, 2006
Legal Separation
Ong vs. Ong (505 SCRA 76)

Lessons: It was held that as a general rule, questions of fact cannot h ld th t l l ti ff t t be the subject of review except under exceptional circumstances. In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to show any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a judgment from questions of fact. Also, it was established that the SC, as the final arbiter, is bound to adopt the factual findings determined by the appellate and lower courts. As regards Ws contention on abandonment, the Court ruled that the abandonment referred to by the Family Code is abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one (1) year and as established, L left W due to his established abusive conduct. This does not constitute abandonment contemplated by the provision.
G.R. No. 153206. October 23, 2006
Annulment
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals (505 SCRA 564)

Facts: Petitioner was threatened by members of the New Peoples Army to marry Private Respondent. Petitioner anchored his prayer for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he did not freely consent to be married to the private respondent. h d The Court is not convinced that petitioners apprehension of danger is so overwhelming as to deprive him of the will to enter voluntarily to a contract of marriage.
Lessons: I order f In d for F Force and I i id i d Intimidation to b grounds f be d for nullity of lli f marriage, such force or intimidation must be sufficient to deprive the offended contract party of his will.
505 SCRA 564. October 27, 2006
Property Relations
Ferrer vs. Ferrer (508 SCRA 570)

Facts: J was the widow of A, half-brother of respondents M and I. th id f A h lf b th f d t dI Before their marriage, A acquired a lot. Through a loan with SSS, improvements were made thereon, such as a residential house and a two-door , apartment building. However, the loan was paid during the marriage using their conjugal funds. J claimed that a warehouse was constructed on the lot using conjugal funds J also averred that M occupied one door of the apartment building, as well as the warehouse but stopped paying rentals in September 1991 claiming that she had acquired ownership over the property by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by A in favor of M and I and their spouses
G.R. No. 166496. November 09, 2006
Property Relations

Facts, continued: J contended th t I and F d t d d that d deceived A into signing what he i d i t i i h th thought was his last will and testament but in fact was a Deed of Sale Upon discovery of this, A filed a Complaint for Annulment p y , p of Sale but was dismissed both in the RTC and CA J contended that she had the right to be reimbursed for half of the cost of the improvements on the lot which amounted to P500 000 P500,000. J sought from M and I moral and exemplary damages, litigation and incidental expenses. M and Is motion to dismiss was denied by RTC but was a d o o od a d d bu a granted by CA for failing to state a cause of action
G.R. No. 166496. November 09, 2006
Property Relations

Lessons: Article 120 provides the solution in determining the ownership of the improvements that are made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership. o When the cost of the improvement, the entire property of o eo t e one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal s a be o g t e co juga partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to p y p , j reimbursement of the cost of the improvement. Subject property of Alfredo was declared as exclusive property based on Article 120 of the Family Code; Owner-spouse has the obligation to reimburse the conjugal partnership or the spouse who expended the acts of efforts Respondents were the buyers of the property. Hence, they dont have the obligation to respect petitioners right to be reimbursed Validity of Deed of Sale was upheld with finality G.R. No. 166496. November 09, 2006
Family Home
Patricio vs. Dario III (507 SCRA 438)

Facts: D died leaving behind wife P and sons M and T. P, T Petitioner P and M intend to partition the residential house and terminate co-ownership; respondent T refuses. Trial court orders partition as follows: P, 4/6: M, 1/6: T, p , , , 1/6; and sale by public auction of the property. T holds that property cannot be partitioned even after 10 years lapse because his 12 year old son, F, is a minor beneficiary who resides in said home home. F is dependent on his father, not the grandmother for support. Therefore, there is no minor beneficiary and partition can proceed.
G.R. No. 170829. November 20, 2006
Family Home
Patricio vs. Dario III (507 SCRA 438)

