UST Civil Law

7/23/2019 UST Civil Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ust-civil-law 1/21

UST Civil Law

MUST READ CASES (CIVIL LAW)

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Tanada vs Tuvera, 1! SCRA "# (1$%&)

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 29th, 2015 at 22! p" and is #iled under

Uncategorized $ %ollow any responses to this entry throu&h the 'SS 2$0 #eed$

(rticle 2 o# the )CC does not preclude the re*uire"ent o# publication in the O##icial +aetteeven i# the law itsel# provides #or the date o# its e##ectivity$

Tanada vs Tuvera,1'! SCRA ''! (1$%!)

-# the law provides #or its own e##ectivity date, then it ta.es e##ect on the said date, sub/ect to there*uire"ent o# publication$ The clause unless otherwise provided re#ers to the date o#

e##ectivity and not the to the re*uire"ent o# publication itsel#, which cannot in any event be

o"itted$

LA UAL*LAAN TRIAL ASSOCIATION INC+ v+ RAMOS, +R+ N-+ 1"#%%", .anuar/

"#, "00'

hile the e##ectivity clause o# 3$O$ )o$ 249 does not re*uire its publication, it is not a &round #or

its invalidation since the Constitution, bein& the #unda"ental, para"ount and supre"e law o#the nation, is dee"ed written in the law$ ence, the due process clause, which, so Ta6ada held,

"andates the publication o# statutes, is read into Section 7 o# 3$O$ )o$ 249$ (dditionally, Section

1 o# 3$O$ )o$ 200 which provides #or publication either in the O##icial +aette or in a

newspaper o# &eneral circulation in the 8hilippines, #inds suppletory application$ -t is si&ni#icantto note that 3$O$ )o$ 249 was actually published in the O##icial +aette on (u&ust , 1974$

R-/ vs CA, +R+ NO %0#1% .an+ "$, 1$%%

http://www.ustcivillaw.com/?cat=1

http://www.ustcivillaw.com/?feed=rss2&p=4685



http://www.ustcivillaw.com/?cat=1



The ter" laws do not include decisions o# the Supre"e Court because lawyers in the active

practice "ust .eep abreast o# decisions, particularly where issues have been clari#ied,

consistently reiterated and published in advanced reports and the SC'($

T/ v+ Ca +R+ NO+ 1"#'0!, N-v+ "#, "000

The two "arria&es involved in this case was entered durin& the e##ectivity o# the )ew Civil

Code$ The %a"ily Code has retroactive e##ect unless there be i"pair"ent o# vested ri&hts$

F2-res3a vs P452e6 M5n5n7 C-r8+,+R+ 0!'", A8r52 0, 1$%&

The application or interpretation placed by the Supre"e Court upon a law is part o# the law as o#

the date o# its enact"ent since the court:s application or interpretation "erely establishes the

conte"poraneous le&islative intent that the construed law purports to carry into e##ect$

Van D-rn vs+ R-522- +R+ NO+L!%'#0 O39-:er %, 1$%&

-t is true that owin& to the nationality principle e"bodied in (rticle 15 o# the Civil Code, only

8hilippine nationals are covered by the policy a&ainst absolute divorces the sa"e bein&considered contrary to our concept o# public policy and "orality$ owever, aliens "ay obtain

divorces abroad,

RCPI vs CA, 1' SCRA !&# (1$%!)

;ionela #iled a co"plaint #or da"a&es a&ainst 'C8- alle&in& that the de#a"atory words on thetele&ra" sent to hi" not only wounded his #eelin&s but also caused hi" undue e"barrass"ent

and a##ected his business as well as because other people have co"e to .now o# said de#a"atory

words$ There is a clear case o# breach o# contract by the petitioner in addin& e<traneous andlibelous "atters in the "essa&e sent to ;ionela$



as4e S4--;a9 a;s4 vs CA,"1$ SCRA11& (1$$)

here a "an:s pro"ise to "arry is in #act the pro<i"ate cause o# the acceptance o# his love by awo"an and his representation to #ul#ill that pro"ise therea#ter beco"es the pro<i"ate cause o#

the &ivin& o# hersel# unto hi" a se<ual con&ress, proo# that he had, in reality, no intention o#

"arryin& her and that the pro"ise was only a subtle sche"e or deceptive device to entice or

invei&le her to accept hi" and to obtain her consent to the se<ual act, could /usti#y the award o#da"a&es pursuant to article 21 o# the new civil code not because o# such pro"ise to "arry but

because o# the #raud and deceit behind it and the wil#ul in/ury to her honor and reputation which

#ollowed therea#ter$

Un5vers59/ -< 94e Eas9 vs .ader, +R+ NO+ 1"'', Fe:+ #, "000

( law student was allowed to &raduate by his school with a #ailin& &rade but was later on

prohibited by the said school to ta.e the bar e<a"s$ The ne&li&ent act o# a pro#essor who #ails to

observe the rules o# the school, #or instance by not pro"ptly sub"ittin& a student:s &rade, is notonly i"putable to the pro#essor but is an act o# the school, bein& his e"ployer$

