Final Digest Compiled

7/25/2019 Final Digest Compiled

1/173

SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, petitioner, vs. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., respondent.[G.R. No. 20101. J!"# $, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(CARPIO, J

)A*'S(1. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. (Respondent) filed a petition for declaration of a none!istent

marriage and"or declaration of n#llity of marriage $efore t%e Regional &rial Co#rt. 'e

alleged on %is petition t%at %e married A#cena Alegre (first ife) in Caloocan City in

1*+.

-. On 1*-, Benjamin and /ally (second ife) li0ed toget%er as %#s$and and ife it%o#t

t%e $enefit of marriage. /ally $ro#g%t Benjamin to an office in /antolan, Pasig City

%ere t%ey signed a p#rported marriage contract. &%eir marriage contract as not

registered.

. #ring t%e period of t%eir co%a$itation, t%ey ac2#ired se0eral real properties. &%eir

relations%ip ended in 1**3 and /ally t%en filed criminal actions for $igamy and

falsification of p#$lic doc#ments against Benjamin. Benjamin also as4ed t%e trial co#rt

for t%e partition of t%e properties %e ac2#ired it% /ally in accordance it% Article 13 of

t%e 5amily Code, for %is appointment as administrator of t%e properties d#ring t%e

pendency of t%e case, and for t%e declaration of Bernice and Bentley as illegitimate

c%ildren.

3. &%e trial co#rt rendered its decision in fa0or of Benjamin and on appeal t%e co#rt partlygranted t%e petition of /ally. 'ence, t%is petition.

ISS+ES1. 6%et%er t%e marriage $eteen Benjamin and /ally n#ll and 0oid a$ initio and non

e!istent7

-. 6%at is t%e property relation of Benjamin and /ally7

EL (1. 8es. 9nder Article : of t%e 5amily Code, a marriage solemnied it%o#t a license, e!cept

t%ose co0ered $y Article 3 %ere no license is necessary, ;s%all $e 0oid from t%e $eginning.

In t%is case, t%e first marriage as d#ly esta$lis%ed as e0idenced $y a certified tr#e copy

of t%eir marriage contract. At t%e time Benjamin and /ally entered into a p#rported marriage on +

/ally?, intended to

co0er %er #p from e!pected social %#miliation coming from relati0es, friends and t%e societyespecially from %er parents seen as C%inese conser0ati0es.; In s%ort, it as a fictitio#s marriage.

Also, t%e marriage $eteen Benjamin and /ally as solemnied it%o#t a license. It as d#ly

esta$lis%ed t%at no marriage license as iss#ed to t%em and t%at


2/173

ere s#pposedly married on +


3/173

GEO))REY BE*/E'', op"innt, vs. J+GE OLEGARIO R. SARMIEN'O, JR.,Re3ion" 'ri" *o!rt, Brn4 25, *e6! *it#, respondent.[A.M. No. R'J-12-2$2. Jn!r# $0, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( GD@A/CO, JR., J

)A*'S(1. Feoffrey Bec4ett (Complainant), an A#stralian national, as pre0io#sly married to Dltesa

ensing Bec4ett (Dltesa), a 5ilipina. O#t of t%e marriage as $orn on J#ne -*, -EE1,Feoffrey Bec4ett, Jr. (Feoffrey, Jr.).

-. In -EEH, Dltesa filed a case against Bec4ett for 0iolation of RA +H1E, ot%erise 4non as

t%e Giolence against 6omen and C%ildren Act, folloed $y a s#it for t%e declaration of

n#llity of t%eir marriage, $ot% cases ended in t%e sala of J#dge Olegario /armiento, Jr.

(respondent).

. 5or %is part, Bec4ett commenced criminal c%arges against Dltesa, one of %ic% as for

ad#ltery. &%e Respondent J#dge rendered j#dgment $ased on a compromise agreement in

%ic% Dltesa and Bec4ett agreed and #ndertoo4, among ot%ers, to ca#se t%e dismissal ofall pending ci0il and criminal cases eac% may %a0e filed against t%e ot%er. &%ey

categorically agreed too t%at Bec4ett s%all %a0e f#ll and permanent c#stody o0er

Feoffrey, Jr.,t%en fi0e (:) years old, s#$ject to t%e 0isitorial rig%ts of Dltesa.

3. &%ereafter, Bec4ett left for A#stralia, ta4ing Feoffrey, Jr. it% %im and 0isited Dltesa in

Ce$# e0ery C%ristmas. 'oe0er, in -E1E 0isit t%e c%ild remained it% t%e mot%er,

prompting Bec4ett to file a petition against Dltesa for 0iolation of RA +H1E and applied

for t%e iss#ance of a rit of %a$eas corp#s.

:. After %earing t%e petition and despite c%ilds %ysterical attit#de J#dge /armiento iss#ed

an Order, directing Dltesa to ret#rn Feoffrey, Jr. to Bec4ett. 5or some reason, t%e t#rno0er

of Feoffrey, Jr. to Bec4ett did not materialie. Bec4ett so#g%t t%e immediate

implementation of t%e said Order. B#t instead of enforcing said order and"or aiting for

Bec4etts comment, J#dge /armiento, in open co#rt, iss#ed anot%er order gi0ing Dltesa

pro0isional c#stody o0er Feoffrey, Jr. Complainant mo0ed to reconsider $#t of no a0ail

so %e filed an administrati0e case against t%e respondent.

ISS+E(6%et%er respondent J#dge /armiento is g#ilty of gross ignorance of t%e la %en %e

granted t%e pro0isional c#stody to t%e mot%er despite pre0io#s j#dicial compromise.

EL(=o.In all 2#estions relating to t%e care, c#stody, ed#cation and property of t%e c%ildren, t%e

latters elfare is paramo#nt. &%is means t%at t%e $est interest of t%e minor can o0erride

proced#ral r#les and e0en t%e rig%ts of parents to t%e c#stody of t%eir c%ildren. /ince, in t%is case,

t%e 0ery life and e!istence of t%e minor is at sta4e and t%e c%ild is in an age %en s%e can

Page


4/173

e!ercise an intelligent c%oice, t%e co#rts can do no less t%an respect, enforce and gi0e meaning

and s#$stance to t%at c%oice and #p%old %er rig%t to li0e in an atmosp%ere cond#ci0e to %er

p%ysical, moral and intellect#al de0elopment

In t%is case, Respondent j#dge is not g#ilty of gross ignorance of la in granting

pro0isional c#stody o0er Feoffrey, Jr. in fa0or of %is mot%er, Dltesa, and did not disregard t%e res

j#dicata r#le $eca#se %e e!%i$ited fidelity to j#rispr#dential command to accord primacy to t%e

elfare and interest of a minor c%ild. As t%e Co#rt %eld in t%e case of Dspirit# 0. Co#rt of

Appeals, ;is not permanent and #naltera$le >and? can alays $e ree!amined and adj#sted.; And

as aptly o$ser0ed in a separate opinion in acasin 0. acasin, a c#stody agreement can ne0er $e

regarded as ;permanent and #n$ending,; t%e simple reason $eing t%at t%e sit#ation of t%e parents

and e0en of t%e c%ild can c%ange, s#c% t%at stic4ing to t%e agreed arrangement o#ld no longer

$e to t%e latters $est interest. In a 0ery real sense, t%en, a j#dgment in0ol0ing t%e c#stody of a

minor c%ild cannot $e accorded t%e force and effect of res j#dicata.

In t%e disp#tes concerning postseparation c#stody o0er a minor, t%e ellsettled r#le is

t%at no c%ild #nder se0en (+) years of age s%all $e separated from t%e mot%er, #nless t%e co#rt

finds compelling reasons to order ot%erise. And if already o0er + years of age, t%e c%ilds c%oice

as to %ic% of %is parents %e prefers to $e #nder c#stody s%all $e respected, #nless t%e parent

c%osen pro0es to $e #nfit. In Pere 0. Co#rt of Appeals, t%e /#preme Co#rt %eld t%at in c#stody

cases, t%e foremost consideration is alays t%e elfare and $est interest of t%e c%ild, as reflected

in no less t%an t%e 9.=. Con0ention on t%e Rig%ts of t%e C%ild %ic% pro0ides t%at ;>i?n all

actions concerning c%ildren, %et%er #nderta4en $y p#$lic or pri0ate social elfare instit#tions,

co#rts of la, administrati0e a#t%orities or legislati0e $odies, t%e $est interests of t%e c%ild s%all

$e a primary consideration.; &%#s, since it is e0ident t%at Feoffrey, Jr. c%ose to li0e it% %ismot%er for some reasons and t%ere as a$sent of any e0idence to t%e contrary, s#c% m#st $e

respected.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, premises considered, t%e complaint is %ere$y I/


5/173

ROSE B+NAGAN-BANSIG, op"innt, vs. A''Y. ROGELIO J+AN A. *ELERA,respondent.[A.*. No. 7781. Jn!r# 15, 2015.%

PDR C9RIA


6/173

Intram#ros,


7/173

MA. *ARMINIA *. *ALERON, represented 6# 4er Attorne#-in-)t, Mr#ris .B"devi, petitioner, vs. JOSE AN'ONIO ). RO9AS nd *O+R' O) A&&EALS,respondents.[G.R. No. 1877:7. Jn!r# :, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( GI@@ARA


8/173

In t%is case, pri0ate respondents o$ligation to gi0e mont%ly s#pport in t%e amo#nt fi!ed

$y t%e R&C in t%e assailed orders may $e enforced $y t%e co#rt itself, as %at transpired in t%e

early stage of t%e proceedings %en t%e co#rt cited t%e pri0ate respondent in contempt of co#rt

and ordered %im arrested for %is ref#sal"fail#re to comply it% t%e order granting s#pport

pendente lite. A fe years later, pri0ate respondent filed a motion to red#ce s#pport %ile

petitioner filed %er on motion to increase t%e same, and in addition so#g%t spo#sal s#pport and

s#pport in arrears. &%is fact #nderscores t%e pro0isional c%aracter of t%e order granting s#pport

pendente lite.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition for re0ie on certiorari is D=ID, for lac4 ofmerit. &%e ecision dated /eptem$er *, -EE and Resol#tion dated ecem$er 1:, -EE of t%e

Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R. CG =o. :3 are A55IR


9/173

AIA R. *AM&OS, ALIS'AIR R. *AM&OS nd *ARMAINE R. *AM&OS,op"innts, vs. A''Y. ELISEO M. *AM&OS, respondent.

[A.*. No. 855. Jn!r# 22, 2015.%[)orer"# *B *se No. 11-2:08%

&ONEN'E( RD8D/, J

)A*'S(1. Dliseo (respondent) and Aida (complainant) ere married in 1*1. &%eir c%ildren Alistair

as $orn in 1*-, and C%armaine, in 1*H.

-. On 1***, Dliseo p#rc%ased $y installment a *Hs2#are meter lot (t%e s#$ject property) in

Bay#gan, Ag#san del /#r from a certain Renato Alimpoos. Dliseo t%ereafter applied for

t%e iss#ance of a title in Alistairs name. Alistair as t%en a st#dent it%o#t an income

and a capacity to $#y t%e property. On -EEH, OC& co0ering t%e property as iss#ed in

Alistairs name. Alistair got married and %is ife and c%ild li4eise resided in Dliseos

%o#se #ntil -EE.

. Dliseo filed it% t%e R&C a Petition for t%e eclaration of =#llity of


10/173

cond#ct failed to s%o d#e respect for t%e co#rt and lend credit to t%e no$ility of t%e practitioners

of t%e legal profession. 5#rt%er, t%e Co#rt disfa0or Dliseos statement d#ring t%e %earing

cond#cted $y t%e CB t%at %e do#$ts Alistair to $e %is $iological son. As a layer, Dliseo is

pres#ma$ly aare t%at ascri$ing illegitimacy to Alistair in a proceeding not instit#ted for t%at

specific p#rpose is not%ing s%ort of defamation.