Lessons: Art. Art 159: Family home continues even after death of one or both spouses for a period of 10 years OR for as long as there is a minor beneficiary. 3 requisites before minor beneficiary is entitled to Art. 159: (1) Limited to the following relationship: spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate or illegitimate brothers and sisters, unmarried person who is the family head; ( ) Actually living in the house; ( ) p ; (2) y g ; (3)Dependent for legal support upon the head of the family. Legal support: liability for legal support rests first upon closer relatives, and only moves to further relatives upon default (Art. 199) (Art Grandchildren cannot demand support directly from grandparents if they have parents who can support them, and vice versa. Support should come first from the nearest relatives, unless they are incapable of doing so.
G.R. No. 170829. November 20, 2006
Metropolitan Bank vs. CA (508 SCRA 215)

Facts: p , Private respondent was declared in default, the trial court rendered a Decision ordering him to pay petitioner the amounts mentioned therein. The Decision became final and executory. After executing on the various properties owned by private respondent, the trial court directed the sheriff to sell at public auction the Club Filipino share owned by private respondent. a Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of petitioner as purchaser of that share. Private respondent then filed a Motion to hold in abeyance the delivery of the Certificate of Sale and to declare the sale void. the trial court issued an Order denying the Motion of private respondent. Private Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.
G.R. No. 154685. November 27, 2006
Metropolitan vs. CA (508 SCRA 215)

Facts, continued: p pp questioning the g Private Respondent filed a notice of appeal q trial courts Order denying the Motion to hold in abeyance the delivery of the Club Filipino share and to declare the auction sale void. Petitioner contends that Private Respondent cannot appeal from the denial of the Motion to hold in abeyance the delivery of the Certificate of Sale and to declare the sale void. Lessons: If an order leaves something to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits of the case, it is interlocutory if it does not, it is final not final. Once determined to be final, the order may be the subject of an appeal, as in the present case.
G.R. No. 154685. November 27, 2006
Property Regime
Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda De Cas o upo e a s o a da e Castro (508 SCRA 593)
Facts: L h d an intimate relationship with Y, who was an had i ti t l ti hi ith Y h accountant for his two corporations despite being a married man. They started living together in 1983 and had two children y g g but parted ways after the birth of their second child L filed a complaint in the Makati City RTC against Y for the judicial partition between them of a parcel of land with improvements under De Castro s name located in Bel Air Castros Bel-Air. L alleged that the property was acquired during his union with Y as common-law husband and wife, hence the property is co-owned by them. L also alleged that the property was acquired by Y using HIS exclusive funds and the title was transferred to Ys name was without his knowledge and consent but he did not object because their relationship was still thriving at the time.
G.R. No. 168698. November 29, 2006
Property Regime
Facts, continued: Y denies Ls allegations stating that she acquired the d i L ll ti t ti th t h i d th property using HER exclusive funds. RTC ruled in favor of L ordering partition of the property in equal shares. q Y appealed to the CA maintaining the property was bought with her exclusive funds. The CA ruled in her favor, declaring the property to be exclusively owned by Y. L motion f reconsideration was d i d by the CA and is Ls ti for id ti denied b th di now claiming that Art 144 of the Civil Code should govern the property regime of L and Y, making L a co-owner of the Bel-Air property.
G.R. No. 168698. November 29, 2006
Property Regime
Lessons: The SC denied L s petition and affirmed the CAs decision Ls CA s decision. The CA correctly ruled under the provisions of Article 148 of the Family Code considering that there is a bigamous relationship on the part of L therefore only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions ... Proof of actual contribution is required. L was not able to prove his actual contribution. His contention should be proved by competent evidence and not rely on the weakness of the opponent s defense. opponents Given their relationship began before the Family Code, Art 148 of the Family Code was intended precisely to fill up the hiatus in Art 144 of the Civil Code which did not provide for property relations th t govern couples living i adultery or t l ti that l li i in d lt concubinage.
G.R. No. 168698. November 29, 2006
Property Relations
Carandang vs. Heirs of Quirino A. g Q De Guzman (508 SCRA 469)