SPOUSES =IN v+ ALE>ANDER C=OAC=UY, SR+ +R+ N-+ 1#$#!+ .une "!, "01

Thus, an individual:s ri&ht to privacy under (rticle 2!=1> o# the Civil Code should not becon#ined to his house or residence as it "ay e<tend to places where he has the ri&ht to e<clude

the public or deny the" access$ The phrase pryin& into the privacy o# another:s residence,

there#ore, covers places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private$(nd as lon& as his ri&ht is reco&nied by society, other individuals "ay not in#rin&e on his ri&ht

to privacy$ The C(, there#ore, erred in li"itin& the application o# (rticle 2!=1> o# the Civil Code

only to residences$

WILLAWARE PRODUCTS CORPORATION vs$ .ESIC=RIS MANUFACTURIN

CORPORATION

+R+ N-+ 1$&&'$, Se89e:er , "01'



The concept o# un#air co"petition under (rticle 27 is very "uch broader than that covered by

intellectual property laws$ (rticle 27 o# the Civil Code provides that un#air co"petition ina&ricultural, co""ercial or industrial enterprises or in labor throu&h the use o# #orce,

inti"idation, deceit, "achination or any other un/ust, oppressive or hi&h?handed "ethod shall&ive rise to a ri&ht o# action by the person who thereby su##ers da"a&e$

e2u? vs CA, .u2/ "0, 1$!1

-t is un*uestionable that the appellant:s act in provo.in& the abortion o# appellee:s wi#e, without

"edical necessity to warrant it, was a cri"inal and "orally reprehensible act, that cannot be to

severely conde"ned@ and the consent o# the wo"an or that o# her husband does not e<cuse it$Aut the i""orality or ille&ality o# the act does not /usti#y an award o# da"a&e that, under the

circu"stances on record, have no #actual or le&al basis$

@u557u5n7 vs ICAO, ' SCRA 1" (1$#0

( conceived child, althou&h as yet unborn, is &iven by law a provisional personality o# its own

#or all purposes #avorable to it, as e<plicitly provided under article B0 o# the civil code$

Car5- v+ Car5-, +R+ NO+ 1"&"$ , Fe:+ 0", "001 &1 SCRA 1"#

hether or not the certi#ication by the re&istrar o# the non?e<istence o# "arria&e license isenou&h to prove non?issuance thereo#$ The records reveal that the "arria&e contract o# petitioner

and the deceased bears no "arria&e license nu"ber and, as certi#ied by the Local Civil 'e&istrar

o# San uan, Detro Danila, their o##ice has no record o# such "arria&e license$

A23an9ara v+ A23an9ara, +R+ NO+ 1!##'! , Au7+ "%,"00# &1 SCRA ''!



hether or not, a "arria&e license issued by a "unicipality or city to a non?resident invalidates

the license$ -ssuance o# a "arria&e license in a city or "unicipality, not the residence o# either o#

the contractin& parties, and issuance o# a "arria&e license despite the absence o# publication or prior to the co"pletion o# the 10?day period #or publication are considered "ere irre&ularities

that do not a##ect the validity o# the "arria&e

N5a2 vs+ a/ad-7 "% SCRA 1"", Mar34 1', "000

-n this case, at the ti"e o# 8epito and respondent:s "arria&e, it cannot be said that they have

lived with each other as husband and wi#e #or at least #ive years prior to their weddin& day

because their cohabitation is not e<clusive$ The Court ruled that the cohabitation conte"plated

under said provisions "ust be in the nature o# a per#ect union that is valid under the law but

rendered i"per#ect only by the absence o# the "arria&e contract and characteried bye<clusivity "eanin& nothird party was involved at anyti"e within the 5 years andcontinuity that

is unbro.en$

S-r5an- v+ Fe256, L$00&, .une "0, 1$&%

The a##idavit is #or the purpose o# provin& the basis #or e<e"ption #ro" the "arria&e license$

3ven i# there is #ailure on the part o# the sole"niin& o##icer to e<ecute the necessary a##idavit,such irre&ularity will not invalidate the "arria&e #or the a##idavit is not bein& re*uired o# the

parties$

M-r57- v+ Pe-82e, +R+ NO+ 1'&""! , Fe:+ !, "00

The "ere private act o# si&nin& a "arria&e contract bears no se"blance to a valid "arria&e and

thus, needs no /udicial declaration o# nullity$ Such act alone, without "ore, cannot be dee"ed toconstitute an ostensibly valid "arria&e #or which petitioner "i&ht be held liable #or bi&a"y

unless he #irst secures a /udicial declaration o# nullity be#ore he contracts a subse*uent "arria&e$

MINORU FU.IBI v+ MARIA PA ALELA MARINAY, +R+ N-+ 1$!0'$, .une "!, "01



The 'ule on ;eclaration o# (bsolute )ullity o# Eoid Darria&es and (nnul"ent o# Eoidable

Darria&es =($D$ )o$ 02?11?10?SC> does not apply in a petition to reco&nie a #orei&n /ud&"ent

relatin& to the status o# a "arria&e where one o# the parties is a citien o# a #orei&n country$

REPULIC OF T=E P=ILIPPINES v+ LIERTY D+ ALIOS, +R+ N-+ 1$%#%0+ O39-:er

1!, "01

( "arria&e, contracted #or the sole purpose o# ac*uirin& ("erican citienship is )OT void abinitio on the &round o# lac. o# consent$ Under (rticle 2 o# the %a"ily Code, consent is an

essential re*uisite o# "arria&e$ (rticle B o# the sa"e Code provides that the absence o# any

essential re*uisite shall render a "arria&e void ab initio$ Under said (rticle 2, #or consent to be

valid, it "ust be =1> #reely &iven and =2> "ade in the presence o# a sole"niin& o##icer$ ( #reely