&%#s, Dliseo 0iolated R#le +.E, Canon + of t%e Code of Professional Responsi$ility

%en %e cond#cted %imself in a manner not $efitting a mem$er of t%e $ar $y engaging in t%e

sc#ffle it% %is on c%ildren in t%e c%am$er of J#dge Casals on /eptem$er 13, -EE* and

rec4lessly e!pressing %is do#$t anent t%e legitimacy of %is son Alistair d#ring t%e %earing $efore

t%e CB.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%is Co#rt finds t%at respondent Dliseo


11/173

JAMES ;AL'ER &. *A&ILI, petitioner, vs. &EO&LE O) 'E &ILI&&INES ndSIRLEY 'ISMO-*A&ILI, respondents.

[G.R. No. 18$807. J!"# $, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( PDRA@&A, J

)A*'S1. James 6alter Capili, t%e Petitioner as c%arged of $igamy for $eing pre0io#sly #nited in

laf#l marriage it% Marla 8.


12/173

second or s#$se2#ent marriage d#ring t%e s#$sistence of a 0alid first marriage. &%e parties to t%e

marriage s%o#ld not $e permitted to j#dge for t%emsel0es its n#llity, for t%e same m#st $e

s#$mitted to t%e j#dgment of competent co#rts and only %en t%e n#llity of t%e marriage is so

declared can it $e %eld as 0oid, and so long as t%ere is no s#c% declaration t%e pres#mption is t%at

t%e marriage e!ists. &%erefore, %e %o contracts a second marriage $efore t%e j#dicial declaration

of t%e first marriage ass#mes t%e ris4 of $eing prosec#ted for $igamy.

In t%is case, e0en if petitioner e0ent#ally o$tained a declaration t%at %is first marriage as

0oid a$ initio, $ot% t%e first and t%e second marriage ere s#$sisting $efore t%e first marriage

as ann#lled. It is clear t%en t%at t%e crime of $igamy as committed $y petitioner from t%e time

%e contracted t%e second marriage it% pri0ate respondent. &%#s, t%e finality of t%e j#dicial

declaration of n#llity of petitioners second marriage does not impede t%e filing of a criminal

c%arge for $igamy against %im.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, premises considered, t%e petition is D=ID. &%e ecisiondated 5e$r#ary 1, -EE and Resol#tion dated J#ly -3, -EE of t%e Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R.CR =o. E333 are %ere$y A55IR


13/173

JOSIELENE LARA *AN, petitioner, vs. JONNY '. *AN, respondent.

[G.R. No. 1


14/173

illness, and t%e ad0ice or treatment %e ga0e %im N o#ld $e to allo access to e0idence t%at is

inadmissi$le it%o#t t%e patients consent. P%ysician memorialies all t%ese information in t%e

patients records. isclosing t%em o#ld $e t%e e2#i0alent of compelling t%e p%ysician to testify

on pri0ileged matters %e gained %ile dealing it% t%e patient, it%o#t t%e latters prior consent.

IS&OSI'IE( ACCORI=F@8, t%e Co#rt D=ID/ t%e petition and A55IR


15/173

1. r.


16/173

MINOR+ )+JI/I, petitioner, vs. MARIA &A= GALELA MARINAY, SINI*IMAE/ARA, LO*AL *IIL REGIS'RAR O) >+E=ON *I'Y, nd 'EAMINIS'RA'OR AN *IIL REGIS'RAR GENERAL O) 'E NA'IONAL

S'A'IS'I*S O))I*E, respondents.[G.R. No. 1:05:. J!ne 2, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( CARPIO, J

)A*'S(

Page 1H


17/173

1. Petitioner


18/173

&%#s, P%ilippine co#rts can only recognie t%e foreign j#dgment as a fact according to t%e r#les

of e0idence.

P%ilippine co#rts e!ercise limited re0ie on foreign j#dgments. Co#rts are not alloed to

del0e into t%e merits of a foreign j#dgment. Once a foreign j#dgment is admitted and pro0en in a

P%ilippine co#rt, it can only $e repelled on gro#nds e!ternal to its merits, i.e., ;ant of

j#risdiction, ant of notice to t%e party, coll#sion, fra#d, or clear mista4e of la or fact.; &%e

r#le on limited re0ie em$odies t%e policy of efficiency and t%e protection of party e!pectations,

as ell as respecting t%e j#risdiction of ot%er states.

In t%is case, t%ere is no reason to disallo 5#ji4i to simply pro0e as a fact t%e Japanese

5amily Co#rt j#dgment n#llifying t%e marriage $eteen


19/173

t%e personality to file a petition #nder R#le 1E to cancel t%e entry of marriage $eteen


20/173

GRA*E M. GRANE, petitioner, vs. &A'RI*IO '. AN'ONIO, respondent.[G.R. No. 20258. )e6r!r# 18, 2015.%

&ONEN'E( GD@A/CO, JR., J

)A*'S(1. &%e Petitioner Frace Frande (Frande) and respondent Patricio Antonio (Antonio) li0ed

toget%er as %#s$and and ife, alt%o#g% Antonio as at t%at time already married to

someone else. O#t of t%is illicit relations%ip, to sons ere $orn $#t ere not e!pressly

recognied $y respondent in t%eir $irt% certificate.

-. &%e Petitioner and t%eir c%ildren ent to 9/ and t%is prompted respondent Antonio to file

a Petition for J#dicial Appro0al of Recognition it% Prayer to ta4e Parental A#t%ority,

Parental P%ysical C#stody, Correction"C%ange of /#rname of


21/173

&%e #se of t%e ord ;may; in t%e pro0ision readily s%os t%at an ac4noledged

illegitimate c%ild is #nder no comp#lsion to #se t%e s#rname of %is illegitimate fat%er. &%e ord

;may; in Article 1+H is permissi0e and operates t%e #se of an illegitimate fat%ers s#rname as

discretionary and illegitimate c%ildren are gi0en t%e c%oice on t%e s#rnames $y %ic% t%ey ill

$e 4non. It is alays a r#le t%at policies affecting c%ildren are to $e meas#red $ased on t%eir

$est interest. On t%e matter of c%ildrens s#rnames t%e #se of t%e fat%ers s#rname ser0es t%e $est

interest of t%e minor c%ild. &%is c%ange of s#rname esta$lis%es t%e significant connection of a

persons name to %is identity, %is stat#s in relation to %is parents and %is s#ccessional rig%ts as a

legitimate or illegitimate c%ild.

&%#s, t%e fat%er cannot compel %is illegitimate son to #se %is s#rname e0en after

recognition.

IS&OSI'E( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e instant petition is PAR&IA@@8 FRA=&D. &%e J#ly -3,

-E1- ecision of t%e Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R. CG =o. *H3EH is


22/173

YAS+O I;ASA;A, petitioner, vs. )ELISA *+S'OIO GANGAN 1 ?.@. )ELISAGANGAN ARAMB+LO, nd )ELISA GANGAN I;ASA;A nd t4e LO*AL *IILREGIS'RAR O) &ASAY *I'Y, respondents.[G.R. No. 2051:. Septe6er 11, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( GI@@ARA


23/173

it% petitioner on =o0em$er -, -EE- in Pasay CityK () t%at t%ere as no j#dicial declaration of

n#llity of t%e marriage of pri0ate respondent it% Aram$#lo at t%e time s%e married petitionerK

() t%at Aram$#lo died on J#ly 13, -EE* and t%at it as only on said date t%at pri0ate

respondents marriage it% Aram$#lo as deemed to %a0e $een dissol0edK and (3) t%at t%e

second marriage of pri0ate respondent to petitioner is $igamo#s, %ence n#ll and 0oid, since t%e

first marriage as still 0alid and s#$sisting %en t%e second marriage as contracted.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition for re0ie on certiorari is FRA=&D. &%e/eptem$er 3, -E1- ecision and Octo$er 1H, -E1- Order of t%e Regional &rial Co#rt of


24/173

NOEL A. LASANAS, petitioner, vs. &EO&LE O) 'E &ILI&&INES, respondent.[G.R. No. 17:0$1, J!ne 2$, 2015.%

&ONEN'E( BDR/A


25/173

2. @asanas and Patingo separated de facto$eca#se of irreconcila$le difference.

$. In 1**, t%e acc#sed contracted second marriage it% Josefa Dsla$an in a religio#sceremony and in t%eir marriage certificate reflected t%e ci0il stat#s of t%e acc#sed as

single.

4. On 1**H, t%e acc#sed filed a complaint for ann#lment of marriage and damages against

/ocorro in t%e R&C %ile /ocorro c%arged t%e acc#sed it% $igamy. 6%ile t%e criminal

case as pending, t%e trial co#rt in ann#lment case dismissed t%e petition and declared

t%e first marriage 0alid. &%e acc#sed appealed to t%e CA and %ile it as pending t%e

criminal co#rt find t%e acc#sed g#ilty of $igamy. &%e acc#sed li4eise affirmed t%e

con0iction $#t t%e CA affirmed t%e trial co#rts r#ling. 'ence, petition for re0ie

on certiorari.

ISS+E(6%et%er t%e acc#sed s%o#ld $e con0icted of $igamy $eca#se %is s#$se2#ent marriageas n#ll and 0oid for $eing it%o#t a recorded j#dgment of n#llity of marriage as pro0ided inArticle : of t%e 5amily Code.

EL(8es.Any person %o contracts a second marriage it%o#t first %a0ing a j#dicial declaration of

t%e n#llity of %is or %er first marriage, al$eit on its face 0oid and ine!istent for lac4 of a marriage

license, is g#ilty of $igamy as defined and penalied $y Article 3* of t%eRevised Penal Code.

&%e elements of t%e crime of $igamy are as follos

(1) t%at t%e offender %as $een legally marriedK

(-) t%at t%e marriage %as not $een legally dissol0ed or, in case %is or %er spo#se is

a$sent, t%e a$sent spo#se co#ld not yet $e pres#med dead according to t%e Ci0il

CodeK

() t%at %e or s%e contracts a second or s#$se2#ent marriageK and

(3) t%at t%e second or s#$se2#ent marriage %as all t%e essential re2#isites for 0alidity.

In t%is case, t%e first and second elements of $igamy ere present in 0ie of t%e a$sence

of a j#dicial declaration of n#llity of marriage $eteen t%e acc#sed and /ocorro. &%e re2#irement

of sec#ring a j#dicial declaration of n#llity of marriage prior to contracting a s#$se2#ent

marriage is fo#nd in Article 3E of t%eFamily Code. Also, in n#mero#s cases, t%e Co#rt %as

consistently %eld t%at a j#dicial declaration of n#llity is re2#ired $efore a 0alid s#$se2#ent

marriage can $e contractedK or else, %at transpires is a $igamo#s marriage, repre%ensi$le and

immoral.

As %eld in t%e case of Teves v. People, t%e crime of $igamy as cons#mmated from t%e

moment t%e acc#sed contracted t%e second marriage it%o#t %is marriage to /ocorro $eing first

j#dicially declared n#ll and 0oid, $eca#se at t%e time of t%e cele$ration of t%e second marriage,

%is marriage to /ocorro as still deemed 0alid and s#$sisting d#e to s#c% marriage not $eing yet

declared n#ll and 0oid $y a co#rt of competent j#risdiction. Q6%at ma4es a person criminally

lia$le for $igamy, according toPeople v. Odtuhan

! ! ! Qis %en %e contracts a second ors#$se2#ent marriage d#ring t%e s#$sistence of a 0alid marriage. Parties to t%e marriage s%o#ld

not $e permitted to j#dge for t%emsel0es its n#llity, for t%e same m#st $e s#$mitted to t%e

j#dgment of competent co#rts and only %en t%e n#llity of t%e marriage is so declared can it $e

%eld as 0oid, and so long as t%ere is no s#c% declaration, t%e pres#mption is t%at t%e marriage

Page -:


26/173

e!ists. &%erefore, %e %o contracts a second marriage $efore t%e j#dicial declaration of n#llity

of t%e first marriage ass#mes t%e ris4 of $eing prosec#ted for $igamy.