Facts: Q and spouses C are stockholders as well as corporate officers of Mabuhay Broadcasting System (MBS). Spouses C subscribed to increases of the capital stock of MBS, in which Q claims that part of the payment for these subscriptions were paid by him Upon sending them a demand letter for the payment of the total amount, the spouses C refused to pay, contending that they had no indebtedness to Q, as a result of a prepre incorporation agreement between AC and Q. Q filed a collection complaint with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC rendered its judgment in favor of Q. This RTC Decision was affirmed by the CA, which also denied the D i i ffi d b th CA hi h l d i d th subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the spouses C. Thus this petition. Husband AC dies.
G.R. No. 160347. November 29, 2006
Property Relations
Carandang vs. Heirs of Q g Quirino A. De Guzman (508 SCRA 469)

Lessons: F marriages governed by the rules of conjugal For i d b th l f j l partnership of gains (as in the case at bar), an obligation entered into by the husband and wife is chargeable against the conjugal partnership. When the spouses are sued for the enforcement of such obligation, they are being impleaded in their capacity as representatives of the conjugal partnership and not as independent debtors such that the concept of joint and debtors, solidary liability, as between them, does not apply. Hence, either of them may be sued for the whole amount, similar to that of a solidary liability, although the amount is chargeable against their conjugal partnership property h bl i h i j l hi
G.R. No. 160347. November 29, 2006
CPG
Security Bank and Trust Company vs. y p y Mar Tierra Corporation (508 SCRA 419)
Facts: M Tierra Corporation, through its president, W entered Mar Ti C ti th h it id t t d into a credit line agreement with Security Bank and Trust Company secured by an indemnity agreement executed by individual respondents M, L and R who bound themselves jointly and severally with respondent corporation for the payment of the loan. Respondent was only able to pay P4,648,000 for the principal loan and P2 729 195 56 of the credit line it P2,729,195.56 received for P9,952,000 because it suffered business reversals and eventually ceased operations in 1984. Petitioner appeals the lifting of the RTC of the attachment on the conjugal house and lot of the spouses M. h j lh dl f h M
G.R. No. 143382. November 29, 2006
CPG
Security Bank and Trust Company vs. y p y Mar Tierra Corporation (508 SCRA 419)
Lessons: I acting as a guarantor or surety for another, the In ti t t f th th husband does not act for the benefit of the conjugal partnership as the benefit is clearly intended for a third party. Proof must be presented to establish the benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership Petitioner has the burden of proving that the conjugal partnership of the spouses M benefited from the transaction.
G.R. No. 143382. November 29, 2006
CPG
Metropolitan Bank and Trust p Company vs. Tan (509 SCRA 383)
Facts: M t b k applied f an extrajudicial f Metrobank li d for t j di i l foreclosure on four l f parcels of land including one that covered by TCT 53267 which was registered in the name of J who was referred to as married to E E assailed that she never gave her consent or conformity to encumber the title in question
G.R. No. 163712. November 30, 2006
CPG
Metropolitan Bank and Trust p Company vs. Tan (509 SCRA 383)
Lessons: Th phrase married t E i merely descriptive of th civil The h i d to is l d i ti f the i il status of J, and it is not proof that such property was acquired during the marriage The presumption under article 116 of the Family code p p y cannot apply without proof that the acquisition was during the marriage Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts o It is possible that it was acquired while respondent was single, and only registered after marriage o Proof o a qu oo of acquisition is a condition sine qua non for the o o d o o o operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal ownership
G.R. No. 163712. November 30, 2006
Filiation
Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals (509 SCRA 113)

Facts: D owner of two parcels of land, was survived by her only D, ft l fl d i db h l son, P. P files with Supreme Court a complaint for cancellation of certificate of title and injunction against spouses R who j g p alleged that P was not the son of D. Spouses R assert that subject lots were the conjugal property of D and F, from whom R indirectly bought the same as he was the sole surviving heir heir. P presents his birth certificate indicating his mother was D, Ds statement of assets, income and liabilities indicating P as her son, and Ds income tax returns where she claimed personal exemption as head of the family and stated that she was separated from her husband and claimed an exemption for her son P as evidences that he was the illegitimate son of D.
G.R. No. 135817. November 30, 2006
Filiation
Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals (509 SCRA 113)

