Person June July

G.R. No. 187587

June 5, 2013

NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC., Petitioner, vs. MILITARY SHRINE SERVICES - PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, Respondent. FACTS: On 12 July 1957, by virtue of Proclamation No. 423, President Carlos P. Garcia reserved parcels of land in the Municipalities of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City for a military reservation. The military reservation, then known as Fort William McKinley, was later on renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio (Fort Bonifacio). On 28 May 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos) issued Proclamation No. 208, amending Proclamation No. 423, which excluded a certain area of Fort Bonifacio and reserved it for a national shrine. The excluded area is now known as Libingan ng mga Bayani, which is under the administration of herein respondent Military Shrine Services – Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (MSS-PVAO). Again, on 7 January 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending Proclamation No. 423, which excluded barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal Village from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declared it open for disposition under the provisions of Republic Act Nos. (R.A.) 274 and 730. At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum, which reads: "P.S. – This includes Western Bicutan (SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos"2 The crux of the controversy started when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette on 3 February 1986, without the above-quoted addendum. Years later, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 172 which substantially reiterated Proclamation No. 2476, as published, but this time excluded Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and declared the said lots open for disposition under the provisions of R.A. 274 and 730. Through the years, informal settlers increased and occupied some areas of Fort Bonifacio including portions of the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus, Brigadier General Fredelito Bautista issued General Order No. 1323 creating Task Force Bantay (TFB), primarily to prevent further unauthorized occupation and to cause the demolition of illegal structures at Fort Bonifacio. On 27 August 1999, members of petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. (NMSMI) filed a Petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP). Thus, on 1 September 2006, COSLAP issued a Resolution granting the Petition and declaring the portions of land in question alienable and disposable, with Associate Commissioner Lina Aguilar-General dissenting. The COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was an integral part of Proclamation No. 2476, and was therefore, controlling. The intention of the President could not be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others. Herein respondent MSS-PVAO filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the COSLAP. MSS-PVAO filed a Petition with the Court of Appeals seeking to reverse the COSLAP Resolutions. The Court of Appeals First Division rendered the assailed Decision granting MSS-PVAO’s Petition, Both NMSMI and WBLOAI appealed the said Decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the handwritten addendum was considered published also at the time the Proclamation was published.

HELD:

No. Considering that petitioners were occupying Lots 3 and 7 of Western Bicutan (subject lots), their claims were anchored on the handwritten addendum of President Marcos to Proclamation No. 2476. They allege that the former President intended to include all Western Bicutan in the reclassification of portions of Fort Bonifacio as disposable public land when he made a notation just below the printed version of Proclamation No. 2476. However, it is undisputed that the handwritten addendum was not included when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette. The resolution of whether the subject lots were declared as reclassified and disposable lies in the determination of whether the handwritten addendum of President Marcos has the force and effect of law. In relation thereto, Article 2 of the Civil Code expressly provides: ART. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. Under the above provision, the requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase "unless otherwise provided" refers to a different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s publication in the Official Gazette, but does not imply that the requirement of publication may be dispensed with. The issue of the requirement of publication was already settled in the landmark case Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera. Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal force and effect. Furthermore, under Section 24, Chapter 6, Book I of the Administrative Code, "the publication of any law, resolution or other official documents in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie evidence of its authority." Thus, whether or not President Marcos intended to include Western Bicutan is not only irrelevant but speculative. Simply put, the courts may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words appearing in the law.17 This Court cannot rule that a word appears in the law when, evidently, there is none. In Pagpalain Haulers, Inc. v. Hon. Trajano,18 we ruled that "under Article 8 of the Civil Code, 'judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.' This does not mean, however, that courts can create law. The courts exist for interpreting the law, not for enacting it. To allow otherwise would be violative of the principle of separation of powers, inasmuch as the sole function of our courts is to apply or interpret the laws, particularly where gaps or lacunae exist or where ambiguities becloud issues, but it will not arrogate unto itself the task of legislating." The remedy sought in these Petitions is not judicial interpretation, but another legislation that would amend the law ‘to include petitioners' lots in the reclassification.

