Group 8 Report for Download

8/9/2019 Group 8 Report for Download

1/10

Page 1 of10

EUGENIO VS J. VELEZ

[GR NO. 85140, MAY 17, 1990]

Facts:

- Herein petitioner Eugenio filed this petition to declare issued writ and orders by the

respondent court null and void.

-Unaware of the death on August 28 1988 of (Vitaliana Vargasher full blood brothers and

sisters, herein private respondents filed on September 27 1988, a petition for habeas

corpus before the RTC of Misamis Oriental (Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City) alleging that

Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence sometime in 1987 and confined by herein

petitioner in his residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana

was allegedly deprived of her liberty without any legal authority. At the time the petition was

filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25 years of age, single, and living with petitioner Tomas

Eugenio. Court issued the writ but it was returned unsatisfied.

-Eugenio refused to surrender the body on the ground that a corpse cannot be the subject of a

habeas corpus proceedings and that as her common law husband, he has legal custody of her

body. He claims that he is the spouse contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil Code.

Issue: WON Eugenio is entitled to the custody of the dead body of the late Vitaliana Vargas aswell as the burial or interment thereof.

Ruling: No. Eugenios petition dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi:

-The court used as basis the order of preference to give support under Article 294. Since there

was no surviving spouse, ascendants, or descendants, the brothers and sisters were preferred

over petitioner who was merely a common-law spouse, the latter being himself legally married

to another woman.

-The court stated in its decision,

While it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such relationships are

present in our society, and that they produce a community of properties andinterests which is governed by law, authority exists in case law to the effect that such

form of co-ownership requires that the man and woman living together must not in

any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. In any case, herein petitioner has a

subsisting marriage with another woman, a legal impediment which disqualified him

from even legally marrying Vitaliana. In Santero vs. CFI of Cavite ,the Court, thru Mr.

Justice Paras, interpreting Art. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving Spouse and

Grp 8 Report FAMILY CODE ARTS 3 & 4 CASES [ Mapandi, Perez, Rasuman ]| PERSONS- A

[Judge Evelyn Nery]


2/10

Page 2 of10

Children During Liquidation of Inventoried Property) stated: "Be it noted however that

with respect to 'spouse', the same must be the legitimate 'spouse' (not common-law

spouses)."

There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term "spouse"

embraces common law relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability incases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by

spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction between a couple

whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie and another who are

husband and wife de facto. But this view cannot even apply to the facts of the case

at bar. We hold that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to

the contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse" contemplate a lawfully

wedded spouse. Petitioner vis-a-vis Vitaliana was not a lawfully-wedded spouse to

her; in fact, he was not legally capacitated to marry her in her lifetime.

RP VS. CA & CASTRO

[G.R. No. 103047 September 2, 1994]

Facts:

-On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civilceremony performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage

was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Defendant Cardenas personally

attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage,

including the procurement of the marriage, license. In fact, the marriage contract itself statesthat marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the contracting parties on June

24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila. The couple did not immediately live together as husband and

wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro's parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971,

when Castro discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However,

their cohabitation lasted only for four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways.

-Castro then consulted with her lawyers regarding the possible annulment of their marriage

and through her lawyers efforts, they were able to find out that no marriage license was

issued prior to the celebration of their marriage. They presented as evidence a certification

from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro Manila (Cenona D. Quintos), wherein it is stated that the

questioned marriage license cannot be located and does not appear from their records.

-Trial court denied Castros petition for nullity of marriage on grounds that the certification

presented as evidence was not sufficient to establish the alleged non-issuance of a marriage

license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the "inability

of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


3/10

Page 3 of10

no marriage license issued." Castro moved for an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which

reversed the trial courts decision. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

-Rep of the Philippines (herein petitioner) alleges that the CA erred in relying on the self-

serving and uncorroborated testimony of private respondent Castro that she had no part in the

procurement of the subject marriage license. Petitioner thus insists that the certification andthe uncorroborated testimony of private respondent are insufficient to overthrow the legal

presumption regarding the validity of a marriage.

Issue: WON the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent aresufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig prior

to the celebration of the marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas.

Ruling: Petition denied.

Ratio Decidendi:

- The presentation of such certification in court is sanctioned by Section 29, Rule 132 of the

Rules of Court:

Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. A written statement signed by an officer having

custody of an official record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or

entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied

by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that the records of his

office contain no such record or entry.

-The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig

enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data

relative to the issuance of a marriage license

- The fact that private respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her petition

is, in itself, not a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer any other witness to

corroborate her testimony is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. It will be

remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city

court. The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" a

legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without

the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. Therecords show that the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was initially unknown to the

parents of the former.

- At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital

relations was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


4/10

Page 4 of10

without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential

requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio.