&%#s, a recognition ritten into t%e la itself t%at s#c% a marriage, alt%o#g% 0oid a$

initio, may still prod#ce legal conse2#ences and one of it is inc#rring criminal lia$ility for

$igamy. &o %old ot%erise o#ld render t%e /tates penal las on $igamy completely n#gatory,

and allo indi0id#als to deli$erately ens#re t%at eac% marital contract $e flaed in some manner,

and to t%#s escape t%e conse2#ences of contracting m#ltiple marriages, %ile $eg#iling t%rongs

of %apless omen it% t%e promise of f#t#rity and commitment.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e Co#rt A55IR


27/173

&ONEN'E(GI@@ARA


28/173

a) In t%e a$sence of ade2#ate pro0isions in a ritten agreement $eteen t%e spo#ses, t%e

spo#ses may $e s#pported from t%e properties of t%e a$sol#te comm#nity or t%e conj#gal

partners%ip.

$) &%e co#rt may aard s#pport to eit%er spo#se in s#c% amo#nt and for s#c% period of time

as t%e co#rt may deem j#st and reasona$le $ased on t%eir standard of li0ing d#ring t%e

marriage.

c) &%e co#rt may li4eise consider t%e folloing factors

(1) %et%er t%e spo#se see4ing s#pport is t%e c#stodian of a c%ild %ose

circ#mstances ma4e it appropriate for t%at spo#se not to see4 o#tside

employmentK

(-) t%e time necessary to ac2#ire s#fficient ed#cation and training to ena$le t%e

spo#se see4ing s#pport to find appropriate employment, and t%at spo#ses f#t#re

earning capacityK

() t%e d#ration of t%e marriageK

(3) t%e comparati0e financial reso#rces of t%e spo#ses, incl#ding t%eir comparati0eearning a$ilities in t%e la$or mar4etK

(:) t%e needs and o$ligations of eac% spo#seK

(H) t%e contri$#tion of eac% spo#se to t%e marriage, incl#ding ser0ices rendered in

%omema4ing, c%ild care, ed#cation, and career $#ilding of t%e ot%er spo#seK

(+) t%e age and %ealt% of t%e spo#sesK

() t%e p%ysical and emotional conditions of t%e spo#sesK

(*) t%e a$ility of t%e s#pporting spo#se to gi0e s#pport, ta4ing into acco#nt t%at

spo#ses earning capacity, earned and #nearned income, assets, and standard of

li0ingK and

(1E) any ot%er factor t%e co#rt may deem j#st and e2#ita$le.d) &%e 5amily Co#rt may direct t%e ded#ction of t%e pro0isional s#pport from t%e salary of

t%e spo#se.

6it% respect to s#pport for c%ildren t%e r#le pro0ides t%at t%e common c%ildren of t%e

spo#ses s%all $e s#pported from t%e properties of t%e a$sol#te comm#nity or t%e conj#gal

partners%ip. In determining t%e amo#nt of pro0isional s#pport, t%e co#rt may li4eise consider

t%e folloing factors

1. t%e financial reso#rces of t%e c#stodial and nonc#stodial parent and t%ose of t%e

c%ildK

-. t%e p%ysical and emotional %ealt% of t%e c%ild and %is or %er special needs and

aptit#desK

. t%e standard of li0ing t%e c%ild %as $een acc#stomed toK

3. t%e nonmonetary contri$#tions t%at t%e parents ill ma4e toard t%e care and ell

$eing of t%e c%ild.

&%e Co#rt citing American j#rispr#dences li4eise declared as a general r#le to effect

s#pport is %en a fat%er is re2#ired $y a di0orce decree to pay to t%e mot%er money for t%e

s#pport of t%eir dependent c%ildren and t%e #npaid and accr#ed installments $ecome j#dgments

in %er fa0or, %e cannot, as a matter of la, claim credit on acco#nt of payments 0ol#ntarily madedirectly to t%e c%ildren. 'oe0er, special considerations of an e2#ita$le nat#re may j#stify a

co#rt in crediting s#c% payments on %is inde$tedness to t%e mot%er, %en t%at can $e done

it%o#t inj#stice to %er.

Applying t%e a$o0e r#le in t%is case, t%e CA s%o#ld not %a0e alloed all t%e e!penses

inc#rred $y respondent to $e credited against t%e accr#ed s#pport pendente lite $eca#se t%e

Page -


29/173

mont%ly s#pport pendente lite granted $y t%e trial co#rt as intended primarily for food,

%o#se%old e!penses s#c% as salaries of dri0ers and %o#se %elpers, and also petitioners scoliosis

t%erapy sessions. 'ence, t%e 0al#e of to e!pensi0e cars $o#g%t $y respondent for %is c%ildren

pl#s t%eir maintenance cost, tra0el e!penses of petitioner and Angelli, p#rc%ases t%ro#g% credit

card of items ot%er t%an groceries and dry goods (clot%ing) s%o#ld %a0e $een disalloed, as t%ese

$ear no relation to t%e j#dgment aarding s#pport pendente lite. D0en dispositi0e portion of t%e

e!ec#tory decision of appellate co#rt ordered respondent to pay t%e s#pport in arrears ;less t%an

t%e amo#nt s#pposedly gi0en $y petitioner to t%e pri0ate respondent as %er and t%eir to (-)

c%ildren mont%ly s#pport,; t%e ded#ctions s%o#ld $e limited to t%ose $asic needs and e!penses

considered $y t%e trial and appellate co#rts. &%e %#ge ded#ctions from t%e accr#ed mont%ly

s#pport of petitioner and %er c%ildren, %ile correct insofar as it commends t%e generosity of t%e

respondent to %is c%ildren, is clearly inconsistent it% its e!ec#tor decision. +E=ON *I'Y, nd 'E

Page -*


30/173

AMINIS'RA'OR AN *IIL REGIS'RAR GENERAL O) 'E NA'IONALS'A'IS'I*S O))I*E, respondents.[G.R. No. 1:05:. J!ne 2, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( CARPIO, J

)A*'S(:. Petitioner


31/173

1E/C t%at only t%e %#s$and or ife can file a declaration of n#llity or ann#lment of marriage

;does not apply if t%e reason $e%ind t%e petition is $igamy.;


32/173

p#rpose, %e can petition a co#rt to recognie a foreign j#dgment n#llifying t%e $igamo#s

marriage and j#dicially declare as a fact t%at s#c% j#dgment is effecti0e in t%e P%ilippines. Once

esta$lis%ed, t%ere s%o#ld $e no more impediment to cancel t%e entry of t%e $igamo#s marriage in

t%e ci0il registry.

&%#s, 5#ji4i %as t%e personality to file a petition to recognie t%e Japanese 5amily Co#rt

j#dgment n#llifying t%e marriage $eteen


33/173

O))I*E O) 'E *O+R' AMINIS'RA'OR, petitioner, vs. J+GE ANA'ALIO S.NE*ESSARIO, Brn4 2 J+GE GIL R. A*OS'A, Brn4 $ J+GE ROSABELLA M.

'ORMIS, Brn4 5 nd J+GE EGEMELO *. ROSALES, Brn4 8 "" oC M'**-*e6! *it# *ELES'E &. RE'+YA, *"er@ III, M'** Brn4 , *e6! *it# *ORA=ON &.RE'+YA, *o!rt Steno3rp4er, M'**, Brn4 , *e6! *it# RONA ). RORIG+E=,Adinistrtive OCCier I, OCCie oC t4e *"er@ oC *o!rt, Re3ion" 'ri" *o!rt ?R'* *e6!*it# EMMA . ALEN*IA, *o!rt Steno3rp4er III, R'*, Brn4 18, *e6! *it#MARILO+ *ABANE=, *o!rt Steno3rp4er, M'**, Brn4 5, *e6! *it# ESIERIOS. ARANAS, &roess Server, M'**, Brn4 $, *e6! *it# REBE**A ALESNA, *o!rtInterpreter, M'**, Brn4 1, *e6! *it# nd ELEN MONGGAYA, *o!rtSteno3rp4er, M'**, Brn4 5, *e6! *it#, respondents.[A.M. No. M'J-0


34/173

Asdala, t%e Co#rt %eld t%at inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and

carelessness.

/econd, t%e j#dges ere also fo#nd g#ilty of neglect of d#ty regarding t%e payment of

solemniation fees. &%e Co#rt, inRodrigo!"ron v. Adolfo, defined neglect of d#ty as t%e fail#re

to gi0e ones attention to a tas4 e!pected of %im and it is gross %en, from t%e gra0ity of t%eoffense or t%e fre2#ency of instances, t%e offense is so serio#s in its c%aracter as to endanger or

t%reaten p#$lic elfare. &%e marriage doc#ments e!amined $y t%e a#dit team s%o t%at

corresponding official receipts for t%e solemniation fee ere missing or payment $y $atc%es

as made for marriages performed on different dates. &%e OCA emp%asies t%at t%e payment of

t%e solemniation fee starts off t%e %ole marriage application process and e0en p#ts a ;stamp of

reg#larity; on t%e process.

&%ird, J#dges =ecessario, &ormis, and Rosales also solemnied marriages %ere a

contracting party is a foreigner %o did not s#$mit a certificate of legal capacity to marry from

%is or %er em$assy. 6%at t%e foreigners s#$mitted ere mere affida0its stating t%eir capacity tomarry. &%e irreg#larity in t%e certificates of legal capacity t%at are re2#ired #nder Article -1 of

t%e 5amily Code displayed t%e gross neglect of d#ty of t%e j#dges. &%ey s%o#ld %a0e $een

diligent in scr#tiniing t%e doc#ments re2#ired for t%e marriage license iss#ance. Any

irreg#larities o#ld %a0e $een pre0ented in t%e 2#alifications of parties to contract marriage.

5o#rt%, J#dges =ecessario, Acosta, and &ormis are li4eise g#ilty of gross ignorance of

t%e la #nder Article 3 of t%e 5amily Code it% respect to t%e marriages t%ey solemnied %ere

legal impediments e!isted d#ring co%a$itation s#c% as t%e minority stat#s of one party. &%e a#dit

team cites in t%eir /#pplemental Report t%at t%ere ere parties %ose ages ranged from eig%teen

(1) to tentyto (--) years old %o ere married $y t%eir s#$mission of a pro forma jointaffida0it of co%a$itation. &%ese affida0its ere notaried $y t%e solemniing j#dge %imself or

%erself.

5inally, positi0e testimonies ere also gi0en regarding t%e solemniation of marriages of

some co#ples %ere no marriage license as pre0io#sly iss#ed. &%e contracting parties ere

made to fill #p t%e application for a license on t%e same day t%e marriage as solemnied.

-. =o.

&%e pres#mption of reg#larity accorded to a marriage license disappears t%e moment t%e

marriage doc#ments do not appear reg#lar on its face. As a r#le Qt%e solemniing officer is notd#ty$o#nd to in0estigate %et%er or not a marriage license %as $een d#ly and reg#larly iss#ed

$y t%e local ci0il registrar. &%e solemniing officer needs to 4no is t%at t%e license %as $een

iss#ed $y t%e competent official, and it may $e pres#med from t%e iss#ance of t%e license t%at

said official %as f#lfilled t%e d#ty to ascertain %et%er t%e contracting parties %ad f#lfilled t%e

re2#irements of la. (People 0. Jansen) 'oe0er, ;t%e pres#mption of reg#larity of official acts

may $e re$#tted $y affirmati0e e0idence of irreg#larity or fail#re to perform a d#ty.; &%e 0isi$le

s#perimpositions on t%e marriage licenses s%o#ld %a0e alerted t%e solemniing j#dges to t%e

irreg#larity of t%e iss#ance. (/e0illa 0. Cardenas)

Alt%o#g% Article -1 of t%e 5amily Code re2#ires t%e s#$mission of t%e certificate from

t%e em$assy of t%e foreign party to t%e local registrar for ac2#iring a marriage license, t%e j#dges

s%o#ld %a0e $een more diligent in re0ieing t%e parties doc#ments and 2#alifications $eca#se

t%e a$sence of t%e re2#ired certificates co#pled it% t%e presence of mere affida0its s%o#ld %a0e

aro#sed s#spicion as to t%e reg#larity of t%e marriage license iss#ance. Also, t%e respondent

J#dges solemnied marriages #nder Article 3 of t%e 5amily Code it%o#t t%e re2#ired

Page 3


35/173

2#alifications and it% t%e e!istence of legal impediments s#c% as minority of a party.