Lesson: Th court has laid down the manner of establishing filiation The t h l id d th f t bli hi fili ti of children, whether legitimate or illegitimate: record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or an admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence thereof the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Acts of due recognition and acknowledgement also include a birth record, a will, a statement before a court of record, or i any authentic writing, which does not even require a in h i ii hi h d i separate action for judicial approval.
G.R. No. 135817. November 30, 2006
Uypitching vs. Quiamco (510 SCRA 172)

Facts: D G and E surrendered to respondent a motorcycle (with D, d d dt d t t l ( ith no original certificate of registration) to amicably settle the civil aspect of a criminal case for robbery filed by respondent against them. Said motorcycle was mortgaged by G to petitioner corporation. D assumed obligation of G and when he stopped paying the remaining installments, he told petitioner s petitioners collector that motorcycle been taken by taken respondents men. Petitioner, accompanied by policemen, went to AvescoAVNE Enterprises, respondents business establishment, to recover the motorcycle. Petitioner paced back and forth h l P ii db k df h inside the establishment uttering Q is a thief of a motorcycle. Unable to find respondent, the policemen on petitioners instruction, took the motorcycle.
G.R. No. 146322. December 06, 2006

Facts: P titi Petitioner fil d a criminal complaint f qualified theft filed i i l l i t for lifi d th ft and/or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. against respondent. Case was dismissed by City Prosecutor. Respondent filed an action for damages against p p g g petitioners in the RTC for the following: (1) unlawful taking of the motorcycle; (2) utterance of a defamatory remark (that respondent was a thief) and (3) precipitate filing of a baseless and malicious complaint complaint. On appeal, Supreme Court held petitioner liable for damages not only for instituting a groundless complaint against respondent but also for making a slanderous remark and for taking the motorcycle from respondents k df ki h l f d establishment in an abusive manner.
G.R. No. 146322. December 06, 2006
Lessons: L Article 19, also known as the principle of abuse of right, prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens y y g , p himself to liability. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised at the expense of another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not prejudice anyone; there being no intention to harm. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.
G.R. No. 146322. December 06, 2006
2007 Cases
Change of Name
Republic vs. Trinidad Capote (G.R. No. 157043, 02-02-07) vs (G R No 157043

CASE ISSUE:
W/N proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature so as to permit the change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
FACTS:
Trinidad R.A. Capote fil d a petition f change of name of h ward from T i id d R A C t filed titi for h f f her df Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores as guardian ad litem Minor Giovanni is the illegitimate natural child of Corazon Nadores and Diosdado Gallamoso, born on 09 July 1982 (prior to effectivity of the Family Code) and is using the surname of his natural father despite not being recognized by his father Minor now desires to have his surname changed to that of his mother. Giovannis mother might eventually petition for him to join her in the US and his use of the surname Gallamaso may complicate his status as a natural child. It has been found that the change of name will be for the benefit of the minor Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, without any opposition, the trial court granted the petition for change of name Petitioner Republic filed an appeal on the grounds that the court a quo erred in g anting the petition in a s mma proceeding. granting summary p oceeding CA affirmed the decision ruling that the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature. SC affirms the decision of both the CA and RTC
G.R. No. 157043. February 2, 2007
Change of Name
Republic vs. Trinidad Capote (G.R. No. 157043, 02-02-07) vs (G R No 157043

