Geluz v.

CA, 2 SCRA 801

FACTS: Nita Villanueva & Antonio Geluz met in 1948 through Nitas aunt. In 1950, she
got pregnant. To conceal her pregnancy from her parents, she had an abortion. When
they got married, she got pregnant again. Since she was an employee of COMELEC &
her pregnancy would be inconvenient to her, she had abortion in Oct 1953. She again
became pregnant after 2 years and had an abortion for the third and last time. The
last abortion constituted the plaintiffs basis in filling an action for award of damages.
CA and trial court granted the award of damages.

ISSUE: W/N Geluz is entitled for damages

HELD: It is apparent that he consented to the previous abortions making his action
questionable for why he only filed for damages on his wifes third abortion. Also, SC
held that the fetus wasnt born yet so it has no juridical personality. The award for the
death of a person does not cover the case of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with
personality and incapable of having rights and obligations.
Sermonia v CA
Facts:
26 May 1992, Jose C. Sermonia was charged with bigamy before the RTC of Pasig for
contracting marriage with Ma. Lourdes Unson on 15 February 1975 while his prior
marriage to Virginia C. Nievera remained valid and subsisting. Petitioner moved to
quash the information on the ground that his criminal liability has been extinguished
by prescription. RTC denied motion to quash. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition to the CA assailing that since the second marriage contract was duly
registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar in 1975, such fact of registration
makes it a matter of public record and thus constitutes notice to the offended party as
of 1975, and that prescription commenced to run on the day the contract was
registered. For this reason, the information should have been filed on or before 1990.
He also holds that the second marriage ceremony was held at Our Lady of Nativity
Church in Marikina and was open to inspection by any interested party. The
prosecution maintains that the prescriptive period does not begin from the commission
of the crime but from the time of discovery by the complainant which was in July
1991.
Issue:
WON prescription applies in cases of bigamy;
WON prescription commences at the time of registration

Ratio:
NO; the rule on constructive notice in civil cases may be applied in criminal actions if
the factual and legal circumstances warrant, BUT, it cannot apply in the crime of

bigamy because a bigamous marriage is generally entered into by the offender in

secrecy in order to conceal his legal impediment, that even though his second
marriage may be contracted in an open place, it may be done so in a place and among
people who do not know of his original subsisting marriage.
NO; it is reasonable that the prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy should be
counted only from the day on which the said crime was discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agency, otherwise, the prosecution of such offense
would be impossible and would encourage a fearless violation of a social institution
cherished and protected by law

G.R. No. 178741

January 17, 2011

ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner,

vs.MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner and respondent met in 1967 while studying at Arellano University. They
were classmates and eventually petitioner became attracted to respondent after they
happened to sit beside each other in a passenger bus. Petitioner courted respondent
and they eventually became sweethearts even though petitioner already had a
girlfriend. Later, respondent discovered petitioners other relationship and demanded
more time and attention from petitioner. Petitioner alleged that he appreciated this
gesture like a child longing for love, time and attention. They eloped and got married
in Tanay, Rizal. The marriage bore five children. Several years later, their relationship
turned sour and was marred by frequent verbal and physical quarrels. Thereafter,
petitioner had a love affair with another woman which was short-lived because it was
discovered by respondent. But their quarrels were aggravated after the incident which
affected even their business ventures. Due to frequent verbal abuses and arguments,
petitioner left the family home and gave up all their properties in favor of the
respondent. Petitioner also converted to Islam. Thereafter petitioner filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent on the ground of his
psychological incapacity to perform the essential responsibilities of marital life.
Petitioner attached to his petition the Psychological Report of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a
clinical psychologist from the National Center for Mental Health stating that he is
suffering from "Anti-social Personality Disorder," characterized by a pervasive pattern
of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness, deceitfulness and
lack of remorse. The RTC rendered a decision annulling petitioners marriage to
respondent on the ground of petitioners psychological incapacity. The Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court because Dr. Tayag did not fully
explain the root cause of the disorder and its effect on the ability of the petitioner to
assume the obligations of marriage. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Court of
Appeals

RULING;
The Supreme Court held that the appeal is bereft of merit. In the case at bar,
petitioner completely relied on the psychological examination conducted by Dr. Tayag
on him to establish his psychological incapacity. The result of the examination and the
findings of Dr. Tayag however, are insufficient to establish petitioner's psychological
incapacity. In cases of annulment of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code,
as amended, the psychological illness and its root cause must be proven to exist from
the inception of the marriage. Here, the appellate court correctly ruled that the
report of Dr. Tayag failed to explain the root cause of petitioners alleged
psychological incapacity. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag merely made a general conclusion
that petitioner is suffering from an Anti-social Personality Disorder but there was no
factual basis stated for the finding that petitioner is a socially deviant person,
rebellious, impulsive, self-centred and deceitful. The Supreme Court ruled that the CA
did not err in declaring the marriage of petitioner and respondent as valid and
subsisting. The totality of the evidence presented is insufficient to establish
petitioners psychological incapacity to fulfil his essential marital obligations.

LAUREL vs. ABROGAR

Facts:
On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, the accused,
conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine
Long Distance Telephone (PLDT),did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, steal and use the international long distance calls belonging to PLDT by
conducting International Simple Resale (ISR), which is a method of routing and
completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae, and/or air
wave frequency which connect directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of
the country where the call is destined, effectively stealing this business from PLDT
while using its facilities in the estimated amount of P20,370,651.92 to the damage and
prejudice of PLDT, in the said amount.
Issue:
Whether international long distance calls and the business of providing
telecommunication or telephone services are considered as personal properties
subjected to theft.
Held:
In the instant case, the act of conducting ISR operations by illegally connecting various
equipment or apparatus to private respondent PLDTs telephone system, through which

petitioner is able to resell or re-route international long distance calls using

respondent PLDTs facilities constitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above.

ACCORDINGLY, t h e m ot io n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s GRANTED. T h
e a s s a i l e d D e c i s i o n i s RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals affirming the Order issued by Judge Zeus C. Abrogar of the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City, which denied the Motion to Quash (With Motion to Defer
Arraignment) for theft, is AFFIRMED. T h e c a s e is remanded to the trial court and
the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby DIRECTED to amend the Amended
Information to show that the property subject of the theft were services and business
of the private offended party.