DINO V.

DINO

FACTS:

Petitioner Alain Dino and respondent MA. Caridad Dino were childhood friends and sweethearts
who started living together in 1984, separated in 1994, and lived together again in 1996. They married
on January 14, 1998. On May 30, 2001, petitioner filed for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of the respondents psychological incapacity. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed her
marital obligation to give love and support to him, abandoned her responsibility to the family and was
unfaithful. Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a petition for divorce and was granted by the
Superior Court of California. Doctor Tayag submitted a report establishing that respondent was suffering
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

ISSUE:

Did the trial court err when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be
issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of parties properties under art. 147 of the F.C.

HELD:

Section 19 (1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages does not apply to Art. 147 of the F.C. It is clear from Art. 50 of the F.C. that section
19 (1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Art. 40, and 45, not
under Art. 36 which is the ground for nullification of the petitioner and respondents marriage. Thus, the
decision of the trial court is affirmed but with modification.

GUERRERO V. RTC.

FACTS:

Guerrero and Pedro are brothers in law, their respective wives being sisters. Filed by petitioner
as an accion publican against private respondent, this case assumed another dimension when it was
dismissed by respondent Judge on the ground that the parties being brother-in-law the complaint
should have alleged that earnest efforts were first exerted towards a compromise.

ISSUE:

WON by affinity are considered members of the same family.

HELD:

Considering that Art. 151 herein-quoted starts with the negative no, the requirement is
mandatory for that the complaint or petition, which must be verified, should allege that earnest efforts
towards a compromise have been made but the same failed, so that if it is shown that no efforts were in
fact made, the case must be dismissed.
 No the Court already ruled in Gayon v. Gayon that the enumeration of brothers and sisters as
members of the same family does not comprehend brother/sister-in-law

ALBINO JOSEF v. SANTOS

FACTS:

In Civil case no. 95-110-MK, petitioner was the defendant for the case for collection of sum of
money filed by herein respondent, who claimed that petitioner failed to pay shoe materials on various
dates in 1994. After trial, the RTC found petitioner liable to respondent. Petitioner appealed to the CA
which affirmed the trial courts decision in the toto. Petitioner filed before this court a petition for
review on certiorari, but was dismissed and judgement became final and executory on May 21, 2002.

A writ of execution was issued on Aug. 20, 2003 and enforced on Aug. 21, 2003.On Aug. 29,
2003, certain personal property subjects of the writ of execution were auctioned off. Thereafter a real
property was sold by way of public auction to fully satisfy the judgment credit. On Nov. 5, 2003,
petitioner filed an original petition for certiorari with the C.A. questioning the sheriffs levy and sale of
the abovementioned personal and real properties. Petitioner claimed that the personal properties did
not belong to him to his children; and that the real property was his family home thus exempt from
execution.

ISSUE:

WON the levy and sale of the personal belongings of the petitioners children as well as the
attachment and sale on public auction of his family home to satisfy the judgment award in favor of
respondents is legal.

RULING:

The S.C. held that the family home is the dwelling place of a person and his family, a sacred
symbol of family love. It is the sanctuary of that union which the law declares and protects as a sacred
institution. The protection of the family home is just as necessary in the preservation of the family as a
basic social institution, and since no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be
recognized or given effect, the trial courts failure to observe the proper procedures to determine the
veracity of petitioners allegations, is unjustified. The same is true with respect to personal properties
levied upon and sold at the auction. Despite petitioners allegations in his opposition, the trial court did
not make an effort to determine the nature of the same, whether the items exempt from execution or
not, or whether they belonged to petitioner or to someone else.