Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(JUNE)
Prof. AMPARITA STA. MARIA, LL.B., LL.M. GRADUATE LEGAL STUDIES INSTITUTE ATENEO
SCHOOL OF LAW
ART. 4, 35
Abbas v. Abbas (G.R. No. 18396, January 30,
2013)
FACTS:
The case stems from a supposed marriage
ceremony between Syed and Gloria on January
Block F Batch 2020
HELD:
The purported marriage of Benjamin and Sally
had no valid marriage license because the Local
Civil Registrar confirmed that the Marriage
License of Benjamin and Sally did not match the
Marriage License series issued for the month of
February 1982. The Civil Registrar also said that
it did not issue Marriage License No. N-07568
to the couple.
Art. 26
David A. Noveras v. Leticia T. Noveras
(20 August 2014, G.R. No. 188289)
FACTS:
David and Leticia Noveras were married in the
year 1988 in QC. They resided in California,
USA and eventually acquired US citizenship.
They had 2 children.
In 2003, Leticia claims that David abandoned his
family and lived with one Estrellita Martinez in
Aurora. Upon learning that David had an affair
Leticia divorced him in California. The Superior
Court of California granted Leticia custody of
both children and all the US properties. With
respect to the properties in the Philippines,
Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of
conjugal properties.
Did not file for recognition therefore under
Philippine law, they are still both Filipinos.
The trial court ruling adopted the California
Courts ruling.
The CA modified the decision on appeal by
directing the equal division of the Philippine
properties between the spouses. With respect to
the common childrens presumptive legitime, the
appellate court ordered both spouses to each pay
their children the amount of P520,000.
ISSUE:
W/N the spouses divorce is valid in our
jurisdiction.
W/N the petition for separation of absolute
community of property should be granted.
W/N the distribution of the properties ordered by
the CA correct?
HELD:
NO, the divorce is not valid and the trial court
should not have acknowledged the divorce
decree.
The foreign judgment and its authenticity must
be proven as facts under our rules on evidence,
together with the aliens applicable national law
to show the effect of the judgment on the alien
himself or herself.
ISSUE:
Block F Batch 2020
Dio v. Dio
(G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011)
Pimentel v. Pimentel
(G.R. No. 172060, September 13, 2010)
The subsequent dissolution of their marriage
will have no effect on the alleged crime
(frustrated parricide) that was committed at the
time of the subsistence of the marriage.
Republic v. Encelan (G.R. No. 170022, Jan. 9,
2013)
HELD:
Psychological incapacity contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations, not merely the refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the
errant spouse.
For sexual infidelity and abandonment of the
conjugal dwelling to constitute psychological
incapacity, it must be shown that the
unfaithfulness and abandonment are
manifestations of a disordered personality that
completely prevented the erring spouse from
discharging the essential marital obligations.
Otherwise, the alleged sexual infidelity and
abandonment are merely grounds for legal
separation.
Camacho-Reyes V. Reyes,
(G.R. No. 185286, Aug. 18, 2010)
A recommendation for therapy does not
automatically imply curability. In general,
recommendations for therapy are given by
clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to
manage behavior. The recommendation that
respondent should undergo therapy does not
necessarily negate the finding that respondents
psychological incapacity is incurable.
ART. 39
Isidro Ablaza v. Republic
(G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010)
In 2000, Petitioner filed in the RTC in Masbate a
petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity
of the marriage contracted on December 26,
1949 between his late brother Cresenciano
Ablaza and Leonila Honato, alleging that the
marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila had
been celebrated without a marriage license, due
to such license being issued only on January 9,
1950.
Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10SC explicitly provides the limitation that a
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage may be filed solely by the
husband or wife. However, this specifically
extends only to marriages covered by the Family
Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but,
being a procedural rule that is prospective in
application, is confined only to proceedings
commenced after March 15, 2003.
ART 40
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v.
AZOTE
(G.R. 209741, April 15, 2015)
FACTS:
Edgardo and Edna Azote married in 1992, and
their union produced six children. Edgardo, a
member of the Social Security System (SSS)
submitted to the SSS two E-4 forms in 1994 and
2001designating Edna and their six children as
ART 41.
Republic v. Narceda
(G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013)
HELD:
No appeal can be had of the trial court's
judgment in a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death of an absent
spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code.
Hearing of a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death is a summary proceeding.
