Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
GR No. 83598, March 7, 1997
FACTS:
Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog filed an
action for partition and accounting against
their Aunt Leoncia and Uncle Gaudioso for
partition and accounting of their grandparents
estate at the Court of First Instance of Cebu
City which was granted by the latter. Leoncia
and Gaudioso appealed to the Court of Appeals
but the latter affirmed the lower courts
decision.
Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died
intestate in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They
have three children, Leoncia, Gaudioso and
Gavino, their older brother who died in 1935.
Ramoncito and Generoso was claiming that
they were the legitimate children of Gavino by
Catalina Ubas and that, as such they were
entitled to the one-third share in the estate of
their grandparents. However, Leoncia and
Gaudioso claimed they are not aware that their
brother has 2 sons and that he was married.
They started to question the validity of the
marriage between their brother Gavino and
Catalina despite how Gaudioso himself
admitted during a police investigation
proceeding that indeed Ramonito is his nephew
as the latter is the son of his elder brother
Gavino.
In the efforts of Ramoncito and Generoso to
prove the validity of their parents marriage,
they presented Priscilo Trazo, 81 years old then
mayor of Asturias from 1928 to 1934 and
Matias Pogoy who both testified that he knew
Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife
and that they have three children. Catalina
herself testified that she was handed a
receipt presumably the marriage certificate
by Fr. Jomao-as but it was burned during the
war.
On the other hand,Leoncia claimed that her
brother Gavino died single at the family
residence in Asturias. She obtained a certificate
from the local Civil Registrar of Asturias to the
effect that the office did not have a record of
the names of Gavino and Catalina which was
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Mallion v. Alcantara
GR No. 141528October 31, 2006
Facts:
Issue:
in
the Philippines;
afterwhich,
they
bore
three
spouse.
In 1987, the RTC granted her petition, stating that
Lorenzos divorce decree was void and inapplicable in
the Philippines and therefore his marriage to Alicia
Held:
FACTS:
Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones
on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children
namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners.
Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa,
the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the
children under the guardianship of Engrace
Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and
Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage license. They instituted an affidavit
stating that they had lived together for at least
5 years exempting from securing the marriage
license. Pepito died in a car accident on
February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the
marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that
said marriage was void for lack of marriage
license.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the second marriage of
Pepito was void?
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased
may file for the declaration of the nullity of
Pepitos marriage after his death?
HELD:
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for
absence of the marriage license. They cannot
be exempted even though they instituted an
affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at
least 5 years because from the time of Pepitos
first marriage was dissolved to the time of his
marriage with Norma, only about 20 months
had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife
had separated in fact, and thereafter both
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under
Article 26(2).
Ruling:
Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies
to case where at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner. The instant case is one where
at the time the marriage was solemnized, the
parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on,
the wife was naturalized as an American citizen
and subsequently obtained a divorce granting
her capacity to remarry, and indeed she
remarried an American citizen while residing in
the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26
does not apply to the instant case.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the
parties at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a
valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
In this case, when Ciprianos wife was
naturalized as an American citizen, there was
still a valid marriage that has been celebrated
between her and Cipriano. As fate would have
it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently
obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to
remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the
application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are
both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the
divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed
to remarry.
However, since Cipriano was not able to prove
as fact his wifes naturalization he is still barred
from remarrying.
Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of
proof, failed to submit competent evidence
showing his allegations that his naturalized
American wife had obtained a divorce decree
and had remarried.