G.R. Nos. 175279-80

June 5, 2013

SUSAN LIM-LUA, Petitioner, vs. DANILO Y. LUA, Respondent

FACTS: On September 3, 2003,3 petitioner Susan Lim-Lua filed an action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with respondent Danilo Y. Lua.. In her prayer for support pendente lite for herself and her two children, petitioner sought the amount ofP500,000.00 as monthly support, citing respondent’s huge earnings from salaries and dividends in several companies and businesses here and abroad. After due hearing, Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr. granted support pendente lite, as follows: From the evidence already adduced by the parties, the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (P250,000.00) Thousand Pesos would be sufficient to take care of the needs of the plaintiff. This amount excludes the One hundred thirty-five (P135,000.00) Thousand Pesos for medical attendance expenses needed by plaintiff for the operation of both her eyes which is demandable upon the conduct of such operation. The amounts already extended to the two (2) children, being a commendable act of defendant, should be continued by him considering the vast financial resources at his disposal. According to Art. 203 of the Family Code, support is demandable from the time plaintiff needed the said support but is payable only from the date of judicial demand. Since the instant complaint was filed on 03 September 2003, the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (P250,000.00) Thousand should be paid by defendant to plaintiff retroactively to such date until the hearing of the support pendente lite. P250,000.00 x 7 corresponding to the seven (7) months that lapsed from September, 2003 to March 2004 would tantamount to a total of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty (P1,750,000.00) Thousand Pesos. Thereafter, starting the month of April 2004, until otherwise ordered by this Court, defendant is ordered to pay a monthly support of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos payable within the first five (5) days of each corresponding month pursuant to the third paragraph of Art. 203 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The monthly support of P250,000.00 is without prejudice to any increase or decrease thereof that this Court may grant plaintiff as the circumstances may warrant i.e. depending on the proof submitted by the parties during the proceedings for the main action for support. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that petitioner is not entitled to spousal support considering that she does not maintain for herself a separate dwelling from their children and respondent has continued to support the family for their sustenance and well-being in accordance with family’s social and financial standing. As to the P250,000.00 granted by the trial court as monthly support pendente lite, as well as theP1,750,000.00 retroactive support, respondent found it unconscionable and beyond the intendment of the law for not having considered the needs of the respondent. The trial court stated that the Order had become final and executory since respondent’s motion for reconsideration is treated as a mere scrap of paper for violation of the three-day notice period under Section 4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, and therefore did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal. Respondent was given ten (10) days to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the court for disregarding the March 31, 2004 order granting support pendente lite.8 His second motion for reconsideration having been denied, respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. CA found merit in respondent’s contention that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting P250,000.00 monthly support to petitioner without evidence to prove his actual income. ISSUE: Whether certain expenses already incurred by the respondent may be deducted from the total support in arrears owing to petitioner and her children.