&iven consent re*uires that the contractin& parties willin&ly and deliberately enter into the"arria&e$ Consent "ust be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered de#ective by any o#

the vices o# consent under (rticles B5 and B! o# the %a"ily Code, such as #raud, #orce,inti"idation, and undue in#luence$ Consent "ust also be conscious or intelli&ent, in that the

parties "ust be capable o# intelli&ently understandin& the nature o#, and both the bene#icial or

un#avorable conse*uences o# their act$ Their understandin& should not be a##ected by insanity,into<ication, dru&s, or hypnotis"$

.u25an-L2ave v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+ 1!$#!! , Mar+ 0, "011 !'! SCRA !#

The "arria&e between the late Sen$ Ta"ano and Forayda was celebrated in 1957, sole"nied

under civil and Dusli" rites$ The only law in #orce &overnin& "arria&e relationships betweenDusli"s and non?Dusli"s ali.e was the Civil Code o# 1950, under the provisions o# which only

one "arria&e can e<ist at any &iven ti"e$

P52a852 vs+ I:a/S-era, +R+ NO+ %011! .une 0, 1$%$

hether or not, the co"plainant, a #orei&ner, *uali#y as an o##ended spouse havin& obtained a

#inal divorce decree under his national law prior to his #ilin& the cri"inal co"plaint$ The person

who initiates the adultery case "ust be an o##ended spouse, and by this is "eant that he is still"arried to the accused spouse, at the ti"e o# the #ilin& o# the co"plaint$



Re35- vs+ Re35- +R+ NO+ 1%""+ O39-:er ", "001

hether or not the divorce "ust be proved be#ore it is to be reco&nied in the 8hilippines$Ae#ore a #orei&n divorce decree can be reco&nied by our courts, the party pleadin& it "ust prove

the divorce as a #act and de"onstrate its con#or"ity to the #orei&n law allowin& it$ 8resentation

solely o# the divorce decree is insu##icient$

Re8+ v+ Or:e35d-, +R+ NO+ 1&'%0, O39+ 0&, "00&

hether or not, a %ilipino Spouse can re"arry under ('T-CL3 2! O% T3 %(D-LG CO;3

where his,her spouse is later naturalied as a #orei&n citien and obtains a valid divorce decree

capacitatin& hi" or her to re"arry$ The rec.onin& point is not the citienship o# the parties at theti"e o# the celebration o# the "arria&e, but their citienship at the time a valid divorce is

obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitatin& the latter to re"arry+

C-r8u? v+ S9-+ T-as, +R+NO+ 1%!&#1, Au7+ 11, "010

-n +erbert:s case, since both the #orei&n divorce decree and the national law o# the alien,reco&niin& his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be o##icial acts o# a soverei&n

authority, Section 2B, 'ule 12 o# the 'ules o# Court co"es into play$ This Section re*uires

proo#, either by =1> o##icial publications or =2> copies attested by the o##icer havin& le&al custodyo# the docu"ents$ -# the copies o# o##icial records are not .ept in the 8hilippines, these "ust be

=a> acco"panied by a certi#icate issued by the proper diplo"atic or consular o##icer in the

8hilippine #orei&n service stationed in the #orei&n country in which the record is .ept and =b>authenticated by the seal o# his o##ice$

San9-s v+ C-ur9 -< A88ea2s, "'0 SCRA "0 (1$$&)



The Supre"e Court enu"erated the three basic re*uire"ents o# psycholo&ical incapacity as a

&round #or declaration o# nullity o# the "arria&e =a> &ravity@ =b> /uridical antecedence@ and =c>

incurability$

C45 M5n7 Ts-5 vs CA, "!! SCRA "' (1$$#)

-n this case, there was no se<ual contact between the parties since their "arria&e on Day 22,

1977 up to Dar$ 15, 1979 or #or al"ost a year$ The senseless and protracted re#usal o# one o# the parties o# se<ual cooperation #or the procreation o# children is e*uivalent to psycholo&ical

incapacity$

O34-sa v+ A2an-, +R+ NO+ 1!#'&$ , .an+ "!, "011 !'0 SCRA &1#

-n this case the court proved that respondent was the se< partner o# "any "ilitary o##icials$ -nview o# the #ore&oin&, the bad&es o# Aona:s alle&ed psycholo&ical incapacity, i$e$, her se<ual

in#idelity and abandon"ent, can only be convincin&ly traced to the period o# ti"e a#ter her

"arria&e to ose and not to the inception o# the said "arria&e$

REPULIC OF T=E P=ILIPPINES v+ RODOLFO O+ DE RACIA +R+ N-+ 1#1&##,

Fe:ruar/ 1", "01'

8sycholo&ical incapacity, as a &round to nulli#y a "arria&e under (rticle ! o# the %a"ily

Code, should re#er to no less than a "ental H not "erely physical H incapacity that causes a partyto be 9ru2/ 5n3-7n595ve -< 94e :as53 ar59a2 3-venan9s that conco"itantly "ust be assu"ed and

dischar&ed by the parties to the "arria&e which, as so e<pressed in (rticle !7 o# the %a"ily

Code, a"on& others, include their "utual obli&ations to live to&ether, observe love, respect and

#idelity and render help and support$ There is hardly any doubt that the intend"ent o# the law has been to con#ine the "eanin& o# psycholo&ical incapacity to the -s9 ser5-us 3ases -<

