Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
2
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
3
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
4
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS: The parties, Kasilag and Emiliana Rodriguez, entered into a contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land
acquired as homestead to secure the payment of the indebtedness for P1,000 plus interest.
One year after the execution of the mortgage deed, it came to pass that Emiliana Ambrosio was unable to pay the stipulated
interest as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and Kasilag entered into another verbal
contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on condition that the latter would not collect the
interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce
improvements thereon.
Respondents, Rafaela Rodriguez, et. al., children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio, commenced a civil case to
recover from the petitioner the possession of the land and its improvements granted by the way of homestead to Emiliana
Ambrosio.
The CA held that petitioner acted in Bad Faith in taking possession of the land because he knew that the contract he made with
Emiliana Ambrosio was an absolute sale, and that the latter could not sell the land because it is prohibited by Sec. 116 of Act
2874.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in Good Faith because he was unaware of any flaw in his title or in
the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated.
HELD: The petitioners ignorance of the provisions of sec. 116 is excusable and may be the basis of Good Faith.
RATIO: Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of Good Faith but excusable ignorance may be such
basis (if it based upon ignorance of a fact). In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded
belief that he was not violating rhe prohibition regarding the alienation of the land. In taking possession thereof and in
consenting to receive the fruits, he did not know that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract
of antichresis and that the latter, as alien, was prohibited by Sec. 116.
5
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
6
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Teresita Francisco is the legal wife of respondent Eusebio Francisco by his 2nd marriage. Conchita, Araceli and
Antonio, who are also respondents here in this case, are children of Eusebio by his 1st marriage.
This case involves disputed properties such as:
1. A sari-sari store
2. A house and lot
3. An apartment house (1-3 located at Brgy. Balite, Rodriguez, Rizal)
4. Another house in lot (But at Barrio San Isidro, Rodriguez, Rizal)
These disputed properties was alleged by petitioner that she is to be the administrator because:
a. Eusebio acquired such properties during their marriage since Feb. 10, 1962;
b. The properties was administered by Eusebio until he became unfit due to tuberculosis, heart disease and cancer;
and
c. That the signing of Eusebio to the general power of atty. authorizing Conchita to administer such properties is void.
RTC rules in favor of respondents. Affirmed by CA. Both courts state that petitioner failed to give evidence that the
properties were acquired during their marriage. Hence, prompting a decision that it was exclusively owned by Eusebio
pursuant to NCC 158 and 160 (which was repealed by NCC 254 and NCC256 [making the NCC retroactive provided it
does not impair vested or acquired rights with the Civil Code and other laws)
Petitioner now appeals to SC alleging that the lower court erred in applying NCC 158 and 160. It should have been
NCC254 and 256.
ISSUE(s): WON NCC 158 and 160 is applicable or not (Using NCC4 as stated in the syllabus)
HELD: YES
RATIO:
SC states that NCC158 and 160 was indeed repealed by the Family Code since Aug. 3, 1988 giving 254 and 256
applicability.
However, the rights was vested before the effectivity of the Family Code thus giving NCC158 and 160 applicable to the
case. Therefore, applying NCC4 (no retroactive effect)
But petitioner failed to produce proof that the property was acquired during their marriage.
With regard to the properties in Brgy. Balite:
a. The house and lot was acquired by Eusebio thru lucrative title (He inherited it from his parents and then he brought
it into his marriage with petitioner)
b. The sari-sari store and the apartment house was evidenced that Eusebio was the owner and that the business
7
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
8
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Lorna met respondent Zosimo in 1975 on board an inter-island vessel bound for Bacolod City. They got
married in March 3, 1975 but they did not live together because Lorna was still in college and Zosimo was a seaman
and had to leave the country for a month. But after sometime, they finally resided in Caloocan and had 4 children
(Ruhem 19, Rez 17, Ryan 11 and Richie 9).
