Case Digests for Persons and Family (Compiled)

Aida Banez V Gabriel Banez Decisions: RTC: Affirmed the decree of Legal Searation CA Set aside SC -the court sees no urgency to award damages considering that the (w) had more while (h) doesn’t have they also contend that “

Aug 25 , 1973- filed motion for appointed administrator husband opposed he wanted to be the administrator, the court denied because legal sparation was final Issue 1.Whether the Petitioner’s death on Nov 30 1979 render the case moot and academic? 2. Whether the Courts decision on Jan 1973 become final and executory

Facts: On the grounds infidelity by the (H) , the (w) seeks to be legally separated from his husband and the dissolution of their conjugal property relations, the division of net conjugal assets and the forfeiture of the (H) ½ share in the net conjugal assets in favor of the common children, the payment of 100,000 for attorneys fees , surrender of a motor vehicle and the husbands vacation pertinent to a small property. She also filed for damages RTC granted (w) exept for damages -Atty Gica was appointed special administrator -the petitioner was compelled to post a bond of 1,500,000.00 for all damages the respondent may suffer arising from the issuance of the said writ of execution and to further answer to all the advances that the petitioner may have received the special administrator. CA dismissed the motion to withraw her own appeal due to legality (she didn’t pay the bond. (w) posted a 1.5M bond to the supreme court for the damages (h) might suffer and prayed 100,000 be granted in advance for atty’s fee . she also suggested that she be required to post additional bond , agreed to submit an accounting and advance atty’s fees be charged under her share of net conjugal assets. She filed an urgent ex parte motion to modify the said decision while (H) filed an appeal. Issue: Whether there was a jutification with regard to the decision of the CA? Whether mutiple appeals are allowed in the course of action pertinent to legal sep? Ruling: Two cases were cited to explain the Issue Accourding to (Echaus V CA) the execution pending appeal is allowed when supertior circumstances demanding urgency overweigh the damages that may result from the issuance of the writ otherwise instead of being an instrument of solitude and justice, the writ may well become a tool of oppression and equity . In the case at bar the court deemed that there is no urgency in the awarding of damages , considering that the wife has ample resources while (h) has none “Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to justify her plea” for execution pending her appeal to do so would make an execution routinary to the rule rather than exeption Accourding to Archbishop v CA – the rational behind the multiple appeals is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issues is resolved by the court and held final.-this can’t be applied because splitting the appeals in this case would only be a violative rule of multiple appeals. In the case at bar legal separation the court contended that legal separation should not be subject to multiple appeals. On the first issue it was denied for lack of merit , the court of appeals is hereby directed to give due course with regard to the action.

Decision: LC Legal Sepration is final CA Affirmed SC Affirmed Rationale Legal Problems do not extinguish simply because of the death of one part; the same might come out again in another case. Yes, law explicitly and clearly provides for dissolution and liquidation of the CPG (art 106) dissolution and liquidation are the consequences of the final decree. Nature : Petition for Certiorari, prohibition and injunction to review the resolution of the CA Facts: -Prayer for TRO -1946: respondent Filomena and Antonio, contracted marriage -lived together for 2 years and 6 children with 3 minors -Established a business from humble roots -both accused each other for extramarital relationships, they separated on 1965, when private left for cebu for good -1971 when she returned from Davao she learned about her husbands extra marital relationship , she then decided to take initial action -April 28 1971, (W) filed for legal separation in CFI of Davao Br 8 of Tagum -Feb 8, 1972 (W) filed a petition for appointment of administrator with regard to their conjugal partnership pending the termination of the case -(H) opposed the petitiom RTC: Jan 4 1973 Order for Legal Separation dissolution of Conjugal Property , (d) ordered to pay 10000 for her support (disposing properties and mortgaging them with out (w) knowledge) under the circumstances the court can appoint an administrator who will manage the conjugal estate and act as guardian to the minors , to protect the said properties from dissipation and who will submit the inventory of properties for liquidation. Aug 25, private respondent filed for another motion for appointment of an administrator Sept 20 respondent judge issued order directing plaintiff to submit 3 names for appointment Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, with prayer that he be allowed to continue to administer the conjugal properties, the request was denied Private respondent submitted nominees for administrator Respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner declaring legal sep is already final. CA: Affirmed (H) died the civil case was declared moot and academic Issue: 1. Did the CA gravely erred in holding that respondent judge’s incomplete decision of Jan 4 1973 had become final and executory? 2)Did petitioner’s death render the case moot and academic?