HELD: As a matter of law, the amount of support which those related by marriage and family relationship is generally obliged to give each other shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the needs of the recipient.18 Such support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family. Upon receipt of a verified petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage or for annulment of voidable marriage, or for legal separation, and at any time during the proceeding, the court, motu proprio or upon verified application of any of the parties, guardian or designated custodian, may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the rendition of judgment or final order.19 Because of its provisional nature, a court does not need to delve fully into the merits of the case before it can settle an application for this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application. It is enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence appearing in the record.20 In this case, the amount of monthly support pendente lite for petitioner and her two children was determined after due hearing and submission of documentary evidence by the parties. Although the amount fixed by the trial court was reduced on appeal, it is clear that the monthly support pendente lite of P115,000.00 ordered by the CA was intended primarily for the sustenance of petitioner and her children, e.g., food, clothing, salaries of drivers and house helpers, and other household expenses. In the case at bar, records clearly show and in fact has been admitted by petitioner that aside from paying the expenses of their two (2) children’s schooling, he gave his two (2) children two (2) cars and credit cards of which the expenses for various items namely: clothes, grocery items and repairs of their cars were chargeable to him which totaled an amount of more than One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) for each of them and considering that as testified by the private respondent that she needs the total amount of P113,000.00 for the maintenance of the household and other miscellaneous expenses and considering further that petitioner can afford to buy cars for his two (2) children, and to pay the expenses incurred by them which are chargeable to him through the credit cards he provided them in the amount of P100,000.00 each, it is but fair and just that the monthly support pendente lite for his wife, herein private respondent, be fixed as of the present in the amount of P115,000.00 which would be sufficient enough to take care of the household and other needs. This monthly support pendente lite to private respondent in the amount of P115,000.00 excludes the amount of One Hundred ThirtyFive (P135,000.00) Thousand Pesos for medical attendance expenses needed by private respondent for the operation of both her eyes which is demandable upon the conduct of such operation. Likewise, this monthly support ofP115,000.00 is without prejudice to any increase or decrease thereof that the trial court may grant private respondent as the circumstances may warrant i.e. depending on the proof submitted by the parties during the proceedings for the main action for support. The amounts already extended to the two (2) children, being a commendable act of petitioner, should be continued by him considering the vast financial resources at his disposal.

G.R. No. 201061

July 3, 2013

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., Respondent. FACTS: In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally GoBangayan (Sally) who was a customer in the auto parts and supplies business owned by Benjamin’s family. In December 1981, Azucena left for the United States of America. In February 1982, Benjamin and Sally lived together as husband and wife. Sally’s father was against the relationship. On 7 March 1982, in order to appease her father, Sally brought Benjamin to an office in Santolan, Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage contract. Sally, knowing Benjamin’s marital status, assured him that the marriage contract would not be registered. Benjamin and Sally’s cohabitation produced two children, Bernice and Bentley The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada, bringing Bernice and Bentley with her. She then filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents against Benjamin, using their simulated marriage contract as evidence. Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity of marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to Sally was bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage. Benjamin also asked the trial court for the partition of the properties he acquired with Sally in accordance with Article 148 of the Family Code, for his appointment as administrator of the properties during the pendency of the case, and for the declaration of Bernice and Bentley as illegitimate children. A total of 44 registered properties became the subject of the partition before the trial court. Aside from the seven properties enumerated by Benjamin in his petition, Sally named 37 properties in her answer. The trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin. The trial court gave weight to the certification dated 21 July 2004 from the Pasig Local Civil Registrar, which was confirmed during trial, that only Marriage License Series Nos. 6648100 to 6648150 were issued for the month of February 1982 and the purported Marriage License No. N-07568 was not issued to Benjamin and Sally. The trial court ruled that the marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office because it could not be registered due to Benjamin’s subsisting marriage with Azucena. The trial court ruled that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous. The trial court ruled that the second marriage was void not because of the existence of the first marriage but because of other causes, particularly, the lack of a marriage license. Hence, bigamy was not committed in this case. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Benjamin and Sally is null and void. HELD: Sally alleges that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals recognized her marriage to Benjamin because a marriage could not be nonexistent and, at the same time, null and void ab initio. Sally further alleges that if she were allowed to present her evidence, she would have proven her marriage to Benjamin. To prove her marriage to Benjamin, Sally asked this Court to consider that in acquiring real properties, Benjamin listed her as his wife by declaring he was "married to" her; that Benjamin was the informant in their children’s birth certificates where he stated that he was their father; and that Benjamin introduced her to his family and friends as his wife. In contrast, Sally claims that there was no real property registered in the names of Benjamin and Azucena. Sally further alleges that Benjamin was not the informant in the birth certificates of his children with Azucena. First, Benjamin’s marriage to Azucena on 10 September 1973 was duly established before the trial court, evidenced by a certified true copy of their marriage contract. At the time Benjamin and Sally entered into a purported marriage on 7 March 1982, the marriage between Benjamin and Azucena was valid and subsisting. On the purported marriage of Benjamin and Sally, Teresita Oliveros (Oliveros), Registration Officer II of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, testified that there was no valid marriage license issued to Benjamin and Sally. Oliveros confirmed that only Marriage Licence Nos. 6648100 to 6648150 were issued for the month of February 1982. Marriage License No. N-07568 did not match the series issued for the month. Oliveros further testified that the local civil registrar of Pasig City did not issue

