FUNERALS

VALINO V. ADRIANO (2014)

Facts:
Atty. Adriano married respondent Rosario Adriano and had children. However, their
marriage turned sour. Atty. Adriano courted Valino, a client, until they decided to live
together as husband and wife. Atty. Adriano eventually died of acute emphysema.

At that time, Rosario was in the United States spending Christmas with her children. As
none of the family members was around, Valino took it upon herself to shoulder the
funeral and burial expenses for Atty. Adriano. Claiming that they were deprived of the
chance to view the remains of Atty. Adriano before he was buried and that his burial at
the Manila Memorial Park was contrary to his wishes, respondents commenced suit
against Valino praying that they be indemnified for actual, moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees and that the remains of Atty. Adriano be exhumed and transferred to
the family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches, Quezon City.

Issues:
(1) Who between Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano?
(2) Where should Atty. Rosario be buried?
(3) Is Rosario entitled to damages?

Held:
(1) It is Rosario. The law simply confines the right and duty to make funeral
arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one’s common law
partner. (See Art. 305 in relation to Art. 199 and 308 Family Code and Section
1103 of the Revised Administrative Code)

The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United
States when he died has no controlling significance. To say that Rosario had, in
effect, waived or renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make
arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband is baseless. The right and
duty to make funeral arrangements, like any other right, will not be considered as
having been waived or renounced, except upon clear and satisfactory proof of
conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end.

(2) The supposed burial wish of Atty. Adriano was unclear and undefinite. Article 307
simply seeks to prescribe the "form of the funeral rites" that should govern in the
burial of the deceased. As thoroughly explained earlier, the right and duty to make
funeral arrangements reside in the persons specified in Article 305 in relation to
Article 199 of the Family Code. Even if Article 307 were to be interpreted to include
the place of burial among those on which the wishes of the deceased shall be
followed, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino (Dr. Tolentino), an eminent authority on civil law,
commented that it is generally recognized that any inferences as to the wishes of
the deceased should be established by some form of testamentary disposition.
 In other words, even assuming that it is the express wish of the deceased to be
interred at the Manila Memorial Park, still, the law grants the duty and the right to
decide what to do with the remains to the wife, and not to Valino.

(3) No, since Valino proceeded with good faith.

It is generally recognized that the corpse of an individual is outside the commerce

of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the
corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the
intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property
right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also
authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have
it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the
memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living. This is a family right.
There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the corpse from
third persons.

However, in this case, the Court finds laudable the acts of Valino in taking care of
Atty. Adriano during his final moments and giving him a proper burial. For her
sacrifices, it would indeed be unkind to assess actual or moral damages against
her.

CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN CIVIL REGISTER

REPUBLIC V. OLAYBAR (2014)

Facts:
Olaybar requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage
(CENOMAR) as one of the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years.
Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already married to a certain Ye Son
Sune, a Korean National. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that
she did not know the alleged husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer;
and, that the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.

Issue: Whether the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect,
nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding.

Held:
As a general rule, this is not allowed. This is because a petition for correction or
cancellation of an entry in the civil registry (Rule 108) cannot substitute for an action to
invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage.
However, in this case, the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied
with, Ye Son Sune, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, and the OSG were all notified
and it was established in the trial court that the signature was forged. Aside from the
certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of
marriage. Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was
entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence.

Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by

cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage
void as there was no marriage to speak of.

ONDE V. LAND CIVIL REGISTRAR (2014)

Facts:
Onde sought the following entries on his birth certificate to be corrected as follows:

Entry From To
1) Date and place of marriage of his parents December 23, 1983 - Bicol Not Married
2) First name of his mother Tely Matilde
3) His first name Franc Ler Francler

Issue: Whether he is allowed to change such entries through a Rule 108 proceeding.

Held:
(1) As to parents’ marriage – No, this is a substantial correction affecting his
legitimacy and will convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one.

When a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves
substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy
of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of the Rules of Court is mandated, i.e., the petitioner should at least
implead his father and mother as parties to make the proceeding adversarial, since
the substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them.

(2) As to the first name of his mother and his first name – No, but petitioner can
avail of the administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mother’s first
name (Section 1, of R.A. No. 9048 as amended by R.A. No. 10172) since
jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with
administrative officers.
The intent and effect of said law is to exclude the change of first name from the
coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an
administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied.