Persons Finals Case Digests

PERSONS FINALS CASE DIGESTS

Yes, CA erred. Albios-Fringer marriage is not void. Following the lower courts’ contentions that consent was not freely given, this Court delved into Article 2 & 4 of the FC

RP VS. ALBIOS

Art 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present 1)

Facts: 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

Daniel Lee Fringer, an American and Liberty Albios, a Filipina were married before MeTC-Mandaluyong, evidenced by a Marriage Certificate RN. 20041588 In 2006, Albios filed with the RTC for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that immediately after the marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife. They never had the intention of entering into a married state and described their marriage as a one made in jest, therefore null and void ab initio. Summons were served on Fringer but he did not file his answer. The RTC ordered the Provincial prosecutor to conduct an investigation to find out whether there was collusion. Prosecutor consequently said that she could not make a determination as both parties failed to appear in the investigation At the pre-trial, only Albios appeared.

RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. Ordered Albios to change her surname back to Albios to avoid misimpressions RTC had the view that the marriage only took place for convenience only. It stated that the marriage was contracted for Albios to acquire American citizenship, to which Fringer agreed to be paid $2,000. Since Fringer did not process the petition for citizenship, Albios never paid him. 6. 7.

RP, through OSG, filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied for lack of merit. OSG filed an appeal before the CA

CA affirmed RTC’s ruling, finding that the essential requisite of consent was lacking. It rules that both parties had no understanding of the nature and consequences of getting married and that their marriage was one made in jest. OSG contends that: (1) consent should be distinguished from motive; (2) the parties intentionally consented to enter into real and valid marriage, in order for Albios.

2)

Under this article, a “freely given” consent required that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately entered into the marriage. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not acquired by fraud, force. Consent must also be conscious and intelligent, making parties capable of intelligent understanding the nature of. In the case at bar, consent was not lacking. There was real consent, evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship through marriage. A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, with no real intention of entering a marriage, with no clear understanding of the marriage status. This court ruled that this marriage was not analogous to one made in jest. Their intention was clear: to attain an American citizenship. Genuine consent, is therefore, present. The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead (it would be intrusion of privacy) Neither is it found voidable on the ground of fraud under Article 45. This Court cannot leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed. WHEREFORE, petition is granted.

ABBAS vs. ABBAS FACTS: 1. 2. 3.

ISSUE: W/N CA erred on its ruling that the marriage was one made in jest RULING:

Legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a male and female; and Consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer

4.

Petitioner Syed Abbas, a Pakistani, seeks for the nullity of his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas in RTC-Pasay for the absence of a marriage license Syed and Gloria got married at the Taipei Mosque, Taiwan in August 1992. Syed arrived in Manila in December In January 1993, at Felicitas Goo’s residence in Malate, Manila, Syed was told he was going to undergo “some ceremony for his stay in the PH,” and then Felicitas arrived with two men. Consequently, Syed and Gloria signed a document, which Syed found out later that everything was an arranged marriage ceremony. Petitioner also argues that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license, as he never resided there

5.

6. 7.

8.

Syed went to the Office of the Civil Registrar to check on their license number 9969967, only to find out it was issued to another couple (GetaladoMabilangan) Syed also testified that Gloria had filed a bigamy case against him In her defense, Gloria present (1) Rev Dauz, who testified that he has legal authority to solemnize marriages since 1982, and that their marriage were witnessed by Atty Sanchez, and Mary Ann Ceriola, and he himself submitted the marriage contract and license with that office; (2) Atty Sanchez, who testified that he was a sponsor to the wedding and had requested a certain Qualin to secure the marriage license; (3) Felicitas Goo, who testified that she did not read the contents of the marriage license; and (4) Mary Ann Ceriola, whose testimonies corroborate with Sanchez & Goo Gloria, in her part, testified that they were married, evidenced by a marriage contract bearing their signatures. And that after Qualin returned with their marriage license, he gave it to Atty. Sanchez, and then to Rev. Dauz. She also testified that Syed was subsequently married to Maria Buenaventura. And that she was unsure about their marriage in Taiwan, because the one who celebrated their marriage was Chinese and the people who had witnessed, were likewise Chinese

RTC ruled that there was no marriage as there was an absence of the formal requisites of marriage, and that they violated Article 9, because neither of them resided in Carmona, Cavite. CA reversed RTC’s ruling and gave credence to the testimonial and documentary evidence presented. (Certificate of legal capacity by Embassy of Pakistan, signature of appellee in the marriage contract) CA also said that the Civil Registrar failed to state that they initiated a “diligent search”, so marriage is still existing. ISSUE: W/N the marriage is valid RULING: SC finds the petitioner meritorious. On the ground of Art 3, 4 and Art 35 (3) Gloria failed to present actual marriage license, despite her diligent search, weakening her defense.

RONULO VS. PEOPLE FACTS: 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on March 2003, at Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish in Ilocos On the day, officiating officer refused to solemnize the marriage because of the lack of a marriage license. The couple, together with their guests, headed to Aglipayan Church. Rene Ronulo conducted a ceremony on the same day where they declared to take each other as husband and wife, despite the knowledge of the lack of marriage license Petitioner was charged with the violation of Article 352 of the RPC, where he pleaded “not guilty” Joseph and Mary Anne Yere, sponsors to the wedding testified that they witnessed an actual wedding ceremony, as there was an exchange of rings, vows and kisses. They also signed a marriage contract. Florida Umadac, mother of Joey testified that she heard the couple declare that they take each other as husband and wife. She, thereafter, went to the municipal local civil registrar of Ilocos where she was given a certificate that no marriage license was issued to the couple.

MTC did not believe Ronulo’s defense that what he did was an act of blessing and was not tantamount to a solemnization, and ruled the Petitioner guilty. He was fined Php 200 pesos, as his act of blessing constituted a marriage ceremony as he made an official church recognition of the cohabitation of the couple. RTC affirmed MTC’s ruling. CA affirmed the lower courts’ rulings and observed that although there was no prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of marriage, the law provides minimum standards in determining whether a ceremony has been conducted: (1) personal appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer, (2) their declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two legal witnesses. According to the CA, the prosecution duly proved these requirements. ISSUE: W/N the Petitioner committed an illegal marriage

The Municipal Civil Registrar issued a letter that no such marriage license was issued.

RULING: Yes. The petition is unmeritorious.

Gloria’s failure to prove that the marriage was valid, gave no credence to the bigamy suit filed against Syed.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of these requirements negates his defense of good faith.

“Presumption of regularity of official may be rebutted by an evidence of an irregularity” WHEREFORE, Marriage is void ab initio.

second marriage is likewise void. Therefore, Yee-Santiago’s marriage is VOID AB INITIO

CARINO VS CARINO FACTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

Arts 147-148 – property regime of bigamous marriages Santiago Carino and Susan Nicdao were married in 1969, with two offspring, Sahlee and Sandee Santiago Carino and Susan Yee-Carino were married in 1992, but had no children in their almost 10-year cohabitation Santiago died because of diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis under the care of Susan Yee, who paid for his medical and burial expenses. Both Susan Nicdao and Susan Yee filed claims for the monetary benefits and financial assistance Nicdao was able to collect Php 146,000, while Yee received a total of Php 21,000 Yee filed for an instant collection of the sum of money of at least half of the Php 146,000, to which the petitioner failed to respond to, which was ruled in favour of Yee. Yee admitted that her marriage with the deceased took place during the subsistence of the previous marriage, without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity between Nicdao and Santiago, claimed that she only had knowledge of the previous marriage during the funeral of the deceased. Yee contends that Nicdao’s marriage with Santiago was void ab initio because it was celebrated without the required marriage license. She presented the marriage certificate of deceased and Nicdao which bears no license number and a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, which reads that they have no record of marriage of Santiago and Susan Nicdao.

RTC ruled in favour of Yee and prompted Nicdao to pay Php 73,000 to Yee CA affirmed RTC’s decision

As regards to the first marriage, the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to absence of a valid marriage license. Nicdao can claim the death benefits by the deceased even if she did not contribute thereto. Article 147 creates a coownership in respect thereto, entitling Nicdao to share one-half of the benefits. As there is no allegation of bad faith in the first marriage, she can claim one-half of the disputed death benefits and the other half to the deceased' to his legal heirs, by intestate succession. The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same has been solemnized without the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4. Under Article 40, if a party who is previously married wishes to contract a second marriage, he or she has to obtain first a judicial decree declaring the first marriage void, before he or she could contract said second marriage, otherwise the second marriage would be void. However, for purposes other than to remarry, no prior and separate judicial declaration of nullity is necessary. WHEREFORE, Nicdao and Yee receives the half of Php 146,000. ____________________________________________________________________

RP VS. DAYOT  FACTS: 1. 2.

ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in its decision RULING: No.

3.

Art 4 – absence of a marriage license – void ab initio -

The certificate from the Local Civil Registrar that there’s no marriage license is enough proof Presumed validity of marriage cannot stand because Nicdao avoided the issue Santiago and Nicdao’s marriage does not fall within the purview of exceptions set forth in Arts. 27-35

Art 40—judicial decision of nullity on first marriage for purpose of remarriage -

All marriages are presumed to be valid, and because of Article 40, when judicial decision of nullity on first marriage was lacking, the

Prior to the effectivity of the FC

4.

Jose and Felisa were married at RTC-Pasay in 1986 They executed a sworn affidavit that they lived together for at least five years On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with Rufina Pascual, to which Felisa filed a bigamy case with. Being both employees of the National Statistics and Coordinating board, Felisa also filed an administrative complaint with the office of the Ombudsman, which Jose was administratively liable for immoral conduct Jose filed a petition for annulment and the declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds that: a) their marriage was a sham, b) the consent was secured though fraud 3) there was no marriage license d) neither of them were members of Rev. Tomas Atienza’s church or religious sect

ISSUE: W/N Jose’s marriage with Felisa is valid, despite the lack of marriage license RULING: NO. Marriage is VOID AB INITIO.

CA established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together five years prior to their execution of sworn affidavit and contracted marriage, and they only lived together barely 5 months before the celebration of their marriage. This finding by the CA is binding with this Court.

MOLINA DOCTRINE (in application of Art 36) 1)

This solemnization without a license is a violation of the law which invalidates the marriage. Their cohabitation did not fall under the exceptions.

2)

This Court also ruled that an action for nullity of marriage is imprescriptible (supply legal basis)

3) 4) 5) 6)

____________________________________________________________________

RP VS. MOLINA 

Art 36 – most liberal divorce procedure in the world

FACTS: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

7) 8)

Burden of proof to show nullity lies with the plaintiff. Any doubts shall be resolved in favour of the continuance of marriage and against the dissolution Root cause of incapacity must be: clinically and medically identified, alleged in the information, sufficiently proven by experts and explained in the decision Incapacity must be exisiting at the time of marriage (Juridical Antecedence) Incapacity must be incurable (Incurability) Incapacity must be so grave (gravity) There must be showing that there is failure to meet the essential obligations as husband and wife (Art 68, 71 of FC) and parental obligations (220, 221, 225 of FC) The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal ad the Catholic Church, although not binding, must be respected by the Court This Court shall order a prosecuting attorney and the fiscal to investigate collusions and to appear in behalf of the State

____________________________________________________________________ Roridel and Reynaldo were married in April 1985, with a son named Andre, who was born a year after. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility by (1) spending time with peers, (2) depended on parents for assistance and (3) squandered money In 1986, when Reynaldo was relieved of his job, Roridel became the bread winner of the family. This is when quarrels began. In 1987, Roridel went to live in with her parents in Baguio, and Reynaldo left her and their child. Reynaldo agreed that they can no longer live together due to Roridels’ strange behaviour, refusal to do marital duties an her failure to handle finances

RTC ruled that the marriage in void under Art 36. CA also affirmed RTC’s ruling

SANTOS VS. CA FACTS: 1) 2) 3)

4) 5) 6)

In Sept 1986, Leouel and Julia married in MTC-Ilo-Ilo, and had Leouel Santos, Jr. Quarrels started between the couple when Julia’s parents started to interfere with their conjugal affairs In 1988, Julia left for the US to work as a nurse despite Leouel’s dissuasion. In 1989, Julia called Leouel to inform him that she’ll be coming home upon her contract’s expiration—she never did. Leouel went to the US under the AFP to locate Julia but failed. Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint voiding marriages under Art 36. Arguing that affection and communication was lacking Julia, through her counsel, opposed and denied Leouel’s allegations and claimed that it was Leouel who was the irresponsible and incompetent one

ISSUE: W/N this marriage falls void under Art 36 of the FC

RTC ruled in favour of the marriage, dismissed Leouel’s petition for lack of merit

RULING: No, the marriage subsists and is valid.

CA affirmed.

It is more than irreconcilable differences & conflicting personalities, the one who is accused of being incapacitated must exhibit inclinations which would not meet marital obligations and duties

ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void under Art 36 of the FC.

Expert testimony showed no incurability, therefore, the couple is not psychologically unfit.

NO. Petition is denied.

RULING:

The Family Code revision did not define psychological incapacity, so there are no limits and it is ruled as a case-to-case basis.

2. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, event desperate in his present situation. Regrettable, neither law nor society itself can always provide for this problem. Judge Caguioa – it was only the lack of appreciation of one’s marital obligations Justice Reyes – Psychological incapacity does not apply to a marriage where there is an understanding of obligations and consequences.

RULING: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent responsible for “commission of non-feasance” and suggested a fine of Php 5,000. 1.

The basis of this provision is Canon 1095, which provides that psychological incapacity can be exhibited by 1) lack of sufficient use of reason 2) there is a grave defect of discretion of judgement 3) one is psychologically challenged to assume marital obligations

Judge Diy – said that PI must be shown by a) gravity; b) juridical antecedence; and c) incurability

W/N Judge Daguman committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not registering the complainant’s marriage before the Local Civil Registrar

2.

Yes. Respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Art 7 (1) provides that a marriage may be solemnized by, “any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction,” in relation to Article 8 that there are only three instances with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his jurisdiction: (1) in articulo mortis, (2) remote places, and (3) where both parties requested, in writing, that the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement— in this case, none of these three instances were present. Yes, there was neglect in duty set forth by Art 23 of the FC—that it was the duty of the respondent to register the marriage.

____________________________________________________________________

BESO VS. DAGUMAN FACTS: 1)

2)

3) 4) 5)

6)

____________________________________________________________________ Petitioner Zenaida Beso charged Judge Daguman for solemnizing marriage outside of his jurisdiction & negligence in retaining a copy of marriage contract Bernardo Yman and Petitioner got married in Respondent’s residence in Calbayog City (away from Daguman’s jurisdiction Sta. Margarita-PagsanjanTarangan) with Pacifico Magbacot & Ramon and Teresita Dean as legal witnesses. Bernardo Yman abandoned petitioner after the wedding. Petitioner found out that the wedding was not registered. Respondent contends that the was physically indisposed and unable to report to his station in Sta Margarita-Pagsanjan-Tarangan; petitioner urgently requested that their marriage be celebrate because she was leaving for abroad and feared that it would complicate her marriage abroad; Respondent insists he believed in good faith and that the duplicate and triplicate copies of the marriage certificate have gone missing Yman admitted to have had another girl by the name of Lita Danguyan.

VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO FACTS: 1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

Alice Van Dorn, a Filipino and private Respondent, American Richard Uptown were married in Hong Kong in 1972. They established residence in the PH, and begot two children. They were divorced in 1982 Petitioner remarried Theodore Van Dorn, in Nevada Private respondent filed suit stating the Galleon Shop in Ermita is conjugal property, and that accounting must be rendered. He also contends that property is located in the Philippines, thus Divorce Decree has no bearing. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that respondent had acknowledged that he & petitioner had no community property.

RTC affirmed private respondent’s contention and denied the dismissal on the ground that Divorce Decree is not binding Nevada District Court – obtained jurisdiction over the petitioner and private respondent and has divorced them on the ground of incompatibility.

ISSUES: 1.

SC affirms OCA’s suggestion

W/N Judge Daguman is liable for solemnizing a marriage outside of his jurisdiction

ISSUE: W/N foreign divorce is binding in the Philippines

RULING: Yes. Divorce is binding in the PH (Art 15 of NCC) – divorces obtained abroad, and valid there, may be recognized here in the Philippines

4.

Respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner, she would have no locus standi to sue petitioner to exercise control over their conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own representation before the court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

5.

____________________________________________________________________

7.

PILAPIL VS IBAY-SOMERA, GEILING

6.

8.

FACTS: 1.

2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

Petitioner Imelda Manalaysay-Pilapil, a Filipina and Erich Geiling, a German, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Germany. They lived together in Malate and had a child named Isabella. Private respondent initiated a divorce in Germany on the ground of failure of marriage, while petitioner filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC-Manila There were divorced and custody was granted to Petitioner. In 1986, respondent filed two complaints of adultery (People vs. Imelda Pilapil and William Chia) and (People vs. Imelda Pilapil & Jesus Chua). These were dismissed on insufficiency of evidence, but were approved of resolution Petitioner asked for the resolution to be set aside & James Chia did the same. Motion to quash was also filed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction

ISSUE: W/N Respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even after the present of a divorce decree

9.

Rodolfo testified that their marriage was forced, in the light of Natividad’s pregnancy. He was 21 and she was 18. He has no stable job then, so he worked in gambling cockpits. Rodolfo joined and trained for the army. Natividad left their conjugal home to move in to Dipolog to live with a certain Engineer Terez. They had Julie Ann Terez. Natividad contracted a second marriage in 1991 with Antonio Mondares, and had lived in CDO. Rodolfo and her daughters were abandoned. Natividad filed her answer, saying that she had submitted herself to Dr. Zalsos, but did not appear in trial. Dr. Zalsos stated that both are psychologically incapacitated to comply as they suffered “utter emotional immaturity: (1) Natividad lacked cooperation as to being a wife (2) Rodolfo also had another woman. The OSG contends that these do not demonstrate psychological incapacity, as these were grounds for legal separation.

RTC ruled that the marriage was void on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC heavily relied on Dr. Zalsos’ findings that Natividad’s incapacity was incurable. CA affirmed RTC’s ruling

ISSUE: W/N CA erred in sustaining RTC’s decision RULING: Yes. Petition is meritorious Psychological incapacity is a mental incapacity that causes party to be incognitive of his or her obligations (Art 68, 71, 220, 221, FC) Santos vs. CA – was not able to establish gravity and juridical antecedence Dedel vs. CA – emotional immaturity is no psychological incapacity.

RULING: No The legal effect of divorce is recognized in this country. He is no longer the husband of the petitioner, thus absolving him of his legal standing to sue, even in the allegation of the respondent having no knowledge was immaterial and insignificant. ____________________________________________________________________

RP VS. DE GRACIA

2. 3.

MENDOZA VS. RP, MENDOZA FACTS:

FACTS: 1.

Dr. Zalsos’ testimonies were insufficient to characterize such incapacity.

Rodolfo & Natividad were married in 1969, lived in Zamboanga and has 2 daughters: Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizza In 1998, Rodolfo filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity Public prosecutor conducted an investigation but found no collusion

1. 2. 3.

Arabelle & Dominic were next-door neighbours when they were in college, they became intimate which led to her pregnancy with Alyssa Bianca. In 1991, they were solemnized in RTC-Pasay, although remaining dependent on their parents for support Dominic remained jobless while Arabelle had various jobs for rental, food, bills and their child’s educational needs.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

Dominic started working as a car salesman in Toyota Bel-Air. He spends his sales commission on a bash with his friends while Arabelle shouldered all expenses. Dominic had an illicit relationship with his co-worker Zaida Dominic gave Arabelle a Daihatsu Charade Car, he asked her to issue two bank checks which he claimed to be used for her insurance, but here used the money for himself, forcing her & her father-in-law to pay part of the costs Dominic was fired after running away with Php 164,000. He was criminally charged with estafa. Arabelle bailed him out Dominic abandoned the conjugal home because Arabelle needed time & space, where Dominic threatened to commit suicide. Then and there, she left the house to live in a place concealed from him Petitioner filed before the RTC a declaration of nullity on the ground of psych incapacity. The OSG opposed.

RTC – Dominic did not appear on trial, ruling the marriage an absolute nullity. The RTC relied on the evidence presented by Dr. Samson & Dr. Primero that Petitioner is strong and responsible, and that respondent could not reciprocate it. Gravity: ever since the start of marriage, all responsibilities were carried by the petitioner and there was sexual infidelity. Antecedence: it was only after marriage that it began to surface Incurability: there appears no chance for respondent to recover CA – while testimonies were persuasive, it was not conclusive. These characteristics do not constitute psychological incapacity but grounds for legal separation (Art 55)

ISSUE: W/N CA erred in the establishment of psychological incapacity RULING: No Such findings were solely based on Arabelle’s ill-feelings towards Dominic—there was doubt in the testimony of the expert There was also failure to examine and interview Dominic

The state is a defensor vincula (defender of marital bond)

MARCOS VS. MARCOS FACTS: 1.

2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

RTC ruled the marriage void ab inito CA ruled that the psychological incapacity was not well established. Findings of Dr. Dayan were based on appellee.

ISSUES: 1) 2)

In the case of Dagdag – it must be sufficiently proven

Pesca – emotional immaturity is not tantamount to psychological incapacity

W/N CA could set aside RTC findings because of respondent’s refusal to subject himself to evaluation W/N there is psych incapacity

RULING: 1)

Hernandez – testimony must establish cause of respondent’s incapacity

Brenda and Wilson married before the MTC-Pasig. Prior to the marriage, Wilson worked as a presidential guard of Ferdinand Marcos, while Brenda was an escort of Imee They lived at Mandaluyong, a housing unit owned by Brenda when she was still single. After the downfall of President Marcos, he left the military and then engaged in different business ventures that did not prosper. He was always urged to look for work so he’d be seen as a provider by their children. With this, quarrels became frequent and he would physically maltreat her Brenda and her children moved out of Mandaluyong Brenda went back with her sister and driver to look for Niko, thereupon, Wilson got mad, ran after them with a samurai and even beat their driver Children describe their father as cruel and physically abusive

2)

YES – Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring nullity may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement that the respondent be examined by the physician as it is not a sine qua non for such declaration. NO. The totality of his acts failed to convince this court event though this court is convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse. There was no showing that these were present at the inception of marriage and that they were incurable. The behaviour of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for more than 6 years

____________________________________________________________________

4.

TORING VS. TORING FACTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

5. Ricardo and Teresita were married in QC City Court and had three children: Richardson, Rachel Anne, Ric Jayson In 1999, Ricardo filed a petition for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity. Ricardo offered evidence of their: marriage contract, psych evaluation by Dra. Albaran and Dra. Albaran’s testimonies Teresita did not file any answer or opposition Ricardo alleged that she was an adulteress and a squandered. He would come home and be welcomed by debts; one time Teresita’s stomach got bigger and Ricardo suspected her to be pregnant with another man; Ricardo says that Teresita was painfully unmindful of his sacrifices. Albaran claimed that Teresita is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder—based only on the information from psychiatric evaluation on Ricardo and Richardson OSG contends that there was no basis as the evaluation was not done on Teresita

In a letter to the OCA, respondent judge avers that the office and name of the municipal mayor (Navarro) have been used by someone else overly concerned of his actions. Same person has earlier filed two AMs against him Respondent states that as to Tagadan-Borga wedding, he merely relied on the affidavit issues by the MTC-Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for seven years

ISSUES: 1) 2)

W/N Domagtoy is liable W/N Marriages were valid

RULING: 1)

2)

RTC agreed with Ricardo CA ruled that the RTC did not follow the rules set in RP vs. Molina and Santos vs. CA

Yes. He will be administratively liable. Judge has acted with gross misconduct and seem to fail in the comprehension of law. OCA – 6 months suspension and a stern warning. No. The court held that the marriage between Tagadan-Borja was void and bigamous (Art 35), there be a subsisting marriage between him and his first wife. Although the latter was gone for seven years and Tagadan has a wellfounded belief that his wife is dead, he did not institute a summary proceeding as provided in the CC for the declaration of presumptive death (Art 41). Despite this, he still continued with the solemnization. Sumaylo-del Rosario is not void. (Art 4) The wedding was not solemnized within his jurisdiction and the fact that one of the parties requested for the marriage to be solemnized at a house or another place, it must still fall within the jurisdiction of the judge. (Art 7) this marriage also does not fall within the purview of exceptions of marriages celebrated outside his jurisdiction

ISSUE: W/N there is sufficient basis to declare the marriage void due to psychological incapacity RULING: NO. Petition is unmeritorious. Mere narration of the statements of Ricardo and Richardson, coupled with the results of the psychological tests administered only on Ricardo, do not constitute sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita suffered from such disorder.

GARCIA-QUIAZON VS BELEN, QUIAZON

_____________________________________________ NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY FACTS: 1. 2. 3.

FACTS: 1. 2. 3.

Respondent is a judge in the MCTC of Sta. Maria-Burgos, Surigao In 1994, respondent solemnized the wedding between Tagadan and Borga, despite knowing that that the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Petitioner also alleges that respondent performed a ceremony between Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario in his home in Dapa, 40-50 kms away from Sta. Maria-Burgos

4. 5.

Eliseo, father of respondent Elise, died in 1992 Respondent, with her mother Lourdes, filed a petition for the letters of administration before the RTC-Las Pinas Elise claims that she is a legitimate child, being born at the time when her parents are both capacitated to marry each other; and that the petitioner Amelia has a subsisting marriage with a certain Filipito Elise sought her appoint as administratrix Petitioner assails Elise contention, saying that it was filed in the wrong court and there is no legal basis for her to be appointed as administrator.

RTC – ruled that the venue was properly laid, discrediting petitioner’s argument that Eliseo lived in Capas, Tarlac. RTC also affirmed Elise to be the administrator. CA – affirmed RTC because Elise was able to shoe that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together from 1975-1992.

4. 5.

6. ISSUES: 1) 2) 3)

W/N the petition was filed in correct location W/N Amelia and Eliseo are legally married W/N Elise is qualified to be administrator

RULING: 1. 2.

3.

CA dismissed Celerina’s petition for being a wrong remedy. The right remedy was a sworn statement of reappearance, pursuant to Art 42. ISSUE: W/N CA erred in assignment of proper remedy RULING:

Yes. Eliseo resided at Las Pinas City, so estate settlements may be laid in the said city NO. Evidence presented that while Eliseo had died in Capas in 1985, he filed for an action for judicial partition of properties against Amelia before RTC-QC on the ground of bigamous marriage. YES. Elise had legal standing to impugn such marriage as their marriage was governed by the Civil Code, allowing respondent to petition for the nullity of his father’s marriage. Elise was able to comply with the requirement that Interested party must present: (1) jurisdictional facts, (2) Name, Age and Location of creditors and decedent, (3) probable value of the properties and (4) Name of the interest party

____________________________________________________________________

Yes. Petition was meritorious. The ground for annulment are extrinsic and intrinsic. The case at bar bears an extrinsic ground because there was no fair submission of trial. There was fraud when Ricardo made false allegations. This court had no jurisdiction because the OSG and the office of the Provincial Prosecutor were not given copies if Ricardo’s petition This Court ruled that Art 42 could not be applied to Celerina, because Celerina never left. The following are conditions for termination under Art 42: a) b) c) d)

SANTOS VS. SANTOS FACTS: 1. 2.

3.

Celerina claims that she only knew about Ricardo’s petition in 2008, where she can no longer avail the remedies of trial and appeal. Celerina filed for annulment of judgement before the CA on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and fraud, she was deprived of notice and opportunity to oppose. Celerina argues that it was Ricardo who left the conjugal dwelling. And that Ricardo made false allegations, whereas the formers seeks nullifications of subsequent marriage.

Ricardo filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage in 2007. Ricardo remarried in 2008. Ricardo alleged that Celerina and he have lived in San Juan, moved to Tarlac and engaged in buy-and-sell, but their business did not prosper, so Celerina had to go abroad as a domestic helper. She left and was never heard from again. Ricardo also alleged that he exerted efforts to locate Celerina by looking for her parents, friends and relatives. RTC ruled that Celerina was presumptively dead.

Non-existence of a judgement annulling previous marriage Record of civil registry to the subsequent marriage of the sworn statement of that fact of reappearance Due notice of reappearance Fact of reappearance must be judicially determined.

Subsequent marriage may still subsist when: a) b) c) d)

When the first marriage has been annulled/void Sworn statement of reappearance is not recorded in the Local Civil Registry No notice was sent to the spouses No judgement of reappearance

Valid bigamous marriage: a) b) c) d)

Absence of four years Well-founded belief Summary proceeding of presumptive death Court declaration of death

WHEREFORE, Case is remanded back to the CA

2.