In 1988, Lorna said Zosimo began to show signs of psychological incapacity:
o Showing his true color of being emotionally immature
o Irresponsible husband
o Cruel and violent
o Habitual drinker
o Staying with friends from 4pm-1am and when stopped, beats and kicks Lorna
o Threatened to kill Lorna with a shotgun even at the presence of their children
o Also beats children
Nov. 19, 1992, Lorna and children left the abode and lived with her sister in QC because of this. But eventually returned
to the conjugal abode and forgave Zosimo. However, it only became worse.
March 22, 1994, 8am, Zosimo assaulted Lorna for half an hour at the presence of the children. This prompted Lorna to
finally leave Zosimo and file for a declaration of nullity of their marriage invoking psychological incapacity and custody
of their children.
RTC ruled in favor of petitioner Lorna but CA reversed the decision that the psychological incapacity was not sufficiently
proved relying on the Santos v. CA and Republic v. Molina
Petitioner states that these 2 cases should not have retroactive effect and even assuming arguendo, the guidelines of
the 2 cases should only pose advisory, not mandatory. Also, it should only warrant a remand of the case to the lower
court for further proceedings and not its dismissal.
ISSUE(s): WON the 2 cases should be given retroactive effect (NCC4)
WON the 2 cases should have the force of law
HELD: YES
RATIO:
Judicial decisions such as the decisions in the 2 cases expresses the doctrine of stare decisis It means that the
interpretation made upon the cases by a competent court has the force of law.
It is in Santos case when, for the first time, the Court has given life to the term of psychological incapacity. The Molina
case, that followed, has only additionally provided procedural guidelines to assist the courts and the parties in trying
9
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
10
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
R. A. 8975 expressly prohibits any court, EXCEPT SC, from issuing any TRO, preliminary injunction, etc. against the
Government xxxxx from: xxxxx (b) bidding or awarding of a contract or project of the National Government
xxxxxx
In 1999, National Electrification Administration (NEA) made an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for a contract, otherwise
known as IPB No. 80, for the supply and delivery of about 60k pieces of wood poles and 20k pieces of cross arms
needed in the countrys Rural Electrification Project.
Nerwin was one of the 4 bidders who qualified and bid in the contract and he was the lowest. Even though he was the
lowest, NEAs administrator, Conrado Estrella, recommended the board of directors of NEA to award the contract to
Nerwin for he is the lowest bidder and there was a big difference between the 2nd lowest bidder.
However, NEAs board of directors made Resolution No. 32 decreasing the IPB No. 80 material requirements by 50%.
Nerwin contends that it was only a ploy to accommodate the losing bidder.
And then, the other losing bidders such as Tri State and Pacific Synnergy filed a complaint alleging that Nerwin falsified
documents in the pre-qualification in the IPB No. 80. But it was then validated by the Govt Corporate Counsel.
On the other hand, respondent PNOC claiming to be under the Dept of Energy, issued an invitation to pre-qualify and
bid for wooden poles needed for its Samar Rural Electrification Project or O-ILAW Project).
When petitioner learned about this, they filed this complaint alleging that it was an attempt to subject the materials in
the IPB No. 80 to the O-ILAW Project and prayed that a TRO be issued.
Respondent as defense states that petitioner has no cause of action for:
o It violates the rule that government infrastructure projects were not to be subjected to TROs;
o It contravened the mandatory prohibition against non-forum shopping; and
o The corporate president had no authority to sign and file the complaint
RTC ruled in favor of Nerwin granting the TROs and declaring PNOC in default. However, CA reversed the decision
stating that RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TROs.
Nerwin now appeals to SC.
ISSUE(s): WON the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO against PNOC
HELD: YES
RATIO:
SC states that the CA is correct in ruling that RTC gravely abused its discretion in entertaining an application for
TRO/preliminary injunction, and worse, in issuing a preliminary injunction through the assailed order enjoining
petitioners sought bidding for its O-ILAW Project which was section 3 and section 4 of RA8975.
