Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: Private respondent Tan Put alleged that she is the widow of Tee
Hoon Lim PoChuan, who was a partner and practically the owner who has
controllinginterest of Glory Commercial Company and a Chinese Citizen
until hisdeath. Defendant Antonio Lim Tanhu and Alfonso Leonardo Ng Sua
were partners in name but they were mere employees of Po Chuan and we
renaturalized Filipino Citizens. Tan Put filed complaint against spousespetitonerLim Tanhu and Dy Ochay including their son Tech Chuan and the
otherspouses-petitoner Ng Sua and Co Oyo including also their son Eng
ChongLeonardo, that through fraud and machination took actual and
activemanagement of the partnership and that she alleged entitlement to
share notonly in the capital and profits of the partnership but also in the
otherassets, both real and personal, acquired by the partnership with fund
s of the latterduring its lifetime."According to the petitioners, Ang Siok Tin
is the legitimate wife, still living,and with whom Tee Hoon had four
legitimate children, a twin born in 1942,and two others born in 1949 and
1965, all presently residing in Hong Kong.Tee Hoon died in 1966 and as a
result of which the partnership was dissolvedand what corresponded to
him were all given to his legitimate wife andchildren.Tan Put prior of her
alleged marriage with Tee Hoon on 1949, was engaged inthe drugstore
business; that not long after her marriage, upon the suggestion ofthe latter
sold her drugstore for P125,000.00 which amount she gave to herhusband
as investment in Glory Commercial Co. sometime in 1950; that afterthe
investment of the above-stated amount in the partnership its
businessflourished and it embarked in the import business and also
engaged in thewholesale and retail trade of cement and GI sheets and
under huge profits.Defendants interpose that Tan Put knew and was are
that she was merely thecommon-law wife of Tee Hoon. Tan Put and Tee
Hoon were childless but theformer had a foster child, Antonio Nunez.
ISSUE:Whether Tan Put, as she alleged being married with Tee Hoon, can
claim from the company of the latters share.
HELD: Under Article 55 of the Civil Code, the declaration of the
contracting parties that they take each other as husband and wife "shall be
set forth in aninstrument" signed by the parties as well as by their
witnesses and the personsolemnizing the marriage. Accordingly, the
her brother with the consent of Cardenas. The baby was brought in the US
and in Castros earnest desire to follow her daughter wanted to put in
order her marital status before leaving for US. She filed a petition seeking a
declaration for the nullity of her marriage. Her lawyer then found out that
there was no marriage license issued prior to the celebration of their
marriage proven by the certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig.
ISSUE: Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence resorted
to by Castro is sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued
to the parties prior to the solemnization of their marriage.
HELD: The court affirmed the decision of CA that the certification issued by
the Civil Registrar unaccompanied by any circumstances of suspicion
sufficiently prove that the office did not issue a marriage license to the
contracting parties. Albeit the fact that the testimony of Castro is not
supported by any other witnesses is not a ground to deny her petition
because of the peculiar circumstances of her case. Furthermore, Cardenas
was duly served with notice of the proceedings, which he chose to ignore.
Under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and testimonial
evidence presented by private respondent Castro sufficiently established
the absence of the subject marriage license.
Garcia vs. Recio
Facts: Article 26; The respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to
Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together
as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, the Australian family court
issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the marriage. In 1992,
respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In 1994, he married Grace
Garcia, a Filipina, herein petitioner, inCabanatuan City. In their application
for marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino.
Since October 1995, they lived separately, and in 1996 while in Australia,
their conjugal assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, claiming that
she learned of the respondents former marriage only in November. On the
other hand, respondent claims that he told petitioner of his prior marriage
in 1993, before they were married. Respondent also contended that his
first marriage was dissolved by a divorce a decree obtained in Australia in
Germany. He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they
had been living apart since April 1982. On January 15, 1986, Schoneberg
Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of
marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to
petitioner. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal
separation, support and separation of property before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila on January 23, 1983. More than five months after the
issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for
adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married to
said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as
early as 1982 and with yet another man named James Chua sometime in
1983". On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order,
seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion
to quash.
Issue: Whether or not the criminal cases filed by the German ex-spouse
may prosper.
Ruling: Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery
cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the
offended spouse. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the
offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such
initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at
the time of the filing of the criminal action. Hence, Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still
subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery.
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid
divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as
private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our
civil law on the matter of status of persons. Private respondent, being no
longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the
adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the
time he filed suit.
the marriage contracts of the following couples did not reflect any
marriage license number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign the
marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization
reasoning out that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be
submitted by the parties which happens usually several days after the
marriage ceremony.
Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano & Edralin falls under
Article 34 of the Civil Code thus exempted from the marriage license
requirement. According to him, he gave strict instructions to complainant
Sambo to furnish the couple copy of the marriage contract and to file the
same with the civil registrar but the latter failed to do so. In order to solve
the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized the marriage by
securing a marriage license and executing their marriage contract, a copy
of which was then filed with the civil registrar. The other five marriages
were not illegally solemnized because Palaypayon did not sign their
marriage contracts and the date and place of marriage are not included. It
was alleged that copies of these marriage contracts are in the custody of
complainant Sambo. The alleged marriage of Selpo & Carrido, Terrobias &
Gacer, Gamay & Belga, Sabater & Nacario were not celebrated by him
since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a marriage license
and that the marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte was celebrated even without
the requisite license due to the insistence of the parties to avoid
embarrassment with the guests which he again did not sign the marriage
contract.