Macadangdang V CA Facts: Filomena and Antionio got married on Mrch 1967 -Both had extramarital relationships -1965 they separated for good 1971- Wife files for legal separation Jan 4 1973- Legal Spearation was granted but no complete list of conjugal properties were divided, P 10000 support until court can appoint the administrator.

Rationale Legal Problems do not extinguish simply because of the death of one part; the same might come out again in another case. Yes, law explicitly and clearly provides for dissolution and liquidation of the CPG (art 106) dissolution and liquidation are the consequences of the final decree.

Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife Relief [Article 72] Gotia vs. Campos Rueda Nature of the Case: Appeal from a judgement of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Facts of the Case: 1. The wife, Eloisa Goitia Y de la Camara, plaintiff and appellant filed an action against her husband for support outside of the conjugal domicile. 2. The parties were legally married in Manila. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are as follows: After one month of their marriage, the defendant or the husband demanded the plaintiff, the wife, to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs; the plaintiff rejected the obscene demands of the defendant and refused to perform any act other than legal and valid cohabitation. Because of the refusal of the plaintiff to the demands of the defendant, the latter maltreated her by word and deed and inflicted injuries upon her lips, her face and different parts of her body. As the plaintiff was unable by any means to induce the defendant to desist from his repugnant desires and cease from maltreating her, she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take refuge in the home of her parents. 3. The lower court sustained the objection of the defendant upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not state a cause of action. It dismissed the case after the plaintiff declined to amend, the latter (defendant) appealed. 4. Reason of the dismissal of the case: According to the lower court (CFI of Manila) the defendant cannot be compelled to support the plaintiff, except in his own house, unless it be by virtue of a judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation from the defendant. Issue/s: 1. Whether the husband, on account of his conduct toward his wife be compelled to pay the pension. 2. Whether the rule established by Article 149 of the Civil Code is absolute. Alternative: ) 1. Whether Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home. (Source: hyperjetsetter.blogspot.com) Rationale: Article 149 grants the person, obliged to furnish subsistence, between paying the person fixed or receiving and keeping in his own house the party who is entitled to the same, is not so absolute as to prevent cases being considered wherein, either because this right or because of the existence of some justifiable cause morally opposed to the removal of the party enjoying the maintenance, the right of selection must be understood as being thereby restricted. (Supreme Court of Spain Ruling) The husband cannot terminate his obligation to support his wife if the latter was driven away from the conjugal home because of the physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim for support from the husband even outside the conjugal home. The law will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home. A judgement for separate maintenance is not due and payable either as damages or as neither a penalty; nor it is a debt in the strict legal sense of that term, but rather a judgement calling for the performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of the sovereign. Ruling: The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

OFELIA P. TY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and EDGARDO M. REYES, respondents. Case Digest (by jamic)