11
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
12
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
13
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
14
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Art. 2305 (1) the civil status of persons re: death of Villareal
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
15
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
16
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Thornton v. Thornton
[Aug. 16, 2004]
TOPIC: Repeal of Laws
PONENTE: Corona, J.
FACTS:
- August 28, 1998 American petitioner (P) and Filipino respondent (R) were married. A year later, respondent gave birth
to a daughter (D, on whose behalf P filed this case).
- After three years, R wanted to return to her job as a GRO and go out with her friends. When P was out of the country, R
often went out with her friends, leaving D with the househelp.
- December 7, 2001 despite being admonished by P, R left with D without notifying P, and telling the househelp that she
was going to Basilan.
- P filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Makati Family Court, but it was dismissed because the child was allegedly in
Basilan. When P went there, he could not find them and was issued a certification that R was not residing there.
- P then got Rs cell phone bills showing calls from Cavite, Nueva Ecija, Metro Manila, etc., so he filed another petition for
habeas corpus, but this time with the CA (writs of habeas corpus issued by them are enforceable anywhere in the
country).
- The CA denied the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. They ruled that RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997) gave
family courts exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus, thus impliedly repealing RA 7902 (An Act
Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980).
- Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S):
WON The CA has jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases involving custody of minors in light of RA 8369, which
grants exclusive original jurisdiction to family courts.
HELD:
Petition Granted; Petition for habeas corpus reinstated and remanded to the CA.
RATIO:
- Nothing in RA 8369 revoked its jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus involving custody of minors.
- The CAs reasoning will leave individuals like petitioner without legal recourse in obtaining custody of their children. This
17
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
18
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
- Allegedly contravening 15, Art. VII, which is the ban on Midnight Appointments, Pres. Arroyo appointed many people to
govt offices.
- This included an attempt to appoint a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as then-CJ Puno was retiring on May 17,
2010.
- March 17, 2010 - Despite many protests, attempts to prevent the nomination process, and cases filed against the JBC
and the president, the Court rendered a decision: a) dismissing the cases against it; and b) directed the JBC to begin the
nomination and selection process for the next Chief Justice and other vacancies in the judiciary.
- 12 different parties then filed individual motions for reconsideration.
ISSUE(S):
1. WON the Court erred in overturning the decision in In re: Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta (298 SCRA 408,
November 9, 1998).
- In Valenzuela, the appointments of Valenzuela and Villarta to the Judiciary were not allowed because 4(1) and 9, Art.
8 were still limited by the ban under 15, Art. VII
2. WON 15, Art. VII of the Constitution included a ban on presidential appointments to the judiciary.
3. WON the exceptions under 15, Art. VII apply to appointments in the judiciary
HELD: Motions for Reconsideration DENIED for lack of merit and for already having been resolved in the March 17, 2010
decision.
RATIO:
1. While petitioners invoke stare decisis as basis for not overturning Valenzuela, the Court is not necessarily controlled by
precedent. The Court may reverse such a decision en banc if deemed fit, as it did in the March 17, 2010 decision.
2. The deliberations cited by Justice Carpio-Morales regarding the Con Coms intention to include Judiciary appointments in
the ban only referred to 13, Art. VII, which only deals with nepotism (i.e. appointing relatives to high govt positions).
3. While the petitioners claim that the Court failed to apply principles of statutory construction in interpreting 15, Art. VII,
they too fail to apply principles of statutory construction. They are interpolating words into the provision because there is
19
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
20
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
In the review, SC did not agree that Remman established requirement (1). In Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N.
Properties, Inc., the Court clarified that, in addition to proper government agency certifications, applicants for land
registration must prove that the DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of public
domain as alienable and disposable.
Remman contested that Republic of the Philippines v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. should not apply to his application since the
case was promulgated in 2008 while his application was in 2001; invoking that laws shall have no retroactive effect (NCC
Art 4)
ISSUE(S): WON there is retroactivity with regard to the application of the cited case.
HELD: There is none.