8ers-na259/ d5s-rders 32ear2/ de-ns9ra95ve -< an u99er 5nsens595v59/ -r 5na:5259/ 9- 75ve

ean5n7 and s57n5<53an3e 9- 94e arr5a7e+

Mend-?a v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+ 1&#!'$,N-v 1", "01" !%& SCRA 1!



ere, the e<pert:s testi"ony on ;o"inic:s psycholo&ical pro#ile did not identi#y, "uch less

prove, the root cause o# his psycholo&ical incapacity because said e<pert did not e<a"ine;o"inic in person be#ore co"pletin& her report but si"ply relied on other people:s recollection

and opinion #or that purpose$ 3<pert evidence sub"itted here did not establish the precise causeo# the supposed psycholo&ical incapacity o# ;o"inic, "uch less show that the psycholo&ical

incapacity e<isted at the inception o# the "arria&e$

Mar3-s vs Mar3-s, ' SCRA #&& ("000)

-# the totality o# evidence presented is enou&h to sustain a #indin& o# psycholo&ical incapacity,

then actual "edical e<a"ination o# the person concerned need not be resorted to$

VALERIO E+ BALAW vs. MA+ ELENA FERNANDE

+R+ N-+ 1!!&#, .anuar/ 1', "01&

Lest it be "isunderstood, we are not su&&estin& the abandon"ent o# Dolina in this case$ e

si"ply declare that, as aptly stated by ustice ;ante O$ Tin&a in (ntonio v$ 'eyes, there is needto e"phasie other perspectives as well which should &overn the disposition o# petitions #or

declaration o# nullity under (rticle !$ (t the ris. o# bein& redundant, we reiterate once "ore the

principle that each case "ust be /ud&ed, not on the basis o# a priori assu"ptions, predilections or&eneraliations but accordin& to its own #acts$ (nd, to repeat #or e"phasis, courts should

interpret the provision on a case?to?case basis@ &uided by e<perience, the #indin&s o# e<perts and

researchers in psycholo&ical disciplines, and by decisions o# church tribunals$

Tene:r- v+ CA, +R+ NO+ 1&0#&% , Fe:+ 1%, "00' '" SCRA "#"

hether or not, the nullity o# the second "arria&e on the &round o# 8- is a valid de#ense #or the

cri"e o# bi&a"y$ The declaration o# the nullity o# the second "arria&e on the &round o#

psycholo&ical incapacity is not an indicator that petitioner:s "arria&e to (nca/as lac.s theessential re*uisites #or validity$



N-22-ra v+ Pe-82e, +R+ NO+1$1'"& , Se89+ #, "011 !&# SCRA 0

-ndeed, (rticle 1=2> o# the Code o# Dusli" 8ersonal Laws states that IiJn case o# a "arria&e between a Dusli" and a non?Dusli", sole"nied not in accordance with Dusli" law or this

Code, the I%a"ily Code o# the 8hilippines, or 3<ecutive Order )O$ 209, in lieu o# the Civil Code

o# the 8hilippinesJ shall apply$ Thus, re&ardless o# his pro#essed reli&ion, )ollora cannot clai"

e<e"ption #ro" liability #or the cri"e o# bi&a"y$

Re8+ v+ N-2as3-, +R+ NO+ $'0& , Mar+ 1#, 1$$ ""0 SCRA "0

-n the case at bar, the Court considers that the investi&ation alle&edly conducted by respondent in

his atte"pt to ascertain anet Donica 8ar.er:s whereabouts is too s.etchy to #or" the basis o# areasonable or well?#ounded belie# that she was already dead$ hen he arrived in San ose,

(nti*ue a#ter learnin& o# anet Donica:s departure, instead o# see.in& the help o# local

authorities or o# the Aritish 3"bassy, he secured another sea"an:s contract and went to London,

a vast city o# "any "illions o# inhabitants, to loo. #or her there$

Va2de? v+ Re8u:253, +R+ NO+1%0%! , Se89+ 0%, "00$ &$% SCRA !'!

Since death is presu"ed to have ta.en place by the seventh year o# absence, So#io is to be

presu"ed dead startin& October 1972$ To retroactively apply the provisions o# the %a"ily Codere*uirin& petitioner to e<hibit well?#ounded belie# will, ulti"ately, result in the invalidation o#

her second "arria&e, which was valid at the ti"e it was celebrated$

Re8+ v+ Tan7-, +R+ NO+1!10!" , .u2+ 1, "00$ &$' SCRA &!0

Ay e<press provision o# law, the /ud&"ent o# the court in a su""ary proceedin& shall bei""ediately #inal and e<ecutory$ (s a "atter o# course, it #ollows that no appeal can be had o#

the trial court:s /ud&"ent in a su""ary proceedin& #or the declaration o# presu"ptive death o#

an absent spouse under (rticle B1 o# the %a"ily Code



CELERINA .+ SANTOS vs+ RICARDO T+ SANTOS, +R+ N-+ 1%#0!1, 0% OCTOER "01'

The proper re"edy #or a /udicial declaration o# presu"ptive death obtained by e<trinsic #raud isan action to annul the /ud&"ent$ (n a##idavit o# reappearance is not the proper re"edy when the

person declared presu"ptively dead has never been absent$

On7 v+ On7, +R+ NO+ 1&"0!, O39+ ", "00! &0& SCRA #!