IRENEO G. GERONIMO vs. COURT OF APPEALS andANTONIO ESMAN[G.R. No. 105540, July 5, 1993]

Facts:-Ireneo Geronimo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Pasig, Metro

Manila, with prayer for Letter of Administration of the Estate of Graciana Geronimo-Esmon,

her deceased sister. She questioned the capacity of Antonio Esman, latters husband, to

inherit and administer the property of the deceased. The petitioner contends that there

was no marriage license issued to the parties at the time the marriage was celebrated,

there appeared no marriage license number in the marriage contract. In his defense,

Antonio Esman argued that the said marriage contract merely show phrases not stated

and not recorded; and that the omission of the marriage license number is not fatal in

itself and is not conclusive proof that no marriage license was actually signed on January

7, 1955. The trial court ruled in favor of the oppositor, dismissed the petitioners

complaint.

-Petitioner went to CA for reversal of this decision but the appellate court affirmed the

judgment of the trial court. Thus, this appeal for certiorari is raised.

Issue: WON the marriage between Graciano Geronimo and Antonio Esman was valid?

Held: The petition is DENIED.The evidence adduced by the petitioner could only serve toprove the non-recording of the marriage license number but certainly not the non-

issuance of the license itself.

MERCEDITA M. ARAES VS. JUDGE SALVADOR M.OCCIANO[A.M No. MTJ-02-1390, April 11, 2002]

Facts:-On February 11, 2000, Judge Salvador Occiano, respondent, solemnized the marriage of

Mercedita, petitioner, and Dominador Orobia. When the latter passed away, the

petitioners right to inherit the vast properties left by him was not recognized, since the

marriage was nullity. There was no requisite marriage license presented and the place


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


5/10

Page 5 of10

where the marriage took place was outside the respondent judges jurisdiction. Thus,

petitioner charges respondent judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law via Letter Complaint

dated May 23, 2001, and prays that sanctions be imposed against respondent judge for

his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentation

-On May 28, 2001, the case was referred to then Acting Court Administrator, Zenaida N.

Elepao for appropriate action. In its Report and Recommendation, Court Administratorfound the respondent judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without duly issued marriage

license and for doing so outside his territorial jurisdiction. A fine of 5, 000 was

recommended to be imposed.

HELD:The Supreme Court agrees in this recommendation.Under the JudiciaryReorganization Act of 1980 or BP 129, the authority of the regional trial court judges and

judges of inferior courts to solemnizing marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction

as defined by the Supreme Court.

LUCIO MORIGO VS. PP. OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. 145226, 6 Feb. 2004]

Facts:

-An appeal for certiorari in the CA of Bohol for motion for consideration.

-RTC finds accused Lucio Morigo guilty of the crime of BIGAMY and sentences him to sufferthe penalty of imprisonment ranging from Seven (7) Months of Prision Correccional as

minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as maximum.

-FIRST MARRIAGE

Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at Tagbilaran City,

Bohol, for a period of four (4) years (1974-1978).

In 1984, Lucio received a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former

replied and after that there was an exchange of letters---they became sweethearts.

Lucia returned to the Philippines but went back to Canada; there she proposed to

petition Lucio, they both agreed to get married (1990)

Lucia returned to Canada and after two years she filed for divorce, which took effect

on Feb. 17, 1992.

- SECOND MARRIAGE


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


6/10

Page 6 of10

On October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio married Maria Lumbago in Tagbilaran City,

Bohol.

On September 21, 1993, Lucio filed for a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in

the RTC of Bohol; the declaration of nullity of Lucios marriage with Lucia, on the

ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place.

-Trial: Marriage is void for lack of ceremony

Suspension of arraignment because first marriage w/ Lucia posed a prejudicial

question in the bigamy case.

RTC found Lucio guilty

Grounds:

1. The trial court discounted petitioners claim that his first marriage to

Lucia was null and void ab initio.

2. Want of a valid marriage ceremony is not a defense in a charge of

bigamy.

3. A divorce granted by foreign court is not entitled to recognition here

4. He should have confirmed void before contracting a new marriage

(ignorantia legis non excusat)

-Appeal:

While appeal was pending, RTC declared the marriage between Lucio and Luciavoid ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually took place. No appeal was taken

from this decision, which then became final and executory.

The appellate court stressed that the subsequent declaration of nullity of Lucios

marriage to Lucia could not acquit Lucio. The reason is that what is sought to be

punished by Art 349 of the Revised Penal Code is the act of contracting a second

marriage before the first marriage had been dissolved.

The CA held, the fact that the first marriage was void from the beginning is not a

valid defense in a bigamy case.

But ultimately CA looked at the elements of Bigamy, and also in past jurisprudence

(Mercado v. Tan) signing of marriage contract without a solemnizing officer renders

a marriage void ab initio

Issue: WON the signing of a marriage contract in the absence of a solemnizing officer is amarriage void ab initio; and WON Lucio is guilty of bigamy.


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


7/10


8/10

Page 8 of10

-Catalina Sanchez, claimed to be the widow of Roberto Sanchez. She has proof in form of

the Marriage Certificate.

-Roberto Sanchez, now deceased has a 275sq.m of land at Cavite and is now in litigation.