36/173

H. R%ona 5. Rodrig#e, Administrati0e Officer I, Office of t%e Cler4 of Co#rt, Regional

&rial Co#rt, Ce$# City, F9I@&8 of gross miscond#ct for /ection -, Canon I of t%e Code of

Cond#ct for Co#rt Personnel and for ind#cing


37/173

ES'RELLA A+AN OR&IANO, petitioner, vs. S&O+SES AN'ONIO *. 'OMAS ndMYRNA +. 'OMAS, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1


38/173

In t%is case, Dstrella as plaintiff t%o#g% merely s#cceeding to Alejandros rig%ts as an

indispensa$le party %om may not $e dropped from t%e case. 'oe0er, $eca#se of %er d#al

identity, first as %eir and second as oner of %er conj#gal s%are, s%e %as $een placed in t%e

#ni2#e position %ere s%e %as to s#cceed to %er %#s$ands rig%ts, e0en as s%e m#st protect %er

separate conj#gal s%are from Alejandros percei0ed #nd#e disposition. /%e may not see4 to

amend t%e ca#se of action in t%e collection case to one for ann#lment of sale, $eca#se t%is

ad0ersely affects t%e interests of %er co%eirs, %ic% is precisely to o$tain payment of t%e

s#pposed $alance of t%e sale price. &%#s, Dstrella cannot sim#ltaneo#sly maintain t%e to actions

in $ot% capacities, as %eir in t%e collection case and as separate oner of %er conj#gal s%are in

t%e ann#lment case $eca#se t%is amo#nts to sim#ltaneo#sly accepting and rejecting t%e same

deed of sale. =or is it possi$le to prosec#te t%e ann#lment case sim#ltaneo#sly it% t%e

collection case, on t%e premise t%at %at is merely $eing ann#lled is t%e sale $y Alejandro of

Dstrellas conj#gal s%are.

IS&OSI'IE(6'DRD5ORD, premises considered, t%e Petition is D=ID for lac4 of merit.

Page


39/173

&EO&LE O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. EGARO . O'+AN, respondent.[G.R. No. 1:17. J!"# 1


40/173

IN 'E MA''ER O) 'E &E'I'ION )OR ABEAS *OR&+S O) MINOR SANG/O INGSON Y+ SIRLY INGSON D SIRLY INGSON EMAISI&, petitioner, vs.

JOY *AB*ABAN, respondent.[+/ No. 1581


41/173


42/173

1. &%e s#$ject of t%e case is a parcel of residential land it% all its impro0ements (s#$ject

property) #nder t%e name of Jose Farcia /r. %o ac2#ired t%e s#$ject property d#ring %is

marriage it% @igaya Farcia.

-. @igaya died on Jan#ary -1, 1*+. &%e marriage of Jose /r. and @igaya prod#ced t%e

folloing c%ildren =ora, Jose Jr., Bo$$y and Jimmy, all s#rnamed Farcia, (respondents)./po#ses Jose Jr. Farcia o$tained a loan e!pressly a#t%oried $y t%e fat%er (Jose /r.) from

petitioner $an4 sec#red $y t%e s#$ject property. &%ey failed to pay t%e loan.

. &%e Respondents filed an ann#lment of Real Dstate


43/173

states t%at Q>t?%e rig%ts to t%e s#ccession are transmitted from t%e moment of t%e deat% of t%e

decedent.

&%e conj#gal partners%ip as con0erted into an implied ordinary cooners%ip $eteen

t%e s#r0i0ing spo#se, on t%e one %and, and t%e %eirs of t%e deceased, on t%e ot%er. &%is res#lting

ordinary cooners%ip among t%e %eirs is go0erned $y Article 3* of t%e Ci0il Code %ic%pro0ides t%at eac% cooner %as t%e f#ll oners%ip of %is part or s%are in t%e cooners%ip and

may, t%erefore, alienate, assign or mortgage it e!cept %en personal rig%ts are in0ol0ed. /%o#ld a

cooner alienate or mortgage t%e cooned property itself, t%e alienation or mortgage s%all

remain 0alid $#t only to t%e e!tent of t%e portion %ic% may $e allotted to %im in t%e di0ision

#pon t%e termination of t%e cooners%ip.

In t%is case, Jose /r. constit#ted t%e mortgage o0er t%e entire s#$ject property after t%e

deat% of @igaya, $#t $efore t%e li2#idation of t%e conj#gal partners%ip. 6%ile #nder Article 3*

of t%e Ci0il Code, e0en if %e %ad t%e rig%t to freely mortgage or e0en sell %is #ndi0ided interest

in t%e disp#ted property, %e co#ld not dispose of or mortgage t%e entire property it%o#t %is

c%ildrens consent. As correctly emp%asied $y t%e trial co#rt, Jose /r.s rig%t in t%e s#$ject

property is limited only to %is s%are in t%e conj#gal partners%ip as ell as %is s%are as an %eir on

t%e ot%er %alf of t%e estate %ic% is %is deceased spo#ses s%are. Accordingly, t%e mortgage

contract is 0oid insofar as it e!tends to t%e #ndi0ided s%ares of %is c%ildren (=ora, Jose Jr.,

Bo$$y and Jimmy) $eca#se t%ey did not gi0e t%eir consent to t%e transaction.

&%#s, t%e Real Dstate


44/173

RE&+BLI* O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. ROOL)O O. E GRA*IA,respondent.[G.R. No. 1


45/173

;Psyc%ological incapacity,; as a gro#nd to n#llify a marriage #nder Article H - of t%e

5amily Code, s%o#ld refer to no less t%an a mental N not merely p%ysical N incapacity t%at

ca#ses a party to $e tr#ly incogniti0e of t%e $asic marital co0enants t%at concomitantly m#st $e

ass#med and disc%arged $y t%e parties to t%e marriage %ic%, as so e!pressed in Article H of t%e

5amily Code, among ot%ers, incl#de t%eir m#t#al o$ligations to li0e toget%er, o$ser0e lo0e,

respect and fidelity and render %elp and s#pport. Psyc%ological incapacity m#st $e c%aracteried

$y (a) gra0ity (i.e., it m#st $e gra0e and serio#s s#c% t%at t%e party o#ld $e incapa$le of

carrying o#t t%e ordinary d#ties re2#ired in a marriage)K ($) j#ridical antecedence (i.e., it m#st $e

rooted in t%e %istory of t%e party antedating t%e marriage, alt%o#g% t%e o0ert manifestations may

emerge only after t%e marriage)K and (c) inc#ra$ility (i.e., it m#st $e inc#ra$le, or e0en if it ere

ot%erise, t%e c#re o#ld $e $eyond t%e means of t%e party in0ol0ed). In t%e case of %edel v.

CA, t%e Co#rt %eld t%at t%erein respondents emotional immat#rity and irresponsi$ility co#ld not

$e e2#ated it% psyc%ological incapacity as it as not s%on t%at t%ese acts are manifestations

of a disordered personality %ic% ma4e %er completely #na$le to disc%arge t%e essential marital

o$ligations of t%e marital state, not merely d#e to %er yo#t%, immat#rity or se!#al promisc#ity.In t%e same lig%t, t%e Co#rt, in t%e case of Pesca 0. Pesca (Pesca), r#led against a declaration of

n#llity, as petitioner t%erein ;#tterly failed, $ot% in %er allegations in t%e complaint and in %er

e0idence, to ma4e o#t a case of psyc%ological incapacity on t%e part of respondent, let alone at

t%e time of solemniation of t%e contract, so as to arrant a declaration of n#llity of t%e

marriage,; significantly noting t%at t%e ;>e?motional immat#rity and irresponsi$ility, in0o4ed $y

%er, cannot $e e2#ated it% psyc%ological incapacity.;

Applying t%e a$o0e principles and j#rispr#dences t%e Co#rt r#led t%at $ased on t%e

e0idence presented, t%ere e!ists ins#fficient fact#al or legal $asis to concl#de t%at =ati0idads

emotional immat#rity, irresponsi$ility, or e0en se!#al promisc#ity, can $e e2#ated it%psyc%ological incapacity.

In t%is case, t%e trial co#rt relied %ea0ily on t%e report of psyc%ologist, %oe0er, t%e

report does not e!plain in reasona$le detail %o =ati0idads condition co#ld $e c%aracteried as

gra0e, deeplyrooted, and inc#ra$le it%in t%e parameters of psyc%ological incapacity

j#rispr#dence. Aside from failing to disclose t%e types of psyc%ological tests %ic% s%e

administered on =ati0idad, r. alsos failed to identify in %er report t%e root ca#se of =ati0idads

condition and to s%o t%at it e!isted at t%e time of t%e parties marriage. =eit%er as t%e gra0ity

or serio#sness of =ati0idads $e%a0ior in relation to %er fail#re to perform t%e essential marital

o$ligations s#fficiently descri$ed in r. alsoss report. 5#rt%er, t%e finding contained t%erein on

t%e inc#ra$ility of =ati0idads condition remains #ns#pported $y any fact#al or scientific $asis

and, appears to $e dran o#t as a $are concl#sion and e0en selfser0ing. &%#s, t%e marriage as

0alid.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition is FRA=&D. &%e ecision dated J#ne -, -EE:and Resol#tion dated 5e$r#ary , -EEH of t%e Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R. CG =o. H*1E are

RDGDR/D and /D& A/ID. Accordingly, t%e complaint for declaration of n#llity of marriage

filed #nder Article H of t%e 5amily Code is I/


46/173

RE&+BLI* O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. LIBER'Y . ALBIOS, respondent.[G.R. No. 1:8


47/173


48/173

Page 3


49/173


50/173

=o e0idence on record e!ists to s#pport Cesars allegation t%at @olitas infidelity and

a$andonment ere manifestations of any psyc%ological illness. &%ird, Cesar mista4enly relied on

r. 5lores psyc%ological e0al#ation report on @olita to pro0e %er alleged psyc%ological

incapacity. &%e psyc%ological e0al#ation, in fact, esta$lis%ed t%at @olita did not s#ffer from any

major psyc%iatric illness. &%e findings are mere generaliation #ns#pported $y facts and are, in

fact, a ras% concl#sion t%at t%e Co#rt cannot s#pport. &%#s, t%e marriage as 0alid.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, e FRA=& t%e petition and /D& A/ID t%e Octo$er +, -EE:amended decision of t%e Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R. CG =o. +::. Accordingly, e

I/


51/173

RE&+BLI* O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. MARIA )E ES&INOSA *AN'OR,respondent.[G.R. No. 18521. ee6er 10, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(BRIO=, J

)A*'S(1.


52/173

After t%eir 2#arrel, Jerry left t%eir conj#gal delling and t%is as t%e last time t%at t%e

respondent e0er sa %im. /ince t%en, s%e %ad not seen, comm#nicated nor %eard anyt%ing

from Jerry or a$o#t %is %erea$o#ts.

. On t%e? present spo#se.

In case at $ar, respondents ;ellfo#nded $elief; as anc%ored on %er alleged ;earnest

efforts; to locate Jerry, %ic% consisted of t%e folloing

(1) /%e made in2#iries a$o#t Jerrys %erea$o#ts from %er inlas, neig%$ors and

friendsK and

Page :-


53/173

(-) 6%ene0er s%e ent to a %ospital, s%e sa to it t%at s%e loo4ed t%ro#g% t%e

patients directory, %oping to find Jerry.

&%e Co#rt %eld t%at t%ese efforts, %oe0er, fell s%ort of t%e ;stringent standard; and

degree of diligence re2#ired $y j#rispr#dence for t%e folloing reasons

1. 5irst, t%e respondent did not acti0ely loo4 for %er missing %#s$and. It can $e inferred

from t%e records t%at %er %ospital 0isits and %er conse2#ent c%ec4ing of t%e patients

directory t%erein ere #nintentional. /%e did not p#rposely #nderta4e a diligent searc%

for %er %#s$and as %er %ospital 0isits ere not planned nor primarily directed to loo4 for

%im. &%is Co#rt t%#s considers t%ese attempts ins#fficient to engender a $elief t%at %er

%#s$and is dead.

-. /econd, s%e did not report Jerrys a$sence to t%e police nor did s%e see4 t%e aid of t%e

a#t%orities to loo4 for %im. 6%ile a finding of ellfo#nded $elief 0aries it% t%e nat#re

of t%e sit#ation in %ic% t%e present spo#se is placed, #nder present conditions, e find it

proper and pr#dent for a present spo#se, %ose spo#se %ad $een missing, to see4 t%e aidof t%e a#t%orities or, at t%e 0ery least, report %is"%er a$sence to t%e police.

. &%ird, s%e did not present as itnesses Jerrys relati0es or t%eir neig%$ors and friends,

%o can corro$orate %er efforts to locate Jerry. 6orse, t%ese persons, from %om s%e

allegedly made in2#iries, ere not e0en named. As %eld in =olasco, t%e present spo#ses

$are assertion t%at %e in2#ired from %is friends a$o#t %is a$sent spo#ses %erea$o#ts is

ins#fficient as t%e names of t%e friends from %om %e made in2#iries ere not identified

in t%e testimony nor presented as itnesses.

3. @astly, t%ere as no ot%er corro$orati0e e0idence to s#pport t%e respondents claim t%at

s%e cond#cted a diligent searc%. =eit%er as t%ere s#pporting e0idence pro0ing t%at s%e

%ad a ellfo#nded $elief ot%er t%an %er $are claims t%at s%e in2#ired from %er friendsand inlas a$o#t %er %#s$ands %erea$o#ts.

&%#s, t%e j#dicial declaration of pres#mpti0e deat% as not proper.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, in 0ie of t%e foregoing, t%e assailed decision dated A#g#st-+, -EE of t%e Co#rt of Appeals, %ic% affirmed t%e order dated ecem$er 1:, -EEH of t%e

Regional &rial Co#rt, Branc% -:, Moronadal City, /o#t% Cota$ato, declaring Jerry 5. Cantor

pres#mpti0ely dead is %ere$y RDGDR/D and /D& A/ID.

Page :


54/173

RE&+BLI* O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. ROBER' &. NAR*EA, respondent.[G.R. No. 182


55/173

a ellfo#nded $elief t%at %is a$sentee spo#se is dead may no longer $e entertained $y t%is

Co#rt. &%#s, t%e j#dicial declaration of pres#mpti0e deat% as 0alid $y operation of la.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e instant Petition is D=ID. &%e 13 =o0em$er -EE+

ecision of t%e Co#rt Appeals and its s#$se2#ent -* April -EE Resol#tion in CAF.R. CG =o.

:+E3, dismissing t%e appeal of t%e Rep#$lic of t%e P%ilippines are A55IR


56/173

1.


57/173

partition and distri$#tion of t%e properties of t%e spo#ses and t%e in0estigation of t%e p#$lic

prosec#tor to determine coll#sion. A direct action for declaration of n#llity or ann#lment of

marriage is also necessary to pre0ent circ#m0ention of t%e j#risdiction of t%e 5amily Co#rts

#nder t%e 5amily Co#rts Act of 1**+ (Rep#$lic Act =o. H*), as a petition for cancellation or

correction of entries in t%e ci0il registry may $e filed in t%e Regional &rial Co#rt %ere t%e

corresponding ci0il registry is located. In ot%er ords, a 5ilipino citien cannot dissol0e %is

marriage $y t%e mere e!pedient of c%anging %is entry of marriage in t%e ci0il registry.

Respondent indeed so#g%t, not t%e n#llification of marriage as t%ere as no marriage to

spea4 of, $#t t%e correction of t%e record of s#c% marriage to reflect t%e tr#t% as set fort% $y t%e

e0idence. Ot%erise stated, in alloing t%e correction of t%e s#$ject certificate of marriage $y

cancelling t%e ife portion t%ereof, t%e trial co#rt did not, in any ay, declare t%e marriage 0oid

as t%ere as no marriage to spea4 of.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, premises considered, t%e petition is D=ID for lac4 of merit.&%e Regional &rial Co#rt ecision dated


58/173

RE&+BLI* O) 'E &ILI&&INES, petitioner, vs. R. NORMA S. L+GSANAY +Y,respondent.[G.R. No. 1:8010. A!3!st 12, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(PDRA@&A, J

)A*'S1. r.=orma 9y (respondent) filed a Petition for Correction of Dntry in %er Certificate of

@i0e Birt% and citiens%ip alleging t%at s%e as $orn on 5e$r#ary , 1*:- and is t%eillegitimate da#g%ter of /y &on and /otera @#gsanay .

-. /%e learned t%at t%e Certificate of @i0e Birt% s%os t%at %er f#ll name is ;Anita /y;

%en in fact s%e is allegedly 4non to %er family and friends as ;=orma /. @#gsanay.;K

t%at %er sc%ool records, Professional Reg#lation Commission (PRC) Board of


59/173

In t%is case, Respondents $irt% certificate s%os t%at %er f#ll name is Anita /y, t%at s%e is

a C%inese citien and a legitimate c%ild of /y &on and /otera @#gsanay. In filing t%e petition,

%oe0er, s%e see4s t%e correction of %er first name and s#rname, %er stat#s from ;legitimate; to

;illegitimate; and %er citiens%ip from ;C%inese; to ;5ilipino.; &%#s, respondent s%o#ld %a0e

impleaded and notified not only t%e @ocal Ci0il Registrar $#t also %er parents and si$lings as t%e

persons %o %a0e interest and are affected $y t%e c%anges or corrections respondent anted to

ma4e. &%e petition for correction of entry is not proper for fail#re to implead indispensa$le

parties %o ere $e affected $y s#c% c%anges.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, premises considered, t%e petition is %ere$y FRA=&D. &%eCo#rt of Appeals ecision dated 5e$r#ary 1, -E11 and Resol#tion dated J#ly -+, -E11 in CA

F.R. CG =o. EE-


60/173

&ONEN'E(CARPIO, J

)A*'S(1. Petitioner J#an /e0illa /alas, Jr. (/alas) and respondent Dden Gillena Ag#ila (Ag#ila)

ere married. On + J#ne 1*H, Ag#ila ga0e $irt% to t%eir da#g%ter, Joan Jiselle.

-. 5i0e mont%s later, /alas left t%eir conj#gal delling. /ince t%en, %e no longer

comm#nicated it% Ag#ila or t%eir da#g%ter.

. On + Octo$er -EE, Ag#ila filed a Petition for eclaration of =#llity of


61/173

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, e D=8 t%e petition. 6e A55IR< t%e ecision dated 1H


62/173

NAR*ISO SALAS, petitioner, vs. ANNABELLE MA'+SALEM, respondent.[G.R. No. 180285. Septe6er 11, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(GI@@ARA


63/173

D0en if t%ese notes ere a#t%entic, t%ey do not 2#alify #nder Article 1+- (-) 0isV0is

Article 1+: of t%e 5amily Code %ic% admits as competent e0idence of illegitimate filiation an

admission of filiation in a pri0ate %andritten instr#ment signed $y t%e parent concerned.

&%e testimonies of respondent and


64/173

SYE A=AR ABBAS, petitioner, vs. GLORIA GOO ABBAS, respondent.[G.R. No. 18$8:. Jn!r# $0, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(GD@A/CO, JR., J

)A*'S(1. Petitioner /yed A%ar A$$as (/yed) a Pa4istani citien filed petition for t%e declaration

of n#llity of %is marriage to Floria FooA$$as (Floria) it% t%e R&C alleging t%e

a$sence of a marriage license, as a gro#nd for t%e ann#lment of %is marriage to Floria.

2. 'e alleged t%at t%ey ere married on A#g#st *, 1**- in &aianK t%at %en %e arri0ed int%e P%ilippines %e as told t%at %e as going to #ndergo some ceremony as a

re2#irements for %is stay in t%e P%ilippinesK t%at d#ring t%e ceremony %e and Floria

signed a doc#ment and %e did not 4no t%at t%e ceremony as a marriage #ntil Floria

told %im laterK t%at %e did not go to Carmona, Ca0ite to apply for a marriage license, and

%e is not a resident of it andK t%at %en %e ent to t%e Office of t%e Ci0il Registrar to

c%ec4 on t%eir marriage license to 0erify t%e marriage license t%e


65/173

All t%e e0idence cited $y t%e CA to s%o t%at a edding ceremony as cond#cted and a

marriage contract as signed does not operate to c#re t%e a$sence of a 0alid marriage license.

Article 3 of t%e 5amily Code is clear %en it says, ;&%e a$sence of any of t%e essential or formal

re2#isites s%all render t%e marriage 0oid a$ initio, e!cept as stated in Article :(-).; Article :()

of t%e 5amily Code also pro0ides t%at a marriage solemnied it%o#t a license is 0oid from t%e

$eginning, e!cept t%ose e!empt from t%e license re2#irement #nder Articles -+ to 3, C%apter -,

&itle I of t%e same Code.:1Again, t%is marriage cannot $e c%aracteried as among t%e

e!emptions, and t%#s, %a0ing $een solemnied it%o#t a marriage license, is 0oid a$ initio.

&%e la m#st $e applied. As t%e marriage license, a formal re2#isite, is clearly a$sent, t%e

marriage of Floria and /yed is 0oid a$ initio.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, in lig%t of t%e foregoing, t%e petition is %ere$y FRA=&D.

&%e assailed ecision dated


66/173

)A*'S(7. Petitioner /#san @im@#a filed an action for t%e declaration of n#llity of %er marriage

it% respondent anilo 8. @#a, $efore t%e R&C of Ce$# City. /%e prayed for s#pport

pendent lite for %er and t%eir c%ildren.

. &%e trial co#rt granted t%e s#pport. &%e respondent opposed asserting t%at t%epetitioner is not entitled to spo#sal s#pport considering t%at s%e does not maintain for

%erself a separate delling for t%eir c%ildren and t%e respondent %as contin#ed tos#pport t%e family for t%eir s#stenance and ell$eing in accordance it% familys

social and financial standing. &%e trial co#rt ordered t%at t%e s#pport as final and

e!ec#tor as t%e motion for reconsideration as treated as a mere scrap of paper for

0iolation of t%e t%reeday notice period #nder t%e 1**+ R#les of Ci0il Proced#re.


67/173

to del0e f#lly into t%e merits of t%e case $efore it can settle an application for t%is relief. All t%at

a co#rt is tas4ed to do is determine t%e 4ind and amo#nt of e0idence %ic% may s#ffice to ena$le

it to j#stly resol0e t%e application. It is eno#g% t%at t%e facts $e esta$lis%ed $y affida0its or ot%er

doc#mentary e0idence appearing in t%e record.

In t%is case, t%e amo#nt of mont%ly s#pport pendente lite for petitioner and %er to

c%ildren as determined after d#e %earing and s#$mission of doc#mentary e0idence $y t%e

parties. Alt%o#g% t%e amo#nt fi!ed $y t%e trial co#rt as red#ced on appeal, it is clear t%at t%e

mont%ly s#pport pendente lite of P11:,EEE.EE ordered $y t%e CA as intended primarily for t%e

s#stenance of petitioner and %er c%ildren, e.g., food, clot%ing, salaries of dri0ers and %o#se

%elpers, and ot%er %o#se%old e!penses.