(lso without "erit is the ar&u"ent o# illia" that since Lucita has abandoned the #a"ily, adecree o# le&al separation should not be &ranted, #ollowin& (rt$ 5!, par$ =B> o# the %a"ily Code

which provides that le&al separation shall be denied when both parties have &iven &round #or

le&al separation$ The abandon"ent re#erred to by the %a"ily Code is abandon"ent without /usti#iable cause #or "ore than one year$

Pa3e9e vs+ Carr5a7a, +R+ NO+ &%%0, Mar+ 1#, 1$$' "1 SCRA "1

hether or not, the order declarin& in de#ault a respondent in a le&al separation case a"ounts to

&rave abuse o# discretion$ -n case o# non? appearance o# the de#endant, the court shall order the prosecutin& attorney to in*uire whether or not a collusion between the parties e<ists$ -# there is

no collusion, the prosecutin& attorney shall intervene #or the State in order to ta.e care that the

evidence #or the plainti## is not #abricated$

Ar3a:a vs+ a9-3ae2, +R+ NO+1'!!% , N-v+"", "001 #0 SCRA '1'

'espondents havin& proven by a preponderance o# evidence that Cirila and %rancisco lived

to&ether as husband and wi#e without a valid "arria&e, the inescapable conclusion is that the

donation "ade by %rancisco in #avor o# Cirila is void under (rt$ 74 o# the %a"ily Code$



Deara v+ Lae2a +R+ NO+ 1#$010, A8r+ 11, "011 !'# SCRA '%

(ll property o# the "arria&e is presu"ed to belon& to the con/u&al partnership, unless it be

proved that it pertains e<clusively to the husband or to the wi#e$ 'e&istration in the na"e o# thehusband or the wi#e alone does not destroy this presu"ption$

OY TAN, v+ RACE ANDRADE, ET AL+ v$ OY TAN, +R+ N-+ 1#"01# K +R+ N-+

1#1$0' Au7us9 #, "01

The presu"ption under (rticle 1!0 o# the )ew Civil Code, that property ac*uired durin&

"arria&e is con/u&al, does not apply where there is no showin& as to when the property alle&edto be con/u&al was ac*uired$ The presu"ption cannot prevail when the title is in the na"e o#

only one spouse and the ri&hts o# innocent third parties are involved$ Doreover, when the property is re&istered in the na"e o# only one spouse and there is no showin& as to when the

property was ac*uired by sa"e spouse, this is an indication that the property belon&s e<clusively

to the said spouse$ Doreover, the presu"ption "ay be rebutted only with stron&, clear,cate&orical and convincin& evidence$ There "ust be strict proo# o# the e<clusive ownership o#

one o# the spouses, and the burden o# proo# rests upon the party assertin& it$

V522e7as v+ L5n7an +R+ NO+ 1&%$ , .un+ "$, "00# &"! SCRA !

Conse*uently, as correctly held by the C(, Darilou ac*uired ownership o# the sub/ect property$

(ll ri&hts and title o# the /ud&"ent obli&or are trans#erred upon the e<piration o# the ri&ht o#

rede"ption$ (nd where the rede"ption is "ade under a property re&i"e &overned by the

con/u&al partnership o# &ains, (rticle 109 o# the %a"ily Code provides that property ac*uired byri&ht o# rede"ption is the e<clusive property o# the spouses redee"in& the property$

Ferrer v+ Ferrer, +R+ NO+1!!'$! , N-v+ "$, "00! &0% SCRA &#0

The obli&ation to rei"burse rests on the spouse upon who" ownership o# the entire property isvested$ There is no obli&ation on the part o# the purchaser o# the property, in case the property is

sold by the owner? spouse$



Pana v+ =e5rs -< .-se .uan59e +R+ NO+ 1!'"01,De3+ 10, "01" !%# SCRA '1'

Contrary to 3#ren:s contention, (rticle 121 above allows pay"ent o# the cri"inal inde"nitiesi"posed on his wi#e, Delecia, out o# the partnership assets even be#ore these are li*uidated$

-ndeed, it states that such inde"nities "ay be en#orced a&ainst the partnership assets a#ter the

responsibilities enu"erated in the precedin& article have been covered$ )o prior li*uidation o#

those assets is re*uired$

MTC v+ Pas3ua2, +R+ NO+ 1!#'', Fe:+ "$, "00% &'# SCRA "'!

Ter"ination o# Con/u&al 8roperty 'e&i"e does not ipso #acto 3nd the )ature o# Con/u&al

Ownership$ hile the declared nullity o# "arria&e o# )icholson and %lorencia severed their"arital bond and dissolved the con/u&al partnership, the character o# the properties ac*uired

be#ore such declaration continues to subsist as con/u&al properties until and a#ter the li*uidation

and partition o# the partnership$

Es85n-sa v+ Oaa, AC+ $0%1, O39 1", "011 !&$ SCRA 1

3<tra/udicial dissolution o# the con/u&al partnership without /udicial approval is void$ The Court

has also ruled that a notary public should not #acilitate the disinte&ration o# a "arria&e and the

#a"ily by encoura&in& the separation o# the spouses and e<tra/udicially dissolvin& the con/u&al partnership, which is e<actly what O"a6a did in this case$ The asunduan )& 8a&hihiwalay

has no le&al e##ect and is a&ainst public policy$

D5- v+ D5-, +R+ NO+ 1#%0'', .an+ 1$, "011 !'0 SCRA 1#%

The trial court erred in orderin& that a decree o# absolute nullity o# "arria&e shall be issued onlya#ter li*uidation, partition and distribution o# the parties: properties under (rticle 1B4 o# the