-It was said by petitioner that Roberto sold it to them as partial payment for a certain debt

he incurred but Catalina was not aware of this.

-Catalina prayed for the annulment of the deed of sale that the petitioners are claiming to

have.

-Villanueva, herein petitioners, questioned the personality of Catalina to Roberto because

for all they know, Roberto wasnt married.

-They claimed they did sue Roberto in the courts for the debt. Roberto sold the land to

them in partial payment of his debt to them.

-RTC DECISION: In favor of petitioners for the examined signatures on the deed of salewere not spurious.The judge saying that theres a little difference in the signatures since

Roberto was in deep emotional stress and intense anger for losing a case. The judge

rejected the Marriage Contract dated 9-21-1964, in favor of the Torrens Certificate that

declared the civil status of Roberto as single, dated 8-25-1965. Given this, Catalina has

no capacity to institute complaint.

-CA DECISION on the appeal by Catalina: Marriage Contract was legal. Catalina, the widow

of Roberto, has the capacity to initiate the complaint. Petitioners filed a motion for

certiorari.

Issue: WON Catalina as spouse of Roberto was entitled to the land.

Held:

-SC DECISION on the appeal of Villanueva: Sees no reason to disrupt the decision of the CA

because the Marriage Certificate of Catalina was the best proof of marriage to Roberto,

not the Torrens title, which is the best evidence for ownership of the land, which also

stated Robertos civil status - single.

-Regarding the signature examination, it was the petitioners who initiated the action but

later on it was the respondent who presented them as her own witness. Petitioners were

hoping to refute the findings of the two experts but the two coincided that the signature

on the deed of sale was a fake.

-SC rules in favor of Catalina, as widow to Roberto, by virtue of the Marriage Contract, she

has the capacity to sue for recovery of the land in question.

-Petition denied and CA decision Affirmed with costs against the petitioners.


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


9/10

Page 9 of10

PUGEDA VS. TRIAS

[G.R. No. L-16925, July 24, 1962]

Facts:

-The subject of this case is certain lands from the Friar Lands Estate Administration of the

San Francisco de Malabon estate located in General Trias, Cavite. The plaintiff claims

participation in the said properties on the ground that the same were acquired by him and

the deceased Maria C. Ferrer, with whom the plaintiff contracted marriage in January,

1916 and who died on February 11, 1934.

-There were two issues raised in this case:

1) The alleged existence of the marriage of the plaintiff Fabian Pugeda and Maria C.

Ferrer;

2) The claim of the plaintiff to various lands acquired from the Friar Lands Estate under

certificates of sale issued first in the name of Mariano Trias (1st husband) and later

assigned to Maria C. Ferrer, but paid for in part during the marriage of plaintiff and

Maria C. Ferrer.

-Defendants Trias, Maria C. Ferrers children from her 1st husband, denied for lack of

knowledge and belief the claim of plaintiff in his complaint that he was married to Maria C.

Ferrer and that marriage continued up to the death of the latter in 1934.

-Facts of the 2nd marriage:

Plaintiff and his witness Ricardo Ricafrente testified that in the afternoon of January 5,

1916, the plaintiff and the deceased Maria C. Ferrer went to the Office of the Justice of

Peace, to ask the latter to marry them.

The marriage was celebrated in the presence of two witnesses Santiago Salazar and

Amado Prudente.

Ricafrente asked the parties to sign two copies of a marriage contract. One copy was

given to the married couple, while the other copy to the President of the Sanitary Division,the then keeper of the records of the civil register.

-Defendants denied the existence of the marriage and introduced a photostatic copy of

the record of marriages in the municipality of Rosario, Cavite in the month of January

1916, which showed no record of the alleged marriage.


[Judge Evelyn Nery]


10/10

Page 10 of10

-However, this was explained by the Justice of Peace that perhaps the person who kept the

registry forgot to make an entry of the marriage of in the registry.

Held:

-Jurisprudence: Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of

marriage, its absence is not always proof that no marriage in fact took place.

-Jurisprudence: The mere failure of sending a copy of the marriage certificate to the

municipal secretary does not invalidate the said marriage, since it does not appear that in

the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not present, and the forwarding of

a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of the said requisites.

-Jurisprudence: Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the

witnesses to the marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage.

-Civil code: Art 53-As to marriages contracted subsequently, no proof other than a

certificate of the record in the civil register shall be admitted, unless such books havenever been kept, or have disappeared, or the question arises in litigation, in which cases

the marriage may be proved by evidence of any kind. (p. 27, Civil Code)

-In the case at bar, witnesses and evidences were presented to prove the marriage.

-These were:

--Witnesses testified that after marriage, plaintiff lived in the house of Maria C. Ferrer.

--Baptismal certificate of the child borne of them where Fabian Pugeda and Maria C.

Ferrer were listed as parents.

--Plaintiff cohabited with the deceased wife, as husband and wife, until the death of the

latter, public and openly for 18 years, and there is a strong presumption that were

actually married.


[Judge Evelyn Nery]

Documents

Group 8 Report for Download