In determining s#pport for t%e spo#ses, t%e co#rt laid don t%e folloing g#idelines

e) In t%e a$sence of ade2#ate pro0isions in a ritten agreement $eteen t%e spo#ses, t%e

spo#ses may $e s#pported from t%e properties of t%e a$sol#te comm#nity or t%e conj#galpartners%ip.

f) &%e co#rt may aard s#pport to eit%er spo#se in s#c% amo#nt and for s#c% period of time

as t%e co#rt may deem j#st and reasona$le $ased on t%eir standard of li0ing d#ring t%e

marriage.

g) &%e co#rt may li4eise consider t%e folloing factors

(11) %et%er t%e spo#se see4ing s#pport is t%e c#stodian of a c%ild %ose

circ#mstances ma4e it appropriate for t%at spo#se not to see4 o#tside

employmentK

(1-) t%e time necessary to ac2#ire s#fficient ed#cation and training to ena$le

t%e spo#se see4ing s#pport to find appropriate employment, and t%at spo#sesf#t#re earning capacityK

(1) t%e d#ration of t%e marriageK

(13) t%e comparati0e financial reso#rces of t%e spo#ses, incl#ding t%eir

comparati0e earning a$ilities in t%e la$or mar4etK

(1:) t%e needs and o$ligations of eac% spo#seK

(1H) t%e contri$#tion of eac% spo#se to t%e marriage, incl#ding ser0ices

rendered in %omema4ing, c%ild care, ed#cation, and career $#ilding of t%e ot%er

spo#seK

(1+) t%e age and %ealt% of t%e spo#sesK

(1) t%e p%ysical and emotional conditions of t%e spo#sesK

(1*) t%e a$ility of t%e s#pporting spo#se to gi0e s#pport, ta4ing into acco#nt

t%at spo#ses earning capacity, earned and #nearned income, assets, and standard

of li0ingK and

(-E) any ot%er factor t%e co#rt may deem j#st and e2#ita$le.

%) &%e 5amily Co#rt may direct t%e ded#ction of t%e pro0isional s#pport from t%e salary of

t%e spo#se.

6it% respect to s#pport for c%ildren t%e r#le pro0ides t%at t%e common c%ildren of t%e

spo#ses s%all $e s#pported from t%e properties of t%e a$sol#te comm#nity or t%e conj#galpartners%ip. In determining t%e amo#nt of pro0isional s#pport, t%e co#rt may li4eise consider

t%e folloing factors

:. t%e financial reso#rces of t%e c#stodial and nonc#stodial parent and t%ose of t%e

c%ildK

H. t%e p%ysical and emotional %ealt% of t%e c%ild and %is or %er special needs and

aptit#desK

Page H+


68/173

+. t%e standard of li0ing t%e c%ild %as $een acc#stomed toK

. t%e nonmonetary contri$#tions t%at t%e parents ill ma4e toard t%e care and ell

$eing of t%e c%ild.

&%e Co#rt citing American j#rispr#dences li4eise declared as a general r#le to effect

s#pport is %en a fat%er is re2#ired $y a di0orce decree to pay to t%e mot%er money for t%e

s#pport of t%eir dependent c%ildren and t%e #npaid and accr#ed installments $ecome j#dgments

in %er fa0or, %e cannot, as a matter of la, claim credit on acco#nt of payments 0ol#ntarily made

directly to t%e c%ildren. 'oe0er, special considerations of an e2#ita$le nat#re may j#stify a

co#rt in crediting s#c% payments on %is inde$tedness to t%e mot%er, %en t%at can $e done

it%o#t inj#stice to %er.

Applying t%e a$o0e r#le in t%is case, t%e CA s%o#ld not %a0e alloed all t%e e!penses

inc#rred $y respondent to $e credited against t%e accr#ed s#pport pendente lite $eca#se t%e

mont%ly s#pport pendente lite granted $y t%e trial co#rt as intended primarily for food,%o#se%old e!penses s#c% as salaries of dri0ers and %o#se %elpers, and also petitioners scoliosis

t%erapy sessions. 'ence, t%e 0al#e of to e!pensi0e cars $o#g%t $y respondent for %is c%ildren

pl#s t%eir maintenance cost, tra0el e!penses of petitioner and Angelli, p#rc%ases t%ro#g% credit

card of items ot%er t%an groceries and dry goods (clot%ing) s%o#ld %a0e $een disalloed, as t%ese

$ear no relation to t%e j#dgment aarding s#pport pendente lite. D0en dispositi0e portion of t%e

e!ec#tory decision of appellate co#rt ordered respondent to pay t%e s#pport in arrears ;less t%an

t%e amo#nt s#pposedly gi0en $y petitioner to t%e pri0ate respondent as %er and t%eir to (-)

c%ildren mont%ly s#pport,; t%e ded#ctions s%o#ld $e limited to t%ose $asic needs and e!penses

considered $y t%e trial and appellate co#rts. &%e %#ge ded#ctions from t%e accr#ed mont%ly

s#pport of petitioner and %er c%ildren, %ile correct insofar as it commends t%e generosity of t%erespondent to %is c%ildren, is clearly inconsistent it% its e!ec#tor decision.


69/173

ii. ORDRI=F anilo 8. @#a to res#me payment of %is mont%ly s#pport of

P%P11:,EEE.EE pesos starting from t%e time payment of t%is amo#nt as deferred

$y %im s#$ject to t%e ded#ction aforementioned.

iii. IRDC&I=F t%e immediate e!ec#tion of t%is j#dgment.

BOBBY 'AN, petitioner, vs. GRA*E ANRAE, &RO*ESO ANRAE, JR., *ARI'YA. SAN'IAGO, ENRY ANRAE, ANRE; ANRAE, JASMIN BLA=A, GLORYANRAE, MIRIAM ROSE ANRAE, AN JOSE& ANRAE, respondents.[G.R. No. 1


70/173

. &%ereafter, Proceso, Jr. e!ec#ted a eed of Assignment, ceding #nto Bo$$y %is rig%ts and

interests o0er t%e s#$ject properties. &%e eed of Assignment as signed $y, among

ot%ers, 'enry Andrade ('enry), one of Rosarios sons, as instr#mental itness.

=otit%standing t%e aforementioned eed of Assignment, Bo$$y e!tended an Option to

B#y t%e s#$ject properties in fa0or of Proceso, Jr., gi0ing t%e latter #ntil +EE in t%e

e0ening of J#ly 1, 1*3 to p#rc%ase t%e same. 6%en Proceso, Jr. failed to do so, Bo$$y

consolidated %is oners%ip o0er t%e s#$ject properties, and t%e &C&s t%erefor ere iss#ed

in %is name.

3. Rosarios c%ildren filed a complaint for recon0eyance and ann#lment of deeds of

con0eyance and damages against Bo$$y $efore t%e R&C claiming t%at t%e transaction

$eteen Rosario and Bo$$y (s#$ject transaction) as not one of sale $#t as act#ally an

e2#ita$le mortgage %ic% as entered into to sec#re Rosarios inde$tedness it% Bo$$yK

t%at t%e s#$ject properties ere in%erited $y t%em from t%eir fat%er, Proceso Andrade, /r.

(Proceso, /r.), t%e s#$ject properties ere conj#gal in nat#re, and t%#s, Rosario %ad norig%t to dispose of t%eir respecti0e s%ares t%erein. In t%is lig%t, t%ey arg#ed t%at t%ey

remained as cooners of t%e s#$ject properties toget%er it% Bo$$y, despite t%e iss#ance

of t%e &C&s in %is name.

:. &%e trial co#rt r#led t%at t%e properties ere e!cl#si0e property of Rosario $#t t%e CA

r#led t%at it as conj#gal.

ISS+E(6%et%er t%e property is e!cl#si0e property or conj#gal property.

EL(&%e s#$ject property as e!cl#si0e.Article 1HE of t%e Ci0il Code %ic% states t%at ;>a?ll property of t%e marriage is

pres#med to $elong to t%e conj#gal partners%ip, #nless it $e pro0ed t%at it pertains e!cl#si0ely to

t%e %#s$and or to t%e ife.; 5or t%is pres#mption to apply, t%e party in0o4ing t%e same m#st,

%oe0er, preliminarily pro0e t%at t%e property as indeed ac2#ired d#ring t%e marriage. As %eld

in Fo 0. 8amane Q As a condition sine 2#a non for t%e operation of >Article 1HE? in fa0or of t%e

conj#gal partners%ip, t%e party %o in0o4es t%e pres#mption m#st first pro0e t%at t%e property

as ac2#ired d#ring t%e marriage.

In t%is case, records re0eal t%at t%e conj#gal partners%ip of Rosario and %er %#s$and as

terminated #pon t%e latters deat% on A#g#st +, 1*+ %ile t%e transfer certificates of title o0er

t%e s#$ject properties ere iss#ed on /eptem$er -, 1*+* and solely in t%e name of ;Rosario

Gda. de Andrade, of legal age, ido, 5ilipino.; Ot%er t%an t%eir $are allegation, no e0idence

as add#ced $y t%e Andrades to esta$lis% t%at t%e s#$ject properties ere proc#red d#ring t%e

co0ert#re of t%eir parents or t%at t%e same ere $o#g%t it% conj#gal f#nds.


71/173

of t%e Co#rt of Appeals in CAF.R. CG =o. +1*+ are %ere$y RDGDR/D and /D& A/ID,

and t%e April H, -EE1 ecision of t%e Regional &rial Co#rt of Ce$# City, Branc% 1* in Ci0il Case

=o. CDB -E*H* is RDI=/&A&D.

RAL& &. '+A, petitioner, vs. ON. *ESAR A. MANGROBANG, &residin3 J!d3e,Brn4 22, Re3ion" 'ri" *o!rt, I!s, *vite nd ROSSANA ONRAO-'+A,respondents.[G.R. No. 1


72/173

and access to %er minor c%ildrenK and, t%at s%e as t%reatened to $e depri0ed of %er and

%er c%ildrens financial s#pport.

. A &emporary Restraining Order as granted. &%e petitioner denied all t%e allegations and

filed motion for iss#ance of 6rit of Preliminary Inj#nction of trial co#rt decision $#t as

denied $y CA. 'ence, t%e petition as filed $efore t%e /#preme Co#rt 2#estioning t%e

0alidity of constit#tionality of RA *-H-.

ISS+E(6%et%er t%ere as a 0iolation of d#e process of la and considerations of j#stice and$asic %#man rig%ts %en t%e co#rt iss#ed t%e temporary protecti0e order.

EL(=o.A protection order is an order iss#ed to pre0ent f#rt%er acts of 0iolence against omen

and t%eir c%ildren, t%eir family or %o#se%old mem$ers, and to grant ot%er necessary reliefs. Its

p#rpose is to safeg#ard t%e offended parties from f#rt%er %arm, minimie any disr#ption in t%eirdaily life and facilitate t%e opport#nity and a$ility to regain control of t%eir life.

&%e scope of reliefs in protection orders is $roadened to ens#re t%at t%e 0ictim or

offended party is afforded all t%e remedies necessary to c#rtail access $y a perpetrator to t%e

0ictim. &%is ser0es to safeg#ard t%e 0ictim from greater ris4 of 0iolenceK to accord t%e 0ictim and

any designated family or %o#se%old mem$er safety in t%e family residence, and to pre0ent t%e

perpetrator from committing acts t%at jeopardie t%e employment and s#pport of t%e 0ictim. It

also ena$les t%e co#rt to aard temporary c#stody of minor c%ildren to protect t%e c%ildren from

0iolence, to pre0ent t%eir a$d#ction $y t%e perpetrator and to ens#re t%eir financial s#pport. &PO

may $e iss#ed e! parte pro0ided t%at t%e co#rt s%all li4eise order t%at notice $e immediatelygi0en to t%e respondent directing %im to file an opposition it%in fi0e (:) days from ser0ice.