%a"ily Code$ The rulin& has no basis because Section 19=1> o# the 'ule does not apply to cases

&overned under (rticles 1B4 and 1B7 o# the %a"ily Code$



.UAN SEVILLA, .R+ v+ EDEN VILLENA AUILA, +R+ N-+ "0"#0, Se89e:er ", "01

(rticle 1B4 o# the %a"ily Code applies to the union o# parties who are le&ally capacitated andnot barred by any i"pedi"ent to contract "arria&e, but whose "arria&e is nonetheless declared

void under (rticle ! o# the %a"ily Code, as in this case$ Under this property re&i"e, property

ac*uired durin& the "arria&e is pri"a #acie presu"ed to have been obtained throu&h the couple:s

/oint e##orts and &overned by the rules on co?ownership$ -n the present case, Salas did not rebutthis presu"ption$ -n a si"ilar case where the &round #or nullity o# "arria&e was also

psycholo&ical incapacity, we held that the properties ac*uired durin& the union o# the parties, as

#ound by both the 'TC and the C(, would be &overned by co?ownership$

Va2des vs+ RTC r+ 10", @C +R+ NO+ 1""#'$, .u2+ 1, 1$$! "!0 SCRA ""1

hether or not, (rticles 50, 51 and 52 in relation to (rticles 102 and 129 o# the %a"ily Code

&overn the disposition o# the #a"ily dwellin& in cases where a "arria&e is declared void ab

initio, includin& a "arria&e declared void by reason o# the psycholo&ical incapacity o# thespouses$ The rules set up to &overn the li*uidation o# either the absolute co""unity or the

con/u&al partnership o# &ains, the property re&i"es reco&nied #or valid and voidable "arria&es

=in the latter case until the contract is annulled>, are irrelevant to the li*uidation o# the co?

ownership that e<ists between co""on?law spouses$

Car5- v+ Car5-, +R+ NO+ 1"&"$, Fe:+ 0", "001 &1 SCRA 1"#

(s to the property re&i"e o# petitioner Susan )icdao and the deceased, (rticle 1B4 o# the %a"ilyCode &overns$ This article applies to unions o# parties who are le&ally capacitated and not barred

by any i"pedi"ent to contract "arria&e, but whose "arria&e is nonetheless void #or other

reasons, li.e the absence o# a "arria&e license

San Lu5s v+ San Lu5s +R+ NO+ 1#', Fe:+ 0!, "00# &1' SCRA "$'



-n the instant case, respondent would *uali#y as an interested person who has a direct interest in

the estate o# %elicisi"o by virtue o# their cohabitation, the e<istence o# which was not denied by

petitioners$ -# she proves the validity o# the divorce and %elicisi"o:s capacity to re"arry, but#ails to prove that her "arria&e with hi" was validly per#or"ed under the laws o# the U$S$($,

then she "ay be considered as a co?owner under (rticle 1BB 4! o# the Civil Code

SERCONSISION R+ MENDOA vs$ AURORA MENDOA FERMIN

+R+ N-+ 1##"&, .u2/ 0#, "01'

(s Leonardo and Serconsision were "arried so"eti"e in 1975, the applicable provision

&overnin& the property relations o# the spouses is (rticle 142 o# the Civil Code o# the 8hilippines

which states that the wi#e cannot bind the con/u&al partnership without the husband:s consent$ -n%elipe vs$ eirs o# Da<i"o (ldon, a case decided under the provisions o# the Civil Code, the

Supre"e Court had the occasion to rule that the sale o# a land belon&in& to the con/u&al

partnership "ade by the wi#e without the consent o# the husband is voidable$ The Supre"e Court#urther ruled that the view that the disposal by the wi#e o# their con/u&al property without the

husband:s consent is voidable is supported by (rticle 14 o# the Civil Code which states that

contracts entered by the husband without the consent o# the wi#e when such consent is re*uired

are annullable at her instance durin& the "arria&e and within ten years #ro" the transaction*uestioned$ -n the present case, the #ictitious ;eed o# (bsolute Sale was e<ecuted on Septe"ber

22, 197!, one "onth a#ter or speci#ically on )ove"ber 25, 197!, Leonardo died$ (urora as one

o# the heirs and the duly appointed ad"inistratri< o# Leonardo:s estate, had the ri&ht there#ore to

see. #or the annul"ent o# the ;eed o# Sale as it deprived her and the other le&al heirs o#Leonardo o# their hereditary ri&hts$

Arr5-2a v+ Arr5-2a, +R+ NO+ 1###0, .an+ "%, "00% &'" SCRA !!!

%urther"ore, (rticles 152 and 15 speci#ically e<tend the scope o# the #a"ily ho"e not /ust tothe dwellin& structure in which the #a"ily resides but also to the lot on which it stands$ Thus,

applyin& these concepts, the sub/ect house as well as the speci#ic portion o# the sub/ect land onwhich it stands are dee"ed constituted as a #a"ily ho"e by the deceased and petitioner Eil"a#ro" the "o"ent they be&an occupyin& the sa"e as a #a"ily residence 20 years bac.