LESSONS: Based on Art 366 of the Civil Code in effect when Giovanni was born: Art. 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of the father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent (emphasis parent. ours) Giovanni should have carried his mothers surname from birth. Even the Family Code which repealed Art 366 makes a similar provision Art. 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. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis ours) A petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court was the proper remedy Capote also complied with the requirement of posting the notice of the filing of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. G.R. No. 157043. February 2, 2007
Divorce
San Luis vs. San Luis (G R No 133743, 02-07-07) vs (G.R. No. 133743
CASE ISSUE: W/N the divorce decree issued by another foreign country to an alien spouse allows the Filipino spouse to remarry again under Philippine law. FACTS: F, contracted three marriages in his lifetime. His first marriage with V was terminated when the latter died in 1963. After 5 years, he validly married M, which the latter divorced in Hawaii in 1973 He then married S in California USA in 1974 F died 1973. 1974. in 1992, leaving real properties with an estimated amount of P30 M. The deceased left no unpaid debts. S sought for the dissolution of the conjugal assets and Fs estate and she filed letters of administration in Makati RTC. d h fil d l f d i i i i M k i RTC Children of F by the first marriage, challenged the claim of S that she be the administrator of the estate of the deceased. They claim that her marriage to F was void since F was still legally married with M. They also prayed that Par.2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code not be given a retroactive effect. G.R. No. 133743/G.R. No. 134029. February 6, 2007
Divorce
San Luis vs. San Luis (G R No 133743, 02-07-07) vs (G.R. No. 133743
LESSONS:
There is no need to apply Article 26 retroactively because during the time of the marriage between F and S, there was already sufficient jurisprudential basis to validate the marriage particularly Van Dorn vs. Romillo. The Van Dorn case revolved around the marriage of a Filipino g p woman to a foreigner and whether or not a divorce filed by the foreigner freed the Filipino woman from responsibilities to the marriage, particularly as to properties. The Court ruled in that case that as to the effect of the divorce on the Filipino woman, that she should no longer be considered th Fili i th t h h ld l b id d married to the alien spouse and that she be no longer required to perform her marital duties and obligations. Article 26 is in fact only a codification of Van Dorns precedent. Indeed, Indeed when the object of a marriage is defeated by rendering its continuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of no possible good to the community, relief in some way should be obtainable. Marriage, being a mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the marital bond while the other remains bound to it. Such is the state of affairs where the alien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad against the Filipino spouse
G.R. No. 133743/G.R. No. 134029. February 6, 2007
Navarro vs Cecillo-Navarro (G R No 162049, 04-13-07) vs. (G.R. No. 162049

CASE ISSUE: Psychological incapacity alleged FACTS: Dr. N and C are spouses with 4 children. Dr. N claims that respondent doesnt support him in his profession and would constantly quarrel with him, thus making him distraught, harassed, and unhappy. C meanwhile claims that petitioner doesnt have time for his family and that he had an affair with a certain Dr. L. f il d h h h d ff i ih i D L Dr. N sought for nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila, and RTC declared both parties psychologically incapacitated, thus making the marriage void. CA reversed the decision saying that parties are not psychologically incapacitated, thus the marriage still subsists.
G.R. No. 162049. April 13, 2007
Navarro vs Cecillo-Navarro (G R No 162049, 04-13-07) vs. (G.R. No. 162049

LESSONS: The intent of the law is to is to limit the scope of psychological incapacity to incurable and serious cases of personality disorders, existing at the time of marriage, that demonstrate ones lack of capacity, sensitivity or understanding to the meaning and significance of marriage It must be apparent marriage. that some psychological illness is the reason why incapability to perform ones essential marital obligations is present. Frequent quarrels, disagreements, bickerings, scandalous outbursts i public, and other similar things d l b in bli d h i il hi only show, at the most, the spouses immaturity and not psychological incapacity.
G.R. No. 162049. April 13, 2007
Filiation
Verceles vs Posada (G R No 159785, 04-27-07) vs. (G.R. No. 159785