Nature of the case: This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig declaring the marriage contract between private respondent Edgardo M. Reyes and petitioner Ofelia P. Ty null and void ab initio. It also ordered private respondent to pay P15,000.00 as monthly support for their children Faye Eloise Reyes and Rachel Anne Reyes. Facts: - Edgardo Reyes and a certain Anna Maria Regina Villanueva have been wed both in a civil and a church ceremony -August 4, 1980 – the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City declared their marriage null and void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license. The church wedding was also declared null and void ab initio for lack of consent of the parties. Before the decree of nullifying their marriage was given, Edgardo married Ofelia P. Ty. January 3,1991 – Edgardo filed a pretition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Ofelia on the grounds that there was no marriage license and a declaration of nullity of his first marriage was issued after the 2nd marriage. Ofelia in defense of her marriage submitted to the court their marriage license and the declaration of nullity of the first marriage to which the respondent made no defense. RTC declared the marriage of Ofelia and Edgardo as null and void ab initio. CA affirmed and added P15,000 per month as support for children The motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied by CA Issue: WON the decree of nullity of the first marriage is required before a subsequent marriage can be entered into validly? Held: The previous marriages happened before the enactment of the Family Code therefore it must be decided based upod the New Civil Code Art 83. Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance, unless: (1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or (2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as dead and before any person believed to be so by the spouse present at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null and void by a competent court. As to whether a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is necessary, the Civil Code contains no express provision to that effect. Jurisprudence on the matter, however, appears to be conflicting. Originally, in People v. Mendoza,]and People v. Aragon, this Court held that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the nullity of a void marriage But in Odayat v. Amante, The Court held that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages. This ruling was affirmed in Tolentino v. Paras. Yet again in Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy (1986),[17] the Court held that there is a need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage. Although the family code Art 40 now requires a judicial declaration, we find that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be retroactively applied to the present case, for to do so would prejudice the vested rights of petitioner and of her children. As held in Jison v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of vested rights.

Moreover, the marriage between the parties happened in 1979, before Wiegel. The first marriage of private respondent being void for lack of license and consent, there was no need for judicial declaration of its nullity before he could contract a second marriage. In this case, therefore, we conclude that private respondent’s second marriage to petitioner is valid. Damages against respondent was denied Sc stated “we would have a situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would make the application of the law absurd. Moreover, our laws do not comprehend an action for damages between husband and wife merely because of breach of a marital obligation.[27] There are other remedies.[28] Disposition: petition is GRANTED.marriage DECLARED VALID AND SUBSISTING; and the award of the amount of P15,000.00 is RATIFIED and MAINTAINED. Aleko Lilius et al, plaintiffs-appellants, vs The Manila Railroad Company, defendant-appellant. (indi ko gets nga-a ara sa under relief ky kn lantawon torts san a.belong..dw contracts..i think it’s bcoz ga-ask for damages ang husband from defendant alleging that his wife could not perform her wifely duties anymore due to the accident caused by negligence of the company) Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila Facts: This case involves two appeals, one by the defendant the Manila Railroad Company, and the other by the plaintiffs Aleko E. Lilius et al. -At about 7 o'clock on the morning of May 10, 1931, the plaintiff, his wife Sonja Maria Lilius, and his 4 -year old daughter Brita Marianne Lilius, left Manila for the municipality of Pagsanjan, Province of Laguna, on a sight-seeing trip. -Plaintiff had taken all the necessary precautions and care while driving for Pagsanjan via Dayap for he was entirely unacquainted with the conditions of the road at said points and had no knowledge of the existence of a railroad crossing at Dayap. There were m any houses, shrubs and trees along the road making it impossible to see an approaching train. There had been neither notice nor sign of the existence of the crossing, nor was there anybody to warn the public of approaching trains. The flagman or switchman has always being absent from his post at the crossing upon the arrival of a train. -Because he was busy eyeing the people from an autotruck near the railroad, plaintiff did not see the train coming but only heard two whistles. Immediately afterwards, the locomotive No.173 struck the plaintiff's car right in the center dragging the said car a distance of about ten meters, then throwing it upon a siding. The force of the impact was so great that the plaintiff's wife and daughter were thrown from the car, both seriously hurt and unconscious. -The plaintiff Sonja Maria Lilius suffered from fractures of the pelvic bone, the tibia and fibula of the right leg, below the knee, and received a large lacerated wound on the forehead. She underwent two surgical operations on the left leg for the purpose of joining the fractured bones but said operations notwithstanding, the leg in question still continues deformed and will be perm anent in character causing some difficulty in walking. The child Brita Marianne Lilius had to fight between life and death. She also received two lacerated wounds which will permanently disfigure her face, in addition to fractures of both legs above and below the knees which will cause some difficulty in walking. Issue: 1. Whether there was negligence and civil liability on the part of Manila Railroad. Held: 1. Yes. Defendant-appellant company is liable for the accident by reason of its own negligence and that of its e m p l o y e e s for not having employed the diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of the said employees in the discharge of their duties on that occasion. There wasn’t any semaphore at the crossing at Dayap to serve as a warning to passers-by of its existence; and, on the part of its employees, the flagman and switchman have not remained at his post at the crossing in question to warn passers-by of the approaching train; the stationmaster failed to send the said flagman and switchman to his post on time; and the engineer have not taken the necessary