In t%is case, t%e alleged acts of petitioner among ot%ers, i.e., %e coc4ed t%e g#n and

pointed t%e same to %is %ead in order to con0ince respondent not to proceed it% t%e legal

separation caseK feeding %is ot%er c%ildren it% t%e food %ic% anot%er c%ild spat o#tK and

t%reatening t%e crying c%ild it% a $elt to stop %im from crying %ic% as repeatedly doneK and

%olding respondent $y %er nape %en %e got f#rio#s t%at s%e as as4ing %im not to come often to

t%eir conj#gal %ome and %old office t%ereat after t%eir agreed separation and t%reatening %er of

it%%olding %alf of t%e financial s#pport for t%e 4ids, %ile not concl#si0e, are eno#g% $ases for

t%e iss#ance of a &PO and %e as ordered to file an opposition. &%#s, t%ere as no 0iolation of

d#e process.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition is D=ID. &%e ecision dated Octo$er -, -EE:of t%e Co#rt of Appeals iss#ed in CAF.R. /P =o. ***, #p%olding t%e Regional &rial Co#rts

iss#ance of t%e &emporary Protection Order dated


73/173


74/173

-. 8ears after separation, Atty. Adriano li0ed toget%er it% petitioner Galino it%o#t t%e

$enefit of marriage.

. In 1**-, Atty. Adriano died and at t%at time Rosario as in t%e 9nited /tates it% %er

c%ildren. As none of t%e family mem$ers as aro#nd, Petitioner Galino too4 it #pon%erself to s%o#lder t%e f#neral and $#rial e!penses for Atty. Adriano. 6%en Rosario

learned a$o#t t%e deat% of %er %#s$and, s%e immediately called Galino and re2#ested t%at

s%e delay t%e interment for a fe days $#t %er re2#est as not %eeded. &%e remains of

Atty. Adriano ere t%en interred at t%e ma#sole#m of t%e family of Galino at t%e Dmp%ases s#pplied?

Art. 1**. 6%ene0er to or more persons are o$liged to gi0e s#pport, t%e

lia$ility s%all de0ol0e #pon t%e folloing persons in t%e order %erein

pro0ided

(1) '4e spo!se

(-) &%e descendants in t%e nearest degreeK() &%e ascendants in t%e nearest degreeK and

(3) &%e $rot%ers and sisters. (-*3a) >Dmp%asis s#pplied?

5#rt%er, Article E of t%e Ci0il Code pro0ides

Art. E. =o %#man remains s4"" 6e retined, interred, disposedoC or eF4!edit%o#t t%e consent of t%e persons mentioned inArticles -*3 and E:. >Dmp%ases s#pplied? In t%is connection,

/ection 11E of t%e Re0ised Administrati0e Code pro0ides

/ection 11E. Persons c%arged it% t%e d!t# oC 6!ri". W &%eimmediate d#ty of $#rying t%e $ody of a deceased person,

regardless of t%e #ltimate lia$ility for t%e e!pense t%ereof, s%all

de0ol0e #pon t%e persons %erein $elo specified? IC t4edeesed s rried n or on, t4e d!t# oC t4e 6!ri"s4"" devo"ve !pon t4e s!rvivin3 spo!se iC 4e or s4e possessess!CCiient ens to p# t4e neessr# eFpenses ! ! ! !.

Page +3


75/173

Applying t%e forgoing in t%is case, t%e la gi0es t%e rig%t and d#ty to ma4e f#neral

arrangements to Rosario, s%e $eing t%e s#r0i0ing legal ife of Atty. Adriano. &%e fact t%at s%e

as li0ing separately from %er %#s$and and as in t%e 9nited /tates %en %e died %as no

controlling significance. &o say t%at Rosario %ad, in effect, ai0ed or reno#nced, e!pressly or

impliedly, %er rig%t and d#ty to ma4e arrangements for t%e f#neral of %er deceased %#s$and is

$aseless. &%e rig%t and d#ty to ma4e f#neral arrangements, li4e any ot%er rig%t, ill not $e

considered as %a0ing $een ai0ed or reno#nced, e!cept #pon clear and satisfactory proof of

cond#ct indicati0e of a free and 0ol#ntary intent to t%at end. 6%ile t%ere as disaffection

$eteen Atty. Adriano and Rosario and t%eir c%ildren %en %e as still ali0e, t%e Co#rt also

recognies t%at %#man compassion, more often t%an not, opens t%e door to mercy and

forgi0eness once a family mem$er joins %is Creator. 6it% regard to t%e claim it as Atty.

Adriano is% t%e $#rial of %is remains in a place ot%er t%an t%e Adriano family plot t%e Co#rt

%eld t%at s#c% intention m#st $e e0ident li4e in a testamentary disposition (ill). /ince t%ere as

none in t%is case t%e Co#rt applied Article E+ of t%e Ci0il Code %ic% pro0ides t%at s%o#ldt%ere $e any do#$t as to t%e tr#e intent of t%e deceased, t%e la fa0ors t%e legitimate family.

'ere, Rosarios 4eenness to e!ercise t%e rig%ts and o$ligations accorded to t%e legal ife as

e0en $olstered $y t%e fact t%at s%e as joined $y t%e c%ildren in t%is case.

&%#s, t%e is%es of t%e deceased it% respect to %is f#neral are limited $y Article E: oft%e Ci0il Code in relation to Article 1** of t%e 5amily Code, and s#$ject t%e same to t%ose

c%arged it% t%e rig%t and d#ty to ma4e t%e proper arrangements to $#ry t%e remains of t%eir

lo0edone. It is generally recognied t%at t%e corpse of an indi0id#al is o#tside t%e commerce of

man. 'oe0er, t%e la recognies t%at a certain rig%t of possession o0er t%e corpse e!ists, for t%e

p#rpose of a decent $#rial, and for t%e e!cl#sion of t%e intr#sion $y t%ird persons %o %a0e nolegitimate interest in it. &%is 2#asiproperty rig%t, arising o#t of t%e d#ty of t%ose o$ligated $y

la to $#ry t%eir dead, also a#t%ories t%em to ta4e possession of t%e dead $ody for p#rposes of

$#rial to %a0e it remain in its final resting place, or to e0en transfer it to a proper place %ere t%e

memory of t%e dead may recei0e t%e respect of t%e li0ing. &%is is a family rig%t. &%ere can $e no

do#$t t%at person %a0ing t%is rig%t may reco0er t%e corpse from t%ird persons.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition is D=ID.

Page +:


76/173

&EREGRINA MA*+A A. E AENIO, petitioner, vs. 'E*LA OYBIA AENIO,respondent.[G.R. No. 1


77/173

j#rispr#dence t%e fact of marriage may $e pro0en $y rele0ant e0idence ot%er t%an t%e marriage

certificate. 'ence, e0en a persons $irt% certificate may $e recognied as competent e0idence of

t%e marriage $eteen %is parents.

In t%is case, t%ere as a pres#mption of laf#l marriage $eteen t%e respondent and

D9/&AL9IO $ased on (1) t%e testimonies of >Adelina?, t%e sister of D9/&AL9IO %o

testified t%at s%e personally itnessed t%e edding cele$ration of %er older $rot%er D9/&AL9IO

and >&ecla? on E /eptem$er 1*3- at &ali$on, Bo%olK >Climaco?, t%e eldest son of D9/&AL9IO

and >&ecla?, %o testified t%at %is mot%er >&ecla? as married to %is fat%er, D9/&AL9IO, and

>&ecla? %erselfK (-) t%e $irt% it%in t%e co%a$itation of &ecla and D#sta2#io of fo#r (3) c%ildren

co#pled it% t%e certificates of t%e c%ildrens $irt% and $aptismK and () t%e certifications of

marriage iss#ed $y t%e paris% priest and t%e local ci0il registry. 5#rt%er, t%e d#e e!ec#tion and t%e

loss of t%e marriage contract, $ot% constit#ting t%e condition sine 2#a non for t%e introd#ction of

secondary e0idence of its contents, ere s%on $y t%e 0ery e0idence. &%ese are rele0ant,

competent and admissi$le e0idence. /ince t%e d#e e!ec#tion and t%e loss of t%e marriagecontract ere clearly s%on $y t%e e0idence presented, secondary e0idence N testimonial and

doc#mentary N may $e admitted to pro0e t%e fact of marriage.

In P*)!%A v. TR+A$, t%e /#preme Co#rt %eld t%at ;marriage may $e pro0en $y any

competent and rele0ant e0idence. &%e testimony $y one of t%e parties to t%e marriage or $y one

of t%e itnesses to t%e marriage %as $een %eld to $e admissi$le to pro0e t%e fact of marriage. &%e

person %o officiated at t%e solemniation is also competent to testify as an eyeitness to t%e

fact of marriage.;

&%e $asis of %#man society t%ro#g%o#t t%e ci0ilied orld is t%at of marriage.


78/173

EILBER'O +. EN'+RA, JR., petitioner, vs. S&O+SES &A+LINO nd EANGELINEAB+A, respondents.

[G.R. No. 202:$2. Oto6er 2$, 201$.%

&ONEN'E(CARPIO, J

)A*'S(1. /ocorro &orres married Crispin Ro!as (first marriage) on 1 April 1*:-. &%ey %ad a

da#g%ter D0angeline (respondents).

-. 6%ile t%e first marriage as still 0alid, /ocorro married Dste$an A$letes (second

marriage) on * J#ne 1*E $#t t%e later %as a son prior to t%e marriage named Ddil$erto Jr

(petitioner). #ring t%e marriage Dste$an and /ocorro p#rc%ased Gitas property and

elpan Property %ic% as co0ered $y &C& iss#ed to Dste$an A$letes, of legal age,

5ilipino, married to /ocorro &orres.

. Before t%e deat% of Dste$an and /ocorro, t%ose properties ere allegedly sold to

respondents. /ometime in -EEE, @eonora 9r2#ila (@eonora), t%e mot%er of Ddil$erto,

Page +


79/173

disco0ered t%e sale. &%#s, Ddil$erto, represented $y @eonora, filed a Petition for

Ann#lment.

3. &%e trial co#rt r#led t%at t%e marriage of Dste$an and /ocorro as 0oid and t%e Gitas and

elpan properties are not conj#gal %ic% as affirmed $y t%e CA. 'ence, t%e petition

as filed $efore t%e Co#rt.

ISS+E(6%et%er t%e Gitas and elpan properties are common property of Dste$an and /ocorro.

EL( =o.Article 13 of t%e 5amily Code applies in t%is case. &%e Gitas and elpan properties can

$e considered common property if

1. t%ese ere ac2#ired d#ring t%e co%a$itation of Dste$an and /ocorroK and

-. t%ere is e0idence t%at t%e properties ere ac2#ired t%ro#g% t%e parties act#al joint

contri$#tion of money, property, or ind#stry.

In t%is case, Ddil$erto arg#es t%at t%e certificate of title co0ering t%e Gitas property s%os

t%at t%e parcel of land is cooned $y Dste$an and /ocorro $eca#se (1) t%e &ransfer Certificate

of &itle as iss#ed on 11 ecem$er 1*E, or se0eral mont%s after t%e parties ere marriedK and

(-) title to t%e land as iss#ed to ;Dste$an A$letes, of legal age, married to /ocorro &orres.

&%e co#rt %eld t%at t%e p%rase ;married to /ocorro &orres; is merely descripti0e of %is

ci0il stat#s, and does not s%o t%at /ocorro cooned t%e property. &%e e0idence also s%os t%at

Dste$an ac2#ired oners%ip o0er t%e Gitas property prior to %is marriage to /ocorro, e0en if t%e

certificate of title as iss#ed after t%e cele$ration of t%e marriage. Registration #nder t%e &orrenstitle system merely confirms, and does not 0est title. &%is fact as admitted $y Ddil$erto on %is

petition.

Also, Ddil$erto claims t%at Dste$ans act#al contri$#tion to t%e p#rc%ase of t%e elpan

property as not s#fficiently pro0en since D0angeline s%o#ldered some of t%e amortiations t%#s,

t%e la pres#mes t%at Dste$an and /ocorro jointly contri$#ted to t%e ac2#isition of t%e elpan

property. 'oe0er, it as pro0en t%at t%e elpan property as ac2#ired prior to t%e marriage of

Dste$an and /ocorro and e0en if payment of t%e p#rc%ase price of t%e elpan property as made

$y D0angeline, s#c% payment as made on $e%alf of %er fat%er. &%#s, t%e property is e!cl#si0e

property of Dste$an.