CASE ISSUE: Proof of illegitimate filiation FACTS:
Respondent C and Petitioner T (then Mayor of Pandan, Catanduanes) had an affair in 1986 when the former worked as a casual employee in his office. In January 1987, C missed her monthly menstruation and wrote to T to inform him she feared she was pregnant. In February 1987, she told him she was pregnant In a HANDWRITTEN LETTER dated Feb, 4,1987, T said that he shall have no regret should C be pregnant and that he shall take care of the child and let it see the light of the beautiful world C filed a complaint for damages coupled with support pendente lite against T before the Virac, Catanduanes RTC and it issued a judgement in her favor and ordered T to pay monthly support as he was proven to be the natural father f C's d f th of C' daughter. ht T asserts that the fact of paternity and filiation of C's daughter has not been duly established or proven and that the issue of filiation should be resolved in a direct and not collateral action. T claims that he never signed the Birth Certificate and it was C who placed his name on it as father without his consent. He claimed that the letters he sent were not admissions of paternity but just expressed advice and concern
G.R. No. 159785. April 27, 2007
Filiation
Verceles vs Posada (G R No 159785, 04-27-07) vs. (G.R. No. 159785

LESSONS:
The caption is not determinative of the nature of a pleading It is pleading. not the caption but the facts alleged which give meaning to a pleading. Courts are called upon to pierce the form and go into the substance thereof. In determining the nature of an action, it is not the caption, but the averments in the petition and the character of the relief sought, that are controlling.
In this case, Cs claims, her meeting with petitioner, his offer of a job, his amorous advances, her seduction, their trysts, her pregnancy, birth of her child, his letters, her demand for support for her child, all clearly establish a case for recognition of paternity.
The Supreme Court has held that the due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgement of the child, and no further court action is required In fact any authentic writing is required. fact, treated not just a ground for compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for judicial approval.
G.R. No. 159785. April 27, 2007
END

Persons and Family Relations Cases Slides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Persons and Family Relations Cases Slides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

04-07 Persons Cases

Atty. Melencio S. Sta. Maria

Dedel vs. Court of Appeals (421 SCRA 461) vs

Dedel vs. Court of Appeals (421 SCRA 461) vs

Morigo vs. People (422 SCRA 376) vs

G.R. No. 145226. February 6, 2004

Morigo vs. People (422 SCRA 376) vs

Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272) vs

G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004

Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272) vs

G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Ching vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 357) vs

G.R. No. 124642. February 23, 2004

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Ching vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 357) vs

G.R. No. 124642. February 23, 2004

Lam vs. Chua (426 SCRA 29) vs

Lam vs. Chua (426 SCRA 29) vs

G.R. No. 131286. March 18, 2004

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals (427 SCRA 439) vs

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Villanueva vs Court of Appeals (427 SCRA 439) vs.

G.R. No. 143286. April 14, 2004

Eceta vs. Eceta (428 SCRA 783) vs

G.R. No. 157037. May 20, 2004

Eceta vs. Eceta (428 SCRA 783) vs

G.R. No. 157037. May 20, 2004

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735) vs

G.R. No. 149498. May 20, 2004

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735) vs

G.R. No. 149498. May 20, 2004

Joaquino vs. Reyes (434 SCRA 260) vs

G.R. No. 154645. July 13, 2004

Joaquino vs. Reyes (434 SCRA 260) vs

G.R. No. 154645. July 13, 2004

Corpus vs. Ochotorena (435 SCRA 447) vs

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1861. July 30, 2004

Abalos vs. Macatangay (439 SCRA 649) vs

G.R. No. 155043. September 30, 2004

Abalos vs. Macatangay (439 SCRA 649) vs

G.R. No. 155043. September 30, 2004

Briones vs. Miguel (440 SCRA 455) vs

Briones vs. Miguel (440 SCRA 455) vs

G.R. No. 156343. October 18, 2004

Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals (441 SCRA 96) vs

Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals (441 SCRA 96) vs

G.R. No. 124814. October 21, 2004

Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco (441 SCRA 422) vs.

Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco (441 SCRA 422) vs.

Abuse of Right Doctrine

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. CA (445 SCRA 500)

G.R. No. 137916. December 8, 2004

Abuse of Right Doctrine

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. CA (445 SCRA 500)

G.R. No. 137916. December 8, 2004

Summary Judicial Proceeding

Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (449 SCRA 57) vs

G.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005

Summary Judicial Proceeding

Republic vs. Bermudez-Lorino (449 SCRA 57) vs

G.R. No. 160258. January 19, 2005

Tan vs. Adre (450 SCRA 145) vs