An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged against the respondents.
FACTS: Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 26, 1953 and
contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime. He acquired the Muntinlupa
Estate while he was still a bachelor. He had 4 children with his first wife
Eusebia Montellano, who died in 1904 namely Baldomera, Maria del
Rosario, Urbano and Ireneo. Baldomera had 7 children namely Antero,
Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico, all surnamed
Espina. Ireneo on the other hand had a son named Ruperto. On the other
hand, Lupos second wife is Flaviana Montellano where they had a
daughter named Cresenciana. Lupo got married for the third time in 1930
with Felipa Velasco and had 3 children namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina.
Jacinto testified that his parents got married before a Justice of the Peace
of Taguig Rizal. The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife,
and were known in the community to be such.
Lupos descendants by his first and second marriages executed a deed of
extrajudicial partition whereby they adjudicated themselves Lot NO. 163 of
the Muntinlupa Estate and was subjected to a voluntary registration
proceedings and a decree ordering the registration of the lot was issued.
The siblings in the third marriage prayed for inclusion in the partition of
the estate of their deceased father and annulment of the deed of
extrajudicial partition dated Dec. 1967.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in the absence of
a marriage license.
HELD: Although no marriage certificate was introduced to prove Lupo and
Felipas marriage, no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these
facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does
not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are
present.
Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken
place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a
woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there
being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that
things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the
ordinary habits of life.
Hence, Felipas children are legitimate and therefore have successional
rights.
mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first
night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to
have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Ginas
relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the
defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a
rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they
slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical
examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result
of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the
husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were
allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain
his residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile
with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to
have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has no
defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since
their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences.
Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the
result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of
erection.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his
wife constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD: The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his
marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to
the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the
meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his
or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and
constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological
and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate,
in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can
always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem.
Wherefore, his petition was denied.
publication, thus, Lolita filed a motion to refer the case to the prosecutor
for investigation.
ISSUE: Whether Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligation.
HELD: The Court is mindful of the 1987 Constitution to protect and
strengthen the family as basic autonomous social institution and marriage
as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the validity of the marriage.
Toshios act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was
never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness.
Although as rule, actual medical examinations are not needed, it would
have greatly helped Lolita had she presented evidence that medically or
clinically identified Toshios illness. This could have been done through an
expert witness. It is essential that a person show incapability of doing
marital obligation due to some psychological, not physical illness. Hence,
Toshio was not considered as psychologically incapacitated.
Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and
deportation which shows latters psychological incapacity because
according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him
behind bars but also to banish outside the country.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
HELD: The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial
of the case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of
his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of
discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about
three aspects of Lenis personality namely lack of attention to children,
immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of
these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a
refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere
showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not
constitute psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to
identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It
just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that
could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality
of evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or
psychological examination.
Facts: David Debel met Sharon Corpuz while he was working in the
advertising business of his father. The acquaintance led to courtship and
romantic relations, culminating into marriage before the City Court of
Pasay on September 28, 1966. On May 20, 1967, the civil marriage was
ratified in a church wedding. The union produced four children. The
petitioner avers that during the marriage Sharon turned out to be an
irresponsible and immature wife and mother. She had an illicit affair with
several men and then later to a Jordanian national named Ibrahim. Sharon
was once confined for psychiatric treatment but she didnt stop her illicit
relationship with the Jordanian national whom she married and whom she
had two children. Ibrahim left Sharon so she returned back to the
petitioner who had accepted her back. However on December 9, 1995,
Sharon abandoned the petitioner and joined Ibrahim in Jordan with their
two children. After giving up all hope for reconciliation, petitioner filed on
April 1, 1997 a petition seeking the declaration of nullity of his marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity. The RTC granted the nullity of the
marriage. It was appealed in the CA which set aside the decision of RTC
and ordered dismissal of the case. Hence, the instant petition was filed to
the Supreme Court.
first marriage is null and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was married
to another woman before their marriage.
ISSUE: Whether Karls marriage with Lilia is void.
HELD: It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was
vitiated with force because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such
marriage is valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it
is clear that when she married Karl, she is still validly married to her first
husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there is no
need of introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then such
marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration before he can
remarry. Accordingly, Karl and Lilias marriage are regarded void under the
law.
Domingo vs. CA
FACTS: Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, filed a
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of
property. She did not know that Domingo had been previously married to
Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She came to know the previous marriage
when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she
came home from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she
discovered that Roberto cohabited with another woman and had been
disposing some of her properties which is administered by Roberto. The
latter claims that because their marriage was void ab initio, the declaration
of such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand,
Soledad insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the
purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the separation
and distribution of properties acquired during the marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration should only be
filed for purposes of remarriage.