Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: FACTS
HELD: RULING
Florenciano’s admission to the investigating fiscal that she The court ruled in the affirmative. Then judge acted on
committed adultery, in the existence of evidence of adultery other the petition for nullification and proceeded with it without acting
than such confession, is not the confession of judgment on the motion to dismiss which was filed within the period
disallowed by Article 48 of the Family Code. What is prohibited is prescribed by law. The judge performed a so called “procedural
a confession of judgment, a confession done in court or through a shortcut” and ignored the motion of the petitioner. The judge
pleading. Where there is evidence of the adultery independent of also did not follow the Rules of Court which requires an
the defendant’s statement agreeing to the legal separation, the investigation to be made first by the prosecuting attorney with
decree of separation should be granted since it would not be regard to collusion and if none, to intervene and check for
based on the confession but upon the evidence presented by the fabrications in the evidence. It is only after this that a case may
plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively be tried on its merits. Said order by the court did not take place
on defendant’s confession. The petition should be granted based thus, the judge’s actions were erroneous.
on the second adultery, which has not yet prescribed.
Sin vs Sin EMILIO
vs.
R. TUASON, petitioner,
Issue:
Whether or not that in the absence of the petitioner in the
hearing, the court should have ordered a prosecuting officer to
intervene under Article 48 of the Family Code.
Held:
In the case at bar, the decision annulling petitioner’s marriage
to private respondent had already become final and executory
when petitioner failed to appeal during the reglementary period.
Petitioner however claimed that the decision of the trial court
was null and void for violation of his right to due process. He
contended that he was denied due process when, after failing
Issue and resolution:
AGNES GAMBOA-HIRSCH V. Custody dispute between the two biological parents of a child. The
Court revoked the joint custody order and awarded sole custody of the
JOYCELYN PABLO-GUALBERTO V. CRISTIANO Crisanto had filed for divorce and custody of their child - Rafaello.
Joycelyn failed to appear at the court proceedings and the judge
RAFAELITO GUALBERTO; AND CRISTIANO awarded custody to Cristiano after having considered evidence that
RAFAELITO GUALBERTO V. JOYCELYN D. PABLO- Jocelyn was having extramarital lesbian relations and that she did not
care for and was witnessed slapping her child. It was further held that
GUALBERTO her parental authority was subordinated to that of Crisanto under
Article 211 of the Family Code. Jocelyn challenged this decision,
which was reversed and she was granted custody on the basis that,
PHILIPPINES according to Article 213 of the Family Code, a minor child shall not be
Title: separated from his mother unless a court finds compelling reasons to
Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto (petitioner) v. Cristiano Rafaelito Gualberto order otherwise.
(respondent); and Cristiano Rafaelito Gualberto (petitioner) v. Court of At the next instance, the Court of Appeal annulled the second court
Appeal and Joycelyn D. Pablo-Gualberto (respondents) order on procedural grounds and returned custody to Crisanto until
Court: Jocelyn’s motion was decided on again. In the current case, both parties
Supreme Court of the Philippines petitioned the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's ruling.