LEYTE COLLEGES

Tacloban City, Leyte

Persons
Pierre Seth Dela Cruz
1-B
Student name

Law
Section

Table of Contents:
Dela Cruz vs. Gracia -------------------------- 2
Quita vs. CA

-------------------------- 4

Republic vs. Orbecido III -------------------------- 6

DELA CRUZ vs. GRACIA

G.R. No. 177728
1 | Page

Facts:
For several months in 2005, then 21-year old
petitioner Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz (Jenie) and then 19year old Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino
(Dominique) lived together as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage.
On September 4, 2005, Dominique died. After almost
two months, or on November 2, 2005, Jenie, who continued
to live with Dominiques parents, gave birth to her herein
co-petitioner minor child Christian Dela Cruz Aquino.
Jenie applied for registration of the childs birth, using
Dominiques surname Aquino, with the Office of the City Civil
Registrar, Antipolo City. She submitted the following
documents:

Certificate of Live Birth

Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF)
Affidavit of Acknowledgement
Dominiquess Autobiography that he himself wrote
in his own handwriting during his lifetime. The
pertinent portions of which read:
AQUINO, CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE S.T.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
IM CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE STO. TOMAS AQUINO, 19 YEARS OF AGE
TURNING 20 THIS COMING OCTOBER 31, 2005.I RESIDE A T PULANG-LUPA
STREET BRGY . DULUMBAYAN, TERESA, RIZAL. I AM THE YOUNGEST IN OUR
FAMILY. I HAVE ONE BROTHER NAMED JOSEPH BUTCH STO. TOMAS AQUINO.
MY FATHERS NAME IS DOMINGO BUTCH AQUINO AND MY MOTHERS NAME IS
RAQUEL STO. TOMAS AQUINO. x x x.
xxxx
AS OF NOW I HA VE MY WIFE NAMED JENIE DELA CRUZ . WE MET EACH
OTHER IN OUR HOMETOWN, TEREZA RIZAL. AT FIRST WE BECAME GOOD
FRIENDS, THEN WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER, THEN WE BECAME
GOOD COUPLES .
AND AS OF NOW SHE IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE LIVE TOGETHER
IN OUR HOUSE NOW. THATS ALL.

The City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City, Ronald Paul S.

Gracia (respondent), denied Jenies application for
registration of the childs name on the basis of Rule 7 of
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 (Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 [An Act
Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of their
Father, Amending for the Purpose, Article 176 of Executive
Order No. 209, otherwise Known as the Family Code of the
Philippines]), providing the requirements for the child to
2 | Page

use the surname of the father. In summary, the child cannot

use the surname of his father because he was born out of
wedlock and the father unfortunately died prior to his birth
and has no more capacity to acknowledge his paternity to
the child.
Jenie and the child promptly filed a complaint for
injunction/registration of name against respondent before
the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. The complaint
alleged that the denial of registration of the childs name is a
violation of his right to use the surname of his deceased
father under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by
R.A. 9255. They maintained that the Autobiography executed
by Dominique constitutes an admission of paternity in a
private handwritten instrument within the contemplation
of the above-quoted provision of law.
The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of
cause of action as the autobiography was unsigned, citing
paragraph 2.2, Rule 2 of A.O. No. 1, series of 2004 (IRR of RA
9255).
Issue:
Whether or not the unsigned handwritten statement of
the deceased father of minor Christian Dela Cruz can be
considered as a recognition of paternity in a Private
Handwritten Instrument within the contemplation of Article
176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, which
entitles the said minor to use his fathers surname.
Ruling:
The petition was granted. The City Civil Registrar of
Antipolo City is DIRECTED to immediately enter the surname
of the late Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino as the
surname of petitioner minor Christian dela Cruz in his
Certificate of Live Birth, and record the same in the Register
of Births.

3 | Page

QUITA vs. CA
[ G .R. No. 124862. December 22, 1998]
Facts:
Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were
married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They were not
however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way
their relationship soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for
divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in
the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950
evidencing their agreement to live separately from each
other and a settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23
July 1954 she obtained a final judgement of divorce.
On 16 April 1972 Arturo died and left no will.
Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as Blandina
Padlan) was claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo
and that they have six (6) children namely, Claro, Alexis,
Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda. Arturo and
Blandina were married on 22 April 1947.
Later, a certain Ruperto T. Padlan claimed to be the sole
surviving brother of Arturo. The trial court found that he was
indeed as claimed.
The trial court, invoking the decision in Tenchavez v.
Escano, disregarded the divorce between Fe and Arturo.
Consequently, it expressed the view that their marriage
subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972. Thus, the
marriage between Blandina and Arturo was clearly void since
it was celebrated during the existence of Arturos previous
marriage to Fe. Blandina was not declared as an heir. Partial
reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children
entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto
Padlan, and petitioner to the other half.
Blandina appealed to the CA stating that the trial court
erred in deciding on the case without a hearing, in violation
of Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that
if there is a controversy before the court as to who are the
lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive
shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the
controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.
She further stressed that the citizenship of Fe at the time
4 | Page

when she obtained the divorce decree was relevant and

critical in resolving the issue as to who is the lawful heir as
the surviving spouse.
CA found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the
appeal; hence, on 11 September 1995 it declared the
decision of the trial court dated 27 November 1987 and 15
February 1988. CA directed the remand of the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.
Fe insists that there is no need to remand the case to
the trial court for further proceedings
Issue:
Whether or not the case should be remanded to the
trial court for further proceeding?
Between Fe and Blandina, who is the lawful heir as the
surviving spouse of Arturo?
Ruling:
The decision of the respondent CA ordering the remand
of the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and
declaring null and void its decision holding petitioner Fe D.
Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFIRMED.
The order of the appellate court modifying its previous
decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the net hereditary
estate to the Padlan children is likewise affirmed.

5 | Page

REPUBLIC vs. ORBECIDO III

G.R. No. 154380
Facts:
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady
Myros M.
Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in
the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis Ci ty . Their marriage was
blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer and Lady
Kimberly V. Orbecido.
In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States
bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later,
Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an
American citizen.
Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that
his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a
certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him
currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel ,
California.
Cipriano thereafter filed with the tri al court a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of
Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed.
Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the
same.
The Republic , herein petitioner ,through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it
was denied.
The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26
of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant
case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage;
that is , a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen
and an alien. The proper remedy ,according to the
OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal
separation. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no
law that governs respondents situation. The OSG posits
that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial
determination.
Issue:
6 | Page

Whether or not respondent can remarry under

article 26 of the family code.
Ruling:
The petition of the Republic of the Philippines is
GRANTED. The decision of the trial court was set aside.
Though the SC is unanimous in holding that Art 26 is indeed
applicable to the respondent but it is settled rule that one
who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere
allegation is not evidence.

7 | Page