precautions to avoid an accident, in view of the absence of said flagman and switchman, by slackening his speed and continuously ringing the bell and blowing the whistle before arriving at the crossing. The diligence of a good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and supervision of the discharge of their duties. *CFI of Manila ruled that judgment is rendered ordering the defendant company to pay to the plaintiffs, for the purposes above stated, the total amount of P30,865, with the costs of the suit. And although the suit brought by the plaintiffs has the nature of a joint action, it must be understood that of the amount adjudicated to the said plaintiffs in this judgment, the sum of P10,000 personally belongs to the plaintiff Sonja Maria Lilius; the sum of P5,000, to the plaintiff Brita Marianne Lilius; the sum of P250, to Dr. Marfori of the Calauan Hospital, Province of Laguna, and the balance to the plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius. * SC ruled (1) That a railroad company which has not installed a semaphore at a crossing an does not see to it that its flagman and switchm an faithful ly complies with his duty of remaining at the crossing when a train arrives, is guilty of negligence and is civilly liable for damages suffered by a motorist and his family who cross its line without negligence on their part; (2) that an indemnity of P10,000 for a permanent deformity on the face and on the left leg, suffered by a young and beautiful society woman, is not excessive; (3) that an indemnity of P5,000 for a permanent deformity on the face and legs of a four-year old girl belonging to a well-to-do family, is not excessive; and (4) that in order that a husb and may recover damages for deprivation of his wife's assistance during her illness from an accident, it is necessary for him to prove the existence of such assistance and his wife's willingness to continue rendering it had she not been prevented from so doing by her illness. The plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to interest of 6 percent per annum on the amount of the indemnities adjudicated to them, from the date of the appealed judgment until this judgment becomes final, in accordance with the provisions of section 510 of Act No. 190. **Additional info (FEELING KO BI AMO NI YA ANG RELATED SA TOPIC TA): *Plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover P2,500 for the loss of consortium of his wife. Arts. 44-48 of the provisions of Civil Marriage Law of 1870 includes one of the husband's rights which is to coun t on his wife's assist ance. This assist ance comprises the management of the home and the performance of household duties, including the care and education of the children and attention to the husband upon whom primarily devolves the duty of supporting the family of which he is the head. But, where wife is working marriage has ceased to create the presumption that a woman complies with the duties to her husband and children, which the law imposes upon her, and he who seeks to collect indemnity for damages resulting from deprivation of her domestic services must prove such services. In the case at bar, apart from the services of his wife Sonja Maria Lilius as translator and secretary, the value of which has not been proven, the plaintiff Alek o E. Lilius has not presented any evid ence showing the existence of domestic services and their nature, rendered by her prior to the accident, in order that it may serve as a basis in estimating their value. Inasmuch as a wife's domestic assistance and conjugal companionship are purely personal and voluntary acts which neither of the spouses may be compelled to render (Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil.,54), it is necessary for the party claiming indem nity for the loss of such services to prove that the person obliged to render them had done so before he was injured and that he would be willing to continue rendering them had he not been prevented from so doing.

CASE: DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA VS. VILLANUEVA. 54 Phil. 92. GR No. L-29959. December 3, 1929 PLAINTIFF: Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva (Wife) DEFENDANT: Rafael Villanueva (Husband) NATURE OF THE CASE: The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

NATURE OF THE CASE: Plaintiff filed a case against the Defendant on May 27, 1927 for the purpose of obtaining separate maintenance and custody of two younger minor children. As well as a proper allowance for professional legal services rendered by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing the complaint.