M-deu522- vs+ reva, +R+ N-+ %!&&, Ma/ 1, 1$$0+



There is no need to constitute the sa"e /udicially or e<tra/udicially as re*uired in the Civil Code$

-# the #a"ily actually resides in the pre"ises, it is, there#ore, a #a"ily ho"e as conte"plated bylaw

O25v5a De Mesa v+ A3er-, +R+ NO+ 1%&0!' .an+ 1!, "01" !! SCRA '0

The #a"ily ho"e:s e<e"ption #ro" e<ecution "ust be set up and proved to the Sheri## be#ore the

sale o# the property at public auction$ The petitioners now are barred #ro" raisin& the sa"e$%ailure to do so estop the" #ro" later clai"in& the said e<e"ption$

Mana3-8 vs+ CA, "## SCRA &# (1$$#)

(rticles 152 and 15 o# the %a"ily Code do not have a retroactive e##ect such that all e<istin&#a"ily residences are dee"ed to have been constituted as #a"ily ho"es at the ti"e o# their

occupation prior to the e##ectivity o# the %a"ily Code and are e<e"pt #ro" e<ecution #or the

pay"ent o# obli&ations incurred be#ore the e##ectivity o# the %a"ily Code$

RODOLFO S+ AUILAR vs. EDNA + SIASAT

+R+ N-+ "001!$, .anuar/ "%, "01&

(s petitioner correctly ar&ues, (l#redo (&uilar:s SSS %or" 3?1 satis#ies the re*uire"ent #or

proo# o# #iliation and relationship to the (&uilar spouses under (rticle 142 o# the %a"ily Code@

by itsel#, said docu"ent constitutes an ad"ission o# le&iti"ate #iliation in a public docu"ent or

a private handwritten instru"ent and si&ned by the parent concerned$

La:a72a vs+ San95a7-, +R+ NO+ 1"0&, De3+ 0', "001 #1 SCRA !0



( baptis"al certi#icate, a private docu"ent, is not conclusive proo# o# #iliation$ Dore so are the

entries "ade in an inco"e ta< return, which only shows that inco"e ta< has been paid and the

a"ount thereo#$

Pun- v+ Pun- En9+ In3+, +R+ NO+ 1##0!!, Se89+ 11, "00$ &$$ SCRA &%&

( certi#icate o# live birth purportedly identi#yin& the putative #ather is not co"petent evidence o#

paternity when there is no showin& that the putative #ather had a hand in the preparation o# thecerti#icate$ The local civil re&istrar has no authority to record the paternity o# an ille&iti"ate child

on the in#or"ation o# a third person$

DE LA CRU v+ RACIA, +R+ N-+ 1###"%, .u2/ 1, "00$

1> here the private handwritten instru"ent is the lone piece o# evidence sub"itted to prove#iliation, there should be strict co"pliance with the re*uire"ent that the sa"e "ust be si&ned by

the ac.nowled&in& parent@ and

2> here the private handwritten instru"ent is acco"panied by other relevant and co"petent

evidence, it su##ices that the clai" o# #iliation therein be shown to have been "ade and

handwritten by the ac.nowled&in& parent as it is "erely corroborative o# such other evidence$

RACE M+ RANDE v+ PATRICIO T+ ANTONIO, +R+ N-+ "0!"'%+ Fe:ruar/ 1%, "01'

(n ille&iti"ate child "ay use the surna"e o# his #ather i# the latter has e<pressly reco&nied their #iliation$ owever, the child is under no co"pulsion to use his #ather:s surna"e$ hen (ntonio

reco&nied (ndre Lewis and erard 8atric. as his sons, the two children had the ri&ht to use the

surna"e o# (ntonio$ owever, they were under no co"pulsion or "andate to use the sa"e$ Thelaw uses the word M"ay:, which dictates that it is "erely per"issive$

T-n-7 vs+ CA, +R+ NO+ 1""$0! , Fe:+ 0#, "00" #! SCRA &"



-n the case at bar, bearin& in "ind that the wel#are o# the said "inor as the controllin& #actor, the

appellate court did not err in allowin& her #ather to retain in the "eanti"e parental custody over

her$ Deanwhile, the child should not be wrenched #ro" her #a"iliar surroundin&s, and thrust intoa stran&e environ"ent away #ro" the people and places to which she had apparently #or"ed an

attach"ent$

A:ad522a vs+ Ta:525ran, .r+ A+M NO+ MT.$"#1!, O39+ "&, 1$$& "'$ SCRA ''#

hether or not, a child born out o# wedloc., by parents who have a le&al i"pedi"ent to "arry

each other, can be le&iti"ated$ (s a lawyer and a /ud&e, respondent ou&ht to .now that, despite

his subse*uent "arria&e to 8riscilla, these three children cannot be le&iti"ated nor in any way be

considered le&iti"ate since at the ti"e they were born, there was an e<istin& valid "arria&e

between respondent and his #irst wi#e, Teresita A$ Tabiliran$

ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND .OANNE ENEDICTA C=ARISSIMA M+ CASTRO,

A+B+A+ MARIA SOCORRO M+ CASTROG AND .AYROSE M+ CASTROG vs .OSE

MARIA .ED LEMUEL REORIO AND ANA MARIA REINA REORIO

+R+ NO+ 1%%%01, 1& O39-:er "01', SECOND DIVISION (Le-nen, .+)