Article 247 of the Family Code provides that the
judgment of the trial court in summary court
proceedings shall be immediately final and
executory. Thus, by the express provision of law,
the judgment of the RTC is not appealable.
Republic v. Sareogon, Jr.,
(G.R. No. 199194, Feb.10, 2016)
HELD: By express provision of law, the
judgment of the court in a summary proceeding
shall be immediately final and executory. As a
matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be
had of the trial courts judgment in a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the
Family Code. It goes without saying, however,
that an aggrieved party may file a petition for
certiorari to question abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
In sum, under Article 41 of the Family
Code, the losing party in a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
death may file a petition for certiorari with the
CA on the ground that, in rendering judgment
thereon, the trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
From the Decision of the CA, the aggrieved
party may elevate the matter to this Court via a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court.
The degree of diligence and reasonable search
required by law is not met
(1) when there is failure to present the persons
from whom the present spouse allegedly made
inquiries especially the absent spouses relatives,
neighbors, and friends,
FACTS:
On July 27, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of
Tarlac City declared petitioner Celerina J. Santos
(Celerina) presumptively dead after her husband,
respondent Ricardo T. Santos (Ricardo), had
filed a petition for declaration of absence of
presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage.
Celerina and Ricardo were married in 1980.
According to Ricardo, when the family business
did not prosper, Celerina convinced him to allow
her to work abroad as a domestic helper. She left
the Philippines and was never heard from again.
He also exerted efforts to locate Celerina. He
claimed that it was almost 12 years from the date
of his RTC petition since Celerina left. He
believed that she had passed away.
Celerina claimed that she learned about the
petition only in October 2008. She filed a
petition for annulment of judgment before the
Court of Appeals on the grounds of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She claimed that
her residence was Quezon City, which was also
the conjugal dwelling since 1989 until Ricardo
left in May 2008. She also claimed that she
never resided in Tarlac and worked as a
domestic helper. She referred to a joint affidavit
executed by their children to support her
contention that Ricardo made false allegations.
She also argued that the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the petition because it had
never been published in a newspaper.
The CA issued the resolution dismissing
Celerinas petition for annulment of judgment
for being a wrong mode of remedy. CA ruled
that filing of a sworn statement before the civil
registry declaring her reappearance under Article
42 of the Family Code to be the proper remedy.
HELD:
Annulment of judgment is the remedy when the
Regional Trial Court's judgment, order, or
resolution has become final, and the remedies
of new trial, appeal, petition for relief (or other
appropriate remedies) are no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner.
An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper
remedy when the person declared presumptively
dead has never been absent. The choice of
ART. 117
Beumer v. Amores
(G.R. No. 195670, Dec. 3, 2012)
FACTS:
Beumer, a Dutch National, and Amores, a
Filipina, was married on March 29, 1980. After
several years, the RTC of Negros Oriental
declared the nullity of their marriage on the
basis of the formers psychological incapacity.
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for
Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and prayed
for the distribution of several properties claimed
to have been acquired during the subsistence of
their marriage.
Beumer testified that while the four other lots
were registered in the name of his wife, these
properties were acquired with the money he
received from the Dutch government as his
disability benefit.
ISSUE: W/N Beumer has the right to claim
reimbursement from the purchase of the real
properties subject to the dissolution
proceedings?
HELD:
NO. In the case of Muller v. Muller, the Court
held that one cannot seek reimbursement on the
ground of equity where it is clear that he
willingly and knowingly bought the property
despite the prohibition against foreign ownership
of Philippine land enshrined under Section 7,
Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
The Court cannot grant reimbursement to
petitioner given that he acquired no right
whatsoever over the subject properties by virtue
of its unconstitutional purchase. A contract that
violates the Constitution and the law is null and
void, vests no rights, creates no obligations and
produces no legal effect at all. (Distinguish
from Borromeo v. Descallar (2009)
relationship under Art. 148)
ART.121
Aguete v. Philippine National Bank
(G.R. No. 170166, April 6, 2011)
If the husband himself is the principal obligor in
the contract, that contract falls within the term "x
ART. 148
Ventura v. Spouses Paulino
(G.R. No. 202932 October 23, 2013)
In unions between a man and a woman who are
incapacitated to marry each other, the ownership
over the properties acquired during the
subsistence of that relationship shall be based on
the actual contribution of the parties.
In Borromeo v. Descallar, it was held that it is
necessary for each of the partners to prove his or
her actual contribution to the acquisition of
property in order to be able to lay claim to any
portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and
equal contribution do not apply.