RATIO: The interpretation of a law by the Supreme Court constitutes part of that law from the date it was originally passed.
Such judicial doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law, but consists merely of a construction or interpretation of a
pre-existing one.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The interpretation of a law by the Supreme Court constitutes part of that law from the date it was originally passed
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
21
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: Pam
NOTES:
FACTS:
Five brothers and sisters (Padua) inherited in equal pro indiviso shares a parcel of land registered in the name of their
deceased parents.
Celestino Padua transferred his undivided share by way of absolute sale. A year later, Eustaquia Padua also sold her
share.
By virtue of such agreements, the petitioners occupied, after the said sales, an area corresponding to two-fifths of the
said lot, representing the portions sold to them. The vendees subsequently enclosed the same with a fence and built a
semi-concrete house on a part of the enclosed area.
One of the co-heirs sought to redeem the land sold 14 years after the sale. Trial court dismissed the complaint, on the
ground that the right had lapsed, not having been exercised within thirty days from notice of the sales. Although there
was no written notice, it was held that actual knowledge of the sales by the co-heirs satisfied the requirement of the law.
Respondent court reversed the decision of the Trial Court.
Respondents assail that they were not notified of the sale and invokes Art. 1088 NCCwhich provides: "Should any of the
heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the
rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month
from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor.
ISSUE: Was Art. 1088 correctly interpreted?
HELD: Yes. Even if there was no written notice, knowledge of the respondents is undeniable.
RATIO:
The co-heirs in this case were undeniably informed of the sales although no notice in writing was given them. The
respondents live on the same lot. They also live in the same house with the co-heirs who sold their share of the land.
There is no doubt either that the 30 day period began and ended during the 14 years between the sales in question and
the filing of the complaint for redemption in 1977, without the co-heirs exercising their right of redemption.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: The Court's deviation from the strict letters of Art. 1088 NCC on giving of written notice to co-heirs of
the sale of an heir's share is not being abandoned. The ruling here should be deemed an exception due to peculiar
circumstances of this case. Law and justice are inseparable. Laws must be applied in consonance with justice.
22
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
23
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: Pam
NOTES:
FACTS:
Carmen Ong de Martinez, was riding a carromata in Ermita, Manila when a delivery wagon owned by the defendant (used
for the transportation of fodder wherein two horses are attached), came from the opposite direction, while their
carromata went close to the sidewalk in order to let the delivery wagon pass by. However, instead of merely passing by,
the horses ran into the carromata occupied by the plaintiff with her child and overturned it, causing a serious cut upon
her head.
The defendant contends that the cochero, who was driving his delivery wagon at the time of the accident, was actually a
good servant and was considered a safe and reliable cochero. He also claims that the cochero was tasked to deliver
some forage at Calle Herran, and for that purpose the defendants employee tied the driving lines of the horses to the
front end of the delivery wagon for the purpose of unloading the forage to be delivered. However, a vehicle passed by
the driver and made noises that frightened the horses causing them to run. The employee failed to stop the horses since
he was thrown upon the ground.
ISSUE: Is the employer, who has furnished a gentle and tractable team (of horses) and a trusty and capable driver, liable for the
negligence of the driver?
HELD: No.
RATIO:
The cochero of the defendant was not negligent in leaving the horses in the manner described by the evidence in this
case. It is believed that acts or performances which, in a long time, have not been destructive and which are approved
by the society are considered as custom. Hence, they cannot be considered as unreasonable or imprudent.
The reason why they have been permitted by the society is that they are beneficial rather that prejudicial. One could not
easily hold someone negligent because of some act that led to an injury or accident. It would be unfair therefore to
render the cochero negligent because of such circumstances.
The court further held that it is a universal practice of merchants during that time to deliver products through horsedrawn vehicles; and it is also considered universal practice to leave the horses in the manner in which they were left
during the accident. It has been practiced for a long time and generally has not been the cause of accidents or injuries
the judgment is therefore reversed.
24
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: Pam
NOTES:
Art. 13 was repealed by Sec. 13 of the Administrative Code of 1987.