Marriage License No. N-07568 to Benjamin and Sally. The certification from the local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage license and absent any suspicious circumstance, the certification enjoys probative value, being issued by the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.11 Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally entered into a marriage contract, the marriage was void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license.12 It was also established before the trial court that the purported marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. The lack of record was certified by Julieta B. Javier, Registration Officer IV of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pasig;13 Teresita R. Ignacio, Chief of the Archives Division of the Records Management and Archives Office, National Commission for Culture and the Arts;14 and Lourdes J. Hufana, Director III, Civil Registration Department of the National Statistics Office.15 The documentary and testimonial evidence proved that there was no marriage between Benjamin and Sally. As pointed out by the trial court, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally "was made only in jest"16 and "a simulated marriage, at the instance of Sally, intended to cover her up from expected social humiliation coming from relatives, friends and the society especially from her parents seen as Chinese conservatives."17 In short, it was a fictitious marriage. The fact that Benjamin was the informant in the birth certificates of Bernice and Bentley was not a proof of the marriage between Benjamin and Sally. This Court notes that Benjamin was the informant in Bernice’s birth certificate which stated that Benjamin and Sally were married on 8 March 198218 while Sally was the informant in Bentley’s birth certificate which also stated that Benjamin and Sally were married on 8 March 1982.19 Benjamin and Sally were supposedly married on 7 March 1982 which did not match the dates reflected on the birth certificates. We see no inconsistency in finding the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and, at the same time, non-existent. Under Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage solemnized without a license, except those covered by Article 34 where no license is necessary, "shall be void from the beginning." In this case, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a license. It was duly established that no marriage license was issued to them and that Marriage License No. N-07568 did not match the marriage license numbers issued by the local civil registrar of Pasig City for the month of February 1982. The case clearly falls under Section 3 of Article 3520 which made their marriage void ab initio. The marriage between Benjamin and Sally was also non-existent. Applying the general rules on void or inexistent contracts under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, contracts which are absolutely simulated or fictitious are "inexistent and void from the beginning."21 Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the trial court’s ruling that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null and void ab initio and non-existent. Except for the modification in the distribution of properties, the Court of Appeals affirmed in all aspects the trial court’s decision and ruled that "the rest of the decision stands."22 While the Court of Appeals did notdiscuss bigamous marriages, it can be gleaned from the dispositive portion of the decision declaring that "the rest of the decision stands" that the Court of Appeals adopted the trial court’s discussion that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally is not bigamous. The trial court stated: On whether or not the parties’ marriage is bigamous under the concept of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the marriage is not bigamous. It is required that the first or former marriage shall not be null and void. The marriage of the petitioner to Azucena shall be assumed as the one that is valid, there being no evidence to the contrary and there is no trace of invalidity or irregularity on the face of their marriage contract. However, if the second marriage was void not because of the existence of the first marriage but for other causes such as lack of license, the crime of bigamy was not committed. In People v. De Lara [CA, 51 O.G., 4079], it was held that what was committed was contracting marriage against the provisions of laws not under Article 349 but Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code. Concluding, the marriage of the parties is therefore not bigamous because there was no marriage license. The daring and repeated stand of respondent that she is legally married to petitioner cannot, in any instance, be sustained. Assuming that her marriage to petitioner has the marriage license, yet the same would be bigamous, civilly or criminally as it would be invalidated by a prior existing valid marriage of petitioner and Azucena.23 For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a prior marriage.24 In this case, there was really no subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just signed a purported marriage contract without a marriage license. The supposed marriage was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage between Benjamin and Sally did not exist. They lived together and represented themselves as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.