Upon hearing the cause the trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint and abrogated a prior order of the court for maintenance pendent lite, with costs against the plaintiff. From this judgment, the plaintiff appealed. FACTS: 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

July 16, 1905- Plaintiff and Defendant were married. Manila- place of marriage and residence of the couple. Children: Antonio- 18 yrs. Guillermo- 10 yrs., minor Sergio- 9 yrs., minor Infidelity and cruelty- grounds on which separate maintenance is sought Proof of infidelity -ten years prior to the institution of the action, the defendant was guilty of repeated acts of infidelity with four different women. Incorrigible nature of the defendant in relations with other women and brutality towards the plaintiff caused the plaintiff to establish a separate abode for herself and two minor children. April 20, 1927 -occurrence of final separation of wife (plaintiff) and husband (defendant). -the month before the plaintiff filed an appeal to obtain separate maintenance. Proof to the charge of cruelty -does not establish a case for separate maintenance -unproved and insufficient Repeated acts of conjugal infidelity (by the husband/defendant) -proved -recurrent -gives wife (plaintiff) an undeniable right to relief ISSUE: Whether the wife has an undeniable right to relief

HELD: The decision/judgment of the lower court was reversed in favor of the wife/plaintiff and against the p. 2,000 for attorneys’ fees, Php. 720 for expenses husband/defendant. It was ordered that the plaintiff have and recover of the defendant the sum of Ph of procuring transcript and Php. 500 per month, beginning April 1, 1928. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff by way of maintenance on or before the 10th day of each month, the sum of Php. 500. RATIONALE: In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate maintenance from her husband, it is not necessary that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile. Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the marital establishment are enough. The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him unbearable.

CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR No. L-28904. December 29, 1928 PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago

FACTS: 1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

April 8, 1910- alleged date of marriage between the plaintiff, Cipriana Garcia and the defendant, Isabelo Santiago. February 3, 1925- the date when the plaintiff was compelled to leave her conjugal dwelling due to continued family dissensions. Alejo Santiago (Defendant No. 2) -Son of Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1) -allegedly seduced Prisca Aurelio Prisca Aurelio –daughter of Cipriana Garcia (the Plaintiff) -gave birth to a child that was allegedly Alejo Santiago’s child Isabelo Santiago -failed to see the vindication of the honor of Prisca Aurelio, the plaintiff’s daughter by requiring his son to marry her. - refused to get involved with the matter, thus seemingly countenancing the illicit relations between his son and the plaintiff’s daughter -has allegedly conveyed/been conveying their conjugal properties to Alejo to foster latter’s whims & caprices and thus, damaging & prejudicing her rights. Some of these properties include lands acquired during the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s marriage with money belonging to the conjugal partnership. -publicly maintained illicit relationship with Geronima Yap February 3, 1925 -separation of the plaintiff and defendant. -the separation was necessary to avoid personal violence Isabelo Santiago -continually refused to provide for the plaintiff’s support Cipriana Garcia (the plaintiff) -could not live in their conjugal dwelling because of the illicit relationship between her daughter, Prisca Aurelio and Alejo Santiago, countenanced by the other defendant, Isabelo Santiago. -demanded that she is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite monthly pension from conjugal partnership -claimed that her husband, Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1) has shown himself unfit to administer the property of conjugal partnership and the court should therefore order its administration to be placed in her hands. ISSUE/RATIONALE:

1. Whether their separation is unjustified NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to the frequent fights.Isabelo ordered her to leave the house & threatened to ill-treat her if she returned.Prisca’s situation is embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo causedPrisca’s pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead to further quarrels. 2. Whether transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal NO. Failed to prove that property was community property. Documentary evidence even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage. 3.Whether Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance NO. That’s too much. P50.00 would be enough. 4. Whether Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right. 5. Whether Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorney’s fees NO. HELD: That the judgment appealed from is therefore modified. Separation is allowed. Isabelo is ordered to provide Cipriana with a P50.00 monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the month. No costs allowed.