FACTS:
Gilbert Yap, vice chair of respondent Primetown Property Group, Inc., applied for the refund or credit of income tax respondents
paid in 1997. He alleged that the company suffered loses, therefore making them not liable to pay their income taxes.
The CTA found that respondent filed its final adjusted return on April 14, 1998. Thus, its right to claim a refund or credit
commenced on that date. According to the CTA, the two-year prescriptive period under Section 229 of the NIRC for the filing of
judicial claims was equivalent to 730 days. Because the year 2000 was a leap year, respondent's petition, which was filed 731
days after respondent filed its final adjusted return, was filed beyond the reglementary period.
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the CTA. It ruled that Article 13 of the Civil Code did not distinguish
between a regular year and a leap year. Even if the year 2000 was a leap year, the periods covered by April 15, 1998 to April
14, 1999 and April 15, 1999 to April 14, 2000 should still be counted as 365 days each or a total of 730 days. A statute which is
clear and explicit shall be neither interpreted nor construed.
ISSUE:
Should the counting of the 2-year prescriptive period for filing claim of refund be governed by the Civil Code?
HELD:
No. Counting of 2-year period for filing claim for refund is no longer in accordance with Article 13 of the Civil Code but under
Sec. 31 of EO 227 - The Administrative Code of 1987.
RATIO:
As between the Civil Code, which provides that a year is equivalent to 365 days, and the Administrative Code of 1987, which
states that a year is composed of 12 calendar months, it is the latter that must prevail being the more recent law, following the
legal maxim, Lex posteriori derogat priori (more recent law prevails over an inconsistent law).
25
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
26
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
27
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
28
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
29
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Estrellita filed a motion dismiss and contended that since the 2 nd marriage was celebrated under Muslim rites,
jurisdiction should be with the Sharia courts.
RTC and CA dismissed the motion. Hence, the certiorari.
ISSUE(S): WON marriage was under Civil Code or Code of Muslim Personal Laws
WON RTC has jurisdiction
HELD: Marriage was under Civil Code.
RTC has jurisdiction.
Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.
RATIO:
As alleged in the complaint. Tamano and Estrellita were married under the Civil Code. It was never mentioned in the
motion to dismiss that they were married under Muslim laws.
Assuming they were also married under Muslim laws, it will still be under the general original jurisdiction of RTC. The
Code of Muslim Personal Laws does not provide a situation where parties were married both under civil law and muslim
law. Consequently, Sharia courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages
celebrated both under civil and Muslim laws.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The deficiency of special laws shall be supplied by the provisions of the Civil code (NCC 18).
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
30
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
31
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
32
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Pedro Fragrante, a Filipino citizen, applied for a certificate of public convenience to install and maintain an ice plant in
San Juan, Rizal. Fragrante dies while his application was still pending.
At the time of his death, his intestate estate is financially capable of maintaining the proposed service.
The Public Service Commission issued a certificate of public convenience to the intestate estate of the deceased through
authorizing the said intestate estate with its special or judicial administrator, appointed by the Court, to maintain and
operate the plant.
Limjoco (petitioner) argues that the intestate estate of Fragrante cannot be substituted as applicant for the deceased
and is a contravention of law.
ISSUE: Is the intestate estate of Fragrante a juridical person?
HELD: YES. Therefore, the issuance of certificate of public convenience to the intestate estate of the deceased is valid.
RATIO:
Fragrante was a Filipino citizen and continued to be such until his death. His estate was able to financially maintain and operate.