RP VS. CANTOR FACTS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

3. Jerry and Maria Fe were married in 199, and lived in South Cotabato In Jan 1998, the couple had a violent quarrel brought about by: (1) Inability to reach climax, (2) Jerry’s animosity towards Maria Fe’s father Jerry left the conjugal dwelling and was nowhere to be found Maria Fe, more than 4 years of Jerry’s disappearance filed before the RTC a petition for her husband’s declaration of presumptive death, claimed to have a well-founded belief that Jerry was dead: inquired from her in-laws, looked through patient’s directory whenever she goes to hospital

4. 5. 6.

7.

RTC ruled that Jerry was presumptively dead under Art 41 CA affirmed RTC’s ruling, there was no grave abuse of discretion 5.

6.

The OSG brought about the matter via Rule 45—although judgements on judicial preceedings are final and executory, does not mean that they are not subject to review The OSG contended that the respondent did not have a well-founded belief as there was insufficient diligence, effort and inquiries.

ISSUE: W/N Responded has a well-founded belief that Jerry Cantor is dead RULING: NO Rule 65—OSG can question any abuse of discretion, where the courts can modify their decision via certiorari. The 4 rquisites for the declaration of presumptive decision were not sufficiently complied with. RP vs. CA – petitioner sought help of in-laws, police of NBI—but it was still not enough. Maria fell short on the diligence required.

ISSUES: 1)

A final and executory judgement by the RTC may be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (F.A.M.E). In the case at bar, the decision of nullity became final when the petitioner and his counsel failed to appear, which petitioner excuses medical reasons. Further, it is an inexcusable negligence. Petitioner also impugns due to the absence of a prosecuting office who shall have been intervening for the state. It cannot be applied to the case at bar as he has actively participated in the proceedings, and his participation precludes that there is no collusion between the two of them

NEPUMUCENO VS. LOPEZ FACTS: 1.

2.

FACTS: 1.

Victoria Tuazon married petitioner Emilio Tuazon in 1972.

W/N the courts erred in not ordering a prosecuting officer to intervene under Art 48 of FC

RULING: No.

____________________________________________________________________

TUASON VS. CA

Due to repetitive physical abuse against her, petitioner’s use of prohibited drugs, cohabitation with three other women, leaving the conjugal home and giving minimal child support, abuse of conjugal property use and incurring debts without the respondent’s consent, respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage in 1989 in RTC-Makati on the ground of psychological incapacity, and prayer for powers of administration Petitioner filed his opposition in April 1990 and thereafter, was scheduled to present his evidence on May 11, 1990. Petitioner’s counsel moved for a postponement to June 8, however, petitioner failed to appear. In June 1990, RTC rendered judgement declaring the nullity of marriage and awarding the custody to respondent. No appeal was taken In September 1990, respondent filed for a motion for the dissolution of CPG and adjudication to plaintiff of the conjugal properties, which was again opposed by the petitioner. Petitioner filed a petition from relief of judgement of 1990 decision, RTC denied, CA affirmed RTC’s denial.

3.

Respondent Arbhencel claims to have been begotten out of an extramarital affair of petitioner Ben-Hur and her mother Aracelli; that petitioner refused to affix his signature on her Birth Certificate and that the petitioner obligated himself to give her financial support of Php 3,000/month. Respondent prays that petitioner be ordered to: a. Recognize her as a child b. Give her support of 8,000/month c. Monthly financial report until she reaches 18 Petitioner countered that he was not the father of Arbhencel and was only forced to execute note on account of NPA threats.

RTC granted petitioner’s demurrer of evidence -

Arhbencel’s birth certificate was not prima facie evidence of filiation as it did not bear Ben-Hur’s signature. Handwritten undertaking did not state that she was his child No showing that petitioner performed an overt act of acknowledgement of Arhbencel as an illegitimate child

2.

3.

CA revised bad ordered petitioner to pay 8,000/mo. -

Petitioner acted in bad faith omitting statement of paternity Petitioner paid for Araceli’s hospital bills

4. 5.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner’s filiation is duly established by prima facie evidence RULING: No. Petition is impressed with merit.

6. 7.

Art 104—Support: sustenance, dwelling, medical attendance, education, right to support Herrera vs. Alba: Art 175-establishment of legitimacy must be the same way with illegitimate and legitimate children Art 172—establishment of legitimacy: -

Record of birth Admission through public document

8.