IS&OSI'IE( 6'DRD5ORD, t%e petition is D=ID. &%e ecision dated *


80/173

'ERESA *. AG+ILAR, *ESAR . RAAGAS, ILLAMOR ILLEGAS, nd 'EREGIS'ER O) EES )OR 'E *I'Y O) MA/A'I, petitioners, vs. MI*AEL J.OH&ALLI*/, respondent.

[G.R. No. 182280. J!"# 2:, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( D@ CA/&I@@O, J

)A*'S(

Page E


81/173

1. On


82/173

ALI A/ANG, petitioner, vs. M+NI*I&ALI'Y O) IS+LAN, S+L'AN /+ARA'&ROIN*E, represented 6# its M+NI*I&AL MAYOR AN M+NI*I&AL I*E MAYORAN M+NI*I&AL *O+N*ILORS/AGA;AS, respondent.[G.R. No. 18015. J!ne 2, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( RD8D/, J

)A*'S(1. Ali A4ang (petitioner) is a mem$er of t%e national and c#lt#ral comm#nity $elonging to

t%e


83/173

ISS+E(1. 6%et%er t%e petitioner is entitled to reco0er oners%ip and possession of t%e property in

disp#te.

-. 6%et%er t%e petitioners claim is $arred $y lac%es.

EL1. =O.

&%e petitionse is not entitled to reco0er oners%ip and possession of t%e property.

&%e eed of /ale is a Galid. &%e eed of /ale e!ec#ted $y t%e petitioner and t%e

respondent is a perfected contract of sale, all its elements $eing present. &%ere as

m#t#al agreement $eteen t%em to enter into t%e sale, as s%on $y t%eir free and

0ol#ntary signing of t%e contract. &%ere as also an a$sol#te transfer of oners%ip of t%e

property $y t%e petitioner to t%e respondent as s%on in t%e stip#lation ;. . . I >petitioner?

%ere$y sell, transfer, cede, con0ey and assign as $y t%ese presents do %a0e sold,transferred, ceded, con0eyed and assigned, . . . .; &%ere as also a determinate s#$ject

matter, t%at is, t%e to%ectare parcel of land as descri$ed in t%e eed of /ale. @astly, t%e

price or consideration is at &%ree &%o#sand Pesos (P,EEE.EE), %ic% as to $e paid after

t%e e!ec#tion of t%e contract.

&%e fact t%at no e!press reser0ation of oners%ip or title to t%e property can $e

fo#nd in t%e eed of /ale $olsters t%e a$sence of s#c% intent, and t%e contract, t%erefore,

co#ld not $e one to sell. 'ad t%e intention of t%e petitioner $een ot%erise, %e co#ld %a0e

(1) immediately so#g%t j#dicial reco#rse to pre0ent f#rt%er constr#ction of t%e m#nicipal

$#ildingK or (-) ta4en legal action to contest t%e agreement. &%e petitioner did not opt to#nderta4e any of s#c% reco#rses.

&%e petitioners allegation of nonpayment is of no conse2#ence ta4ing into

acco#nt t%e


84/173

ac2#ired $y prescription or ad0erse possession. &%e same is not

tr#e it% regard to lac%es. . . . .

IS&OSI'IE 6'DRD5ORD, t%e appeal is D=ID. &%e ecision dated April -:, -EE andResol#tion dated Octo$er -*, -EE of t%e Co#rt of Appeals


85/173

located in 0ario#s cities and pro0inces nationide. In t#rn, &ala Realty leased t%ese

properties to Banco 5ilipino.

3. In A#g#st 1**-, %oe0er, &ala Realty rep#diated t%e tr#st agreement, asserted oners%ip

and claimed f#ll title o0er t%e properties, prompting Banco 5ilipino to instit#te a total of

1+ complaints for t%e recon0eyance of t%e said properties against &ala Realty and Add

International, as ell as =ancy, &omas, Pedro, Remedios, Pilar, olly, Dlia$et%, and

R#$encito (defendants) in t%e 0ario#s R&Cs %ere t%e s#$ject properties are fo#nd.

:. &ala Realty, Add International, and t%e indi0id#al defendants, it% t%e e!ception of

=ancy, mo0ed for t%e dismissal of t%ese complaints on t%e common gro#nds of for#m

s%opping, lac4 of ca#se of action, in pari delicto and t%e #nenforcea$ility of t%e tr#st

agreement. On t%e ot%er %and, =ancy separately filed motions to dismiss t%e t%ree

complaints, raising t%e gro#nds of lac4 of j#risdiction, lis pendens, lac4 of ca#se of action

as against %er and prescription.

ISS+E( 6%et%er t%e recon0eyance complaints filed $y Banco 5ilipino $efore t%e co#rts a 2#ocan $e alloed to prosper.

EL(=o.At t%e o#tset, t%e $asic facts as ell as t%e iss#es raised in t%ese petitions %a0e already

$een passed #pon $y t%e Co#rt in its ecisions dated April +, -EE* in F.R. =os. 1EE, 113H*,

1::1+1, 1::-E1, and 1HHHE as ell as its more recent ecision dated J#ne -+, -E1- in F.R. =o.

1E-. Pertinently, in t%ese cases, t%e Co#rt applied t%e earlier case of &ala Realty /er0icesCorporation 0. Banco 5ilipino /a0ings X


86/173

filed $y Banco 5ilipino /a0ings and


87/173

respondent $an4 asserted t%at it complied it% t%e re2#irements of t%e la in foreclosing

t%e %o#se and lot. By ay of crossclaim, respondent $an4 prayed t%at in t%e e0ent of an

ad0erse j#dgment against it, Concepcion, its codefendant, $e ordered to indemnify it for

all damages.

ISS+E 6%et%er or not t%e petitioner as lia$le on t%e loan"mortgage.

EL =o. &%e Real Dstate


88/173

S&O+SES JES+S L. *ABA+G AN *ORONA*ION M. *ABA+G, petitioners, vs.NA'IONAL &O;ER *OR&ORA'ION, respondent.[G.R. No. 180:, Jn!r# $0, 201$.%

&ONEN'E( PDRD, J.

)A*'S(

1. &%e /po#ses Ca$a%#g are t%e oners of to parcels of land sit#ated in Barangay

Capo4po4, &a$ango, @eyte, registered in t%eir names #nder &C& =os. &*1 and &1:**

of t%e @eyte pro0incial registry. &%ey ere among t%e defendants in /pecial Ci0il Action

=o. EE1*P=, a s#it for e!propriation earlier filed $y =PC $efore t%e R&C, in connection

it% its @eyteCe$# Interconnection Project.

-. &%e s#it as later dismissed %en =PC opted to settle it% t%e landoners $y paying an

easement fee e2#i0alent to 1E of 0al#e of t%eir property in accordance it% /ection A

of Rep#$lic Act (RA) =o. H*:.

Page


89/173

. On * =o0em$er 1**H, Jes#s Ca$a%#g e!ec#ted to doc#ments denominated as Rig%t of

6ay Frant in fa0or of =PC. . 5or and in consideration of t%e easement fees, Ca$a%#g

granted =PC a contin#o#s easement of rig%t of ay for t%e latters transmissions lines

and t%eir app#rtenances o0er -3,** and 3,+:E s2#are meters of t%e parcels of land

co0ered $y &C& =os. &*1 and &1:**, respecti0ely. By said grant, Jes#s Ca$a%#g

agreed not to constr#ct any $#ilding or str#ct#re %atsoe0er, nor plant in any area it%in

t%e Rig%t of 6ay t%at ill ad0ersely affect or o$str#ct t%e transmission line of =PC,

e!cept agric#lt#ral crops, t%e grot% of %ic% ill not e!ceed t%ree meters %ig%.

3. 9nder paragrap% 3 of t%e grant, %oe0er, Jes#s Ca$a%#g reser0ed t%e option to see4

additional compensation for easement fee, $ased on t%e /#preme Co#rts 1 Jan#ary

1**1 ecision in F.R. =o. HEE++, entitled =ational Poer Corporation 0. /po#ses


90/173

import. =eit%er can t%ey rerite contracts $eca#se t%ey operate %ars%ly or ine2#ita$ly as to one

of t%e parties, or alter t%em for t%e $enefit of one party and to t%e detriment of t%e ot%er, or $y

constr#ction, relie0e one of t%e parties from t%e terms %ic% %e 0ol#ntarily consented to, or

impose on %im t%ose %ic% %e did not.

&%e poer of eminent domain may $e e!ercised alt%o#g% title is not transferred to t%e

e!propriator in an easement of rig%t of ay. J#st compensation %ic% s%o#ld $e neit%er more nor

less t%an t%e money e2#i0alent of t%e property is, moreo0er, d#e %ere t%e nat#re and effect of

t%e easement is to impose limitations against t%e #se of t%e land for an indefinite period and

depri0e t%e landoner its ordinary #se. It %as $een r#led t%at t%e oner s%o#ld $e compensated

for t%e monetary e2#i0alent of t%e land if, as %ere, t%e easement is intended to perpet#ally or

indefinitely depri0e t%e oner of %is proprietary rig%ts t%ro#g% t%e imposition of conditions t%at

affect t%e ordinary #se, free enjoyment and disposal of t%e property or t%ro#g% restrictions and

limitations t%at are inconsistent it% t%e e!ercise of t%e attri$#tes of oners%ip, or %en t%e

introd#ction of str#ct#res or o$jects %ic%, $y t%eir nat#re, create or increase t%e pro$a$ility of

inj#ry, deat% #pon or destr#ction of life and property fo#nd on t%e land is necessary.


91/173

*ERILA J. *ALANASAN, represented 6# 'EOORA J. *ALANASAN s Attorne#-in-)t, petitioner, vs. S&O+SES IRGILIO OLORI'O nd EELYN *. OLORI'O,respondents.[G.R. No. 1


92/173

prayed t%at %er donation in fa0or of %er niece $e re0o4edK in t%eir anser, t%e respondents

denied t%e commission of any act of ingratit#de.

:. &%e petitioner died %ile t%e case as pending it% t%e R&C. 'er sisters, &eodora and

olores J. Calanasan, s#$stit#ted for %er.

ISS+E( 6%et%er or not t%e petitioners donation in fa0or of %er niece can $e re0o4ed.

EL(=o.In Repu"lic of the Phils. v. $ilim, e classified donations according to p#rpose. A

p#re"simple donation is t%e tr#est form of donation as it is $ased on p#re grat#ity. &%e

rem#neratory"compensatory type %as for its p#rpose t%e rearding of t%e donee for past ser0ices,

%ic% ser0ices do not amo#nt to a demanda$le de$t. A conditional"modal donation, on t%e ot%er

%and, is a consideration for f#t#re ser0icesK it also occ#rs %ere t%e donor imposes certainconditions, limitations or c%arges #pon t%e donee, %ose 0al#e is inferior to t%e donation gi0en.

@astly, an onero#s donation imposes #pon t%e donee a reciprocal o$ligationK t%is is made for a

0al#a$le consideration %ose cost is e2#al to or more t%an t%e t%ing donated.

6e agree it% t%e CA t%at since t%e donation imposed on t%e donee t%e $#rden of

redeeming t%e property for P1:,EEE, t%e donation as onero#s. As an endoment for a 0al#a$le

consideration, it parta4es of t%e nat#re of an ordinary contractK %ence, t%e r#les of contract ill

go0ern and Article +H: of t%e =e Ci0il Code finds no application it% respect to t%e onero#s

portion of t%e donation.

Insofar as t%e 0al#e of t%e land e!ceeds t%e redemption price paid for $y t%e donee, a

donation e!ists, and t%e legal pro0isions on donation apply. =e0ert%eless, despite t%e

applica$ility of t%e pro0isions on donation to t%e grat#ito#s portion, t%e petitioner may not

dissol0

Documents

Final Digest Compiled