His right to prosecute the application to its final conclusion was one which by its nature did not lapse through his death. There
would be grave injustice for failure to recognize the said estate as a person for the quashing of the proceedings for no other
reason than his death would entail prejudicial results to his investment.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: The estate obtains a personality of its own which can also be sued. The judicial administrator will take
in charge in representing the estate.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
33
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Feb. 6, 1954 Battle for Liberation of Manila, spouses; Joaquin Navarro Sr., Angela Joaquin de Navarro, 3 daughters;
Pilar, Concepcion, Natividad, and son Joaquin Navarro Jr, and his wife Adela Conde, and friend Lopez sought refuge at
the ground floor of the German club
Building was packed with refugees, shells exploding around and the club was set on fire. Japanese started to shoot
people inside, especially those trying to escape 3 daughters were hit and fell to the ground
Navarro Sr. and Navarro Jr. decided to abandon the club, they could not convince Angela Joaquin. As they came out
Joaquin Jr. was shot in the head and dropped immediately
Minutes later the German Club collapsed, trapping people inside including presumably, Angela
Facts are from Lopezs sworn testimony
Court of Appeals states the order of death as (1) Three daughters, (2) Angela Joaquin de Navarro, (3) Joaquin Navarro,
Jr. and (4) Joaquin Navarro, Sr.
ISSUE(S):
WON mother died before son (vice versa)
HELD:
NO. Mother did not die before son. CA decision reversed to reflect that Joaquin Navarro Jr died first then the mother.
RATIO:
The son died first. Facts and evidence derived from Lopezs testimony proves this much.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
34
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
35
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Carson, J., concurring:
If he who is a minor (1) deceitfully says or sets forth in an instrument that he is over twenty-five years of age, and this
assertion is believed by another person who takes him to be of about that age, (2) in an action at law he should be deemed to
be of the age he asserted, and should not (3) afterwards be released from liability on the plea that he was not of said age when
he assumed the obligation. The reason for this is that the law helps the deceived and not the deceivers.
36
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
37
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Evaristo Vaquilar was convicted of parricide for killing his wife and his daughter.
His appeal was based on testimony by several witnesses who claimed that he was insane during and before the
commission of the crimes:
o Before the act, he had pains in his stomach and head
o His eyes were big and red; he would not have killed his wife and kids if he were not crazy
o He looked like a madman; cut everyone at random regardless of who it was
o He looked sad; crazy because he cut his sister
o And more!
Health officer did not notice whether defendant was suffering from mental derangement or not.
ISSUE(S): WON Vaquilar is insane, therefore, not guilty of parricide.
HELD: Not insane. Judgments affirmed.
RATIO:
Insanity is different from extreme passion or the failure to use reason or good judgment because of anger.
Crazy is not synonymous with insane.
It is not unnatural for a murderer to strike promiscuously when he is caught in the act.
His conduct in jail showed reflection and remorse.
Those who have not lost control of their reason by mental unsoundness are bound to control their tempers and restrain
their passions, and are liable to the law if they do not.
The presumption is that the person is sane. The burden of proof when alleging insanity as a defense falls upon the
defense who alleges it. It requires positive evidence that criminal intent was not present because of the insanity, and
that the offense was a direct result of that insanity; enough to overcome the presumption of sanity.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
38
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Jalosjos and Cardino were candidates for Mayor of Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte in the May 2010 elections. Jalosjos
was running for his third term.
Cardino filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to deny due course and to cancel the certificate
of candidacy of Jalosjos. It was alleged that Jalosjos made a false material representation in his certificate of candidacy
when he declared under oath that he was eligible for the Office of Mayor. Cardino claimed that long before Jalosjos filed
his certificate of candidacy, Jalosjos had already been convicted by final judgment for robbery and sentenced to prisin
mayor by the RTC Cebu and have not served his sentence.
Jalosjos admitted his conviction but stated that he had already been granted probation. Cardino countered that the RTC
revoked Jalosjos probation. Jalosjos refuted Cardino and stated that the RTC issued an Order declaring that Jalosjos had
duly complied with the order of probation.
Jalosjos further stated that during the 2004 elections the COMELEC denied a petition for disqualification filed against him
on the same grounds.
COMELEC First Division ruled in favor of Cardino and found that Jalosjos certificate of compliance of probation was
fraudulently issued; thus, Jalosjos has not yet served his sentence. Therefore, he is not eligible to run.