%or the adoption to be valid, petitioners: consent was re*uired by 'epublic (ct )o$ 7552$8ersonal service o# su""ons should have been e##ected on the spouse and all le&iti"ate children

to ensure that their substantive ri&hts are protected$ -t is not enou&h to rely on constructive notice

as in this case$ Surreptitious use o# procedural technicalities cannot be privile&ed over

substantive statutory ri&hts$

In reH Ad-895-n -< M534e22e M534ae2 L5 +R+ NO+1!%$$"$, Ma/ "1, "00$ &%% SCRA$%

The #ilin& o# a case #or dissolution o# the "arria&e between petitioner and Olario is o# no"o"ent$ -t is not e*uivalent to a decree o# dissolution o# "arria&e$ Until and unless there is a



/udicial decree #or the dissolution o# the "arria&e between petitioner and Olario, the "arria&e

still subsists$ That bein& the case, /oint adoption by the husband and the wi#e is re*uired$

an vs+ Re/es, +R+ NO+1'&&"#, Ma/+"%, "00" %" SCRA &#

( /ud&"ent orderin& #or support is i""ediately e<ecutory despite pendency o# appeal$

De As5s vs+ CA, +R+ NO+1"#&#%, Fe:+ 1&, 1$$$ 0 SCRA 1#!

hether or not, a renunciation o# the e<istence o# #iliation o# the child and the putative #ather,

"ade by the "other, is valid$ -t is true that in order to clai" support, #iliation andKor paternity"ust #irst be shown between the clai"ant and the parent, however, paternity and #iliation or the

lac. o# the sa"e is a relationship that "ust be /udicially established and it is #or the court to

declare its e<istence or absence$

La6aana v+ La6aana, +R+ NO+ 1''#!, Se89+ , "00" %% SCRA "$!

-t is clear that every child IhasJ ri&hts which are not and should not be dependent solely on the

wishes, "uch less the whi"s and caprices, o# his parents$ is wel#are should not be sub/ect tothe parents: say?so or "utual a&ree"ent alone$ here, as in this case, the parents are already

separated in #act, the courts "ust step in to deter"ine in whose custody the child can better be

assured the ri&hts &ranted to hi" by law$ The need, there#ore, to present evidence re&ardin& this

"atter, beco"es i"perative$

S9+ Mar/*s A3ade/ v+ Car859an-s, +R+ NO+ 1'!, Fe:+ !, "00" #! SCRA '#

The liability #or the accident, whether caused by the ne&li&ence o# the "inor driver or

"echanical detach"ent o# the steerin& wheel &uide o# the /eep, "ust be pinned on the "inor:s parents pri"arily$ The ne&li&ence o# petitioner St$ Dary:s (cade"y was only a re"ote cause o#

the accident$



Ner5 v+ =e5rs -< =adJ5 Yus-8, +R+ N- 1$'!!, O39+ 10, "01" !% SCRA "&

(d"inistration includes all acts #or the preservation o# the property and the receipt o# #ruitsaccordin& to the natural purpose o# the thin&$ (ny act o# disposition or alienation, or any

reduction in the substance o# the patri"ony o# child, e<ceeds the li"its o# ad"inistration$ Thus, a

#ather or "other, as the natural &uardian o# the "inor under parental authority, does not have the

power to dispose or encu"ber the property o# the latter$

FE FLORO VALINO vs+ ROSARIO D+ ADRIANO, FLORANTE D+ ADRIANO, RUEN

D+ ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA ADRIANO ONOCO, VICTORIA ADRIANO

AYONA, AND LEA= ANTONETTE D+ ADRIANO

+R+ N-+ 1%"%$', "" A8r52 "01', EN ANC (Mend-?a .+)

The law &ives the ri&ht and duty to "a.e #uneral arran&e"ents to 'osario, she bein& the

survivin& le&al wi#e o# (tty$ (driano$ The #act that she was livin& separately #ro" her husband

and was in the United States when he died has no controllin& si&ni#icance$ To say that 'osariohad, in e##ect, waived or renounced, e<pressly or i"pliedly, her ri&ht and duty to "a.e

arran&e"ents #or the #uneral o# her deceased husband is baseless$ The ri&ht and duty to "a.e

#uneral arran&e"ents, li.e any other ri&ht, will not be considered as havin& been waived orrenounced, e<cept upon clear and satis#actory proo# o# conduct indicative o# a #ree and voluntary

intent to that end$

-t is &enerally reco&nied that the corpse o# an individual is outside the co""erce o# "an$

owever, the law reco&nies that a certain ri&ht o# possession over the corpse e<ists, #or the purpose o# a decent burial, and #or the e<clusion o# the intrusion by third persons who have no

le&iti"ate interest in it$ This *uasi?property ri&ht, arisin& out o# the duty o# those obli&ated by

law to bury their dead, also authories the" to ta.e possession o# the dead body #or purposes o#

burial to have it re"ain in its #inal restin& place, or to even trans#er it to a proper place where the"e"ory o# the dead "ay receive the respect o# the livin&$ T45s 5s a <a52/ r5749$ There can be

no doubt that persons havin& this ri&ht "ay recover the corpse #ro" third persons$

1$ FILOTEO A+ ALANO vs+ ENAIDA MAUDLOMAO, +R+ N-+ 1#&&'0, 1'

A8r52 "01'



There can be no cavil that petitioner e"ployed reasonable "eans to disse"inate noti#ications

intended to reach the relatives o# the deceased$ The only *uestion that re"ains pertains to thesu##iciency o# ti"e allowed #or notices to reach the relatives o# the deceased$

Documents

UST Civil Law