Randy was born. When Antonio landed a job as a seaman, he abandoned Randy. Now, respondents pray that Randy be supported by Antonio Petitioner counter-claimed that he is married and has a family of his own, denies having fathered Randy. Mirasol never became his common-law wife and Mirasol has been pestering him Mirasol testified that both of them lived as neighbours in Upper Bicutan. Antonio courted her and eventually they became sweethearts. In 1983, Mirasol got pregnant, Antonio assured her that he will support her—but never did Randy’s birth certificate bore Antonio’s name as father. Mirasol said Antonio supplied his name when Erlinda was assisting Mirasol Randy claimed that when he was vacationing at Lelita’s house, Antonio’s sister, he kissed his father’s hand and called him “Papa,” to which Antonio responded with a hug Aurora Ducay confirmed that Antonio and Mirasol were in a relationship Antonio testified that he had sexual intercourse with Mirasol on Feb and Aug of 1981. He denies having courter her because he was in Ilo-ilo for school. He only knew about Randy when Mirasol filed abandonment of a minor against him. Antonio also testified that there were discrepancies in the birth certificate (w/ regards to his MI and religion)

RTC rendered decision ordering Antonio to support Randy, based on Randy’s testimonies. The RTC believes that Mirasol would not put herself to this much humiliation CA affirmed RTC and gave credence to the witnesses’ testimonies

In the absence -

Continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child Any other means allowed by the court –relationship must be shown by evidence

The note cannot be accorded in the same weight as notarial agreement to support Birth certificate bears no value because it was not signed by the putative father (Pe Lim vs. CA)

PERLA VS. BARING & PERLA

RULING: No. Petition is with Merit The court is constrained to factual findings: -

FACTS: 1.

ISSUE: W/N lower courts correctly ordered Antonio to support Randy.

In the complaint, respondent alleged that Mirasol and Antonio (respondent & petitioner) lived together as common-law spouses for 2 years. As a result,

His filiation is not sufficiently certain. Respondent failed to establish filiation (Art 172). Petitioner’s signature was lacking in Randy’s birth certificate Respondent did not present “Erlinda” to testify Lelita’s kindness is seen as an act of charity The burden of proof lies with Mirasol It was said they had carnal knowledge in 1981, but Randy was born 2 years later Order of support has no basis

SALAS VS MATUSALEM

3)

FACTS: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

Annabelle files a complaint for support and damages against Narciso in RTC-Cabanatuan Annabelle claims that petitioner is her son Christian Paulo’s father. Petitioner was 56 then, respondent, 24, when he made her believed that he was a widower Petitioner rented an apartment for respondent Petitioner paid for delivery expenses When petitioner offered to take Christian Paulo with him as it turned out he was not a widower, petitioner left and never gave support ever again Respondent prays for support in amount of 20,000 + damages Petitioner counterclaims that respondent is a woman of loose more, she once seduced a police to free her brother who was carrying drugs; and that his act of support was an act of charity Respondent testified that petitioner promised to marry her. When she found out that petitioner was still married, she wanted to abort the baby but the petitioner stopped her. Grace Murillo, the owner of the apartment corroborated with the respondent’s testimonies

YES. Birth certificate and baptismal certificate had no signatures. Even the love letters and note of administration had no signature, therefor not conclusive. Proof was not competence, as hospital bills were named under respondent.

ART 172

GRANDE VS. ANTONIO FACTS: 1. 2. 3. 4.

For some time, Grace Grande and Patricio Antonio lived together as husband and wife, although respondent was already married. They bore two sons: Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick, Patricio was not signed as the father Their relationship turned sour, Grande left for the US with her sons Antonio was prompted to file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition w/ Prayer to take Parental Authority, Custody and Change of Surname

RTC rendered a judgement in favour of respondent

RTC ruled in favour of Antonio and ordered the change of surname, grant of custody, cessation of the petitioner from bringing the minors out of the country, share and support (70% - A, 30%- G)

CA found no reason to disturb RTC ruling. Christian Paulo does not enjoy the benefit of a record of birth with Narciso’s signature, but the testimonies well-established the filiation.

CA partly granted Grande’s appeal, ordered change of surname, custody back to the mother (mother cannot be denied of custody, unless welfare of children is affected), visitorial rights upon consent of Grande, share in support

-

Lim vs. CA—father is obliged to recognize child as his own when the child has proof in his favour Ilano vs. CA—proof that defendant is the father

ISSUE: W/N Antonio has the right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children upon recognition of their filiation

ISSUES: 1) 2) 3)

W/N venue of the case is properly laid W/N CA erred in pronouncing that the petitioner afforded the full measure of his right to due process and present evidence in his favour W/N the CA erred in holding that the filiation was duly established

RULING: 1)

2)

Grande invoked Art 176 of the FC, with regards to the mandatory use of surnames (RA 9255)

Venue is improper as they were residents of Nueva Ecija but RTC was in Cabanatuan, however, objection on improper venue must be raised before a responsive pleading is filed. Otherwise, objection is deemed waived. NO. Initial hearing was supposed to be on January 27, Feb 3 & 10, 1997, but was delayed until December 1998, due to: petitions to postpone, change of counsel.

RULING: The issue is remanded back to the RTC, because the declination of the children were not filed pre-trial. Art 176 discussed the change of “shall” to “may” with respect lodged only to the children -

GENERAL RULE: ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN SHALL USE SURNAME OF THE MOTHER Exception: in case filiation is recognized by father through Art 172

Antonio’s public document acknowledged by notary is enough to establish paternity. There is no legal basis to the change of surname, what should be followed is whatever serves the best interest of the children (Alfon vs RP, Calderon vs. RP)