ISSUE: Did COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it disqualified Jalosjos
to run as Mayor?
HELD: No.
RATIO:
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a false statement in a certificate of candidacy that a candidate is
eligible to run for public office is a false material representation is a ground for disqualification. Jalosjos certificate of
candidacy was void from the start since he was not eligible to run for any public office at the time he filed his certificate
of candidacy. Jalosjos was never a candidate at any time.
39
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
40
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Oct. 31, 2012 Joseph Socorro Tan filed before COMELEC an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the
Ceriticate of Candicacy of petitioner Regina Ongsiako Reyes on the ground that it contained material
misrepresentations
Among which were that she stated (1) she was not a permanent resident of another country when in fact, she is a
permanent resident or an immigrant of the USA and (2) that she is a Filipino citizen, but in fact she is an American
citizen
March 27, 2013 cancelled the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner
April 8, 2013 Reyes filed for Motion for Reconsideration stating that she was a Filipino citizen
May 14, 2013 COMELEC denied her motion
May 18, 2013 Reyes was declared the winner of the 2013 election
June 5, 2013 COMELEC issued a Certificate of Finality declaring their Resolution (May 14 decision) final and executory,
on the same day Reyes took her oath of office
Reyes has yet to assume office at the time because her term officially starts at noon of June 30, 2013
Reyes assails through a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
resolution of the COMELEC ordering the cancellation of Reyes
ISSUE(S):
WON Reyes is a Filipino citizen
HELD:
NO. Reyes is not a Fililpino citizen.
Petition is dismissed and May 14 decision is upheld.
RATIO:
Tan submitted to Bureau of Immigration evidence showing that Reyes is a holder of a US passport, and that her status is that of
a balikbayan. For Reyes to reacquire her citizenship, she must take an oath of allegiance, and make a personal sworn
renunciation of her American citizenship (RA 9225). Reyes did none of these requirements, and as it stands she remains to be
an American citizen. This makes her ineligible to run and hold any elective public office in the PHL.
41
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Olaguer v. Parugganan
AUTHOR: Ocampo, Miguel
[ G.R. NO. 158907, February 12, 2007 ]
TOPIC: NCC38
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner was the owner of 60k shares of stocks of Businessday Corporation with a total par value of Php600k and was
against the Marcos dictatorship.
While anticipating to be arrested because of the Marcos dictatorship, petitioner then made an oral agreement with Raul
Locsin, Enrique Joaquin and Hector Hilofena, that they would support petitoners family with his salary. And also made an
SPA appointing them 3 as his attorney-in-fact for selling or transferring the petitioners shares with Businessday for the
purpose of concealing that he was a stockholder of Businessday, in the event of a military crackdown against the
Marcos.
The parties acknowledged the SPA before respondent Emilio Purugganan, Jr., who was then the Corporate Secretary of
Businessday, and at the same time, a notary public for Quezon City.
In Dec. 24 1979, petitioner was arrested by the Marcos military and detained for committing arson. During the
petitioner's detention, Locsin ordered Purugganan to cancel petitioner's shares in the books of the corporation and to
transfer them to respondent Locsin's name.
When petitioner was finally released from detention in 1986, he discovered that he was no longer registered as
stockholder of Businessday. He also learned that Purugganan, had already recorded the transfer of shares in favor of
Locsin, while petitioner was detained. When petitioner demanded that respondents restore to him full ownership of his
shares of stock, they refused to do so.
On 29 July 1986, petitioner filed this petition against Purugganan and Locsin to declare the sale of the shares of stock as
illegal, to restore to the petitioner full ownership of the shares.
RTC ruled in favor of respondents stating that the sale was valid and petitioner intended to sell the shares to anyone
including Locsin.
CA affirmed stating that granting that there was no perfected contract of sale, petitioner ratified the sale to Locsin by his
receipt of the purchase price (The 600k), and his failure to raise any protest over the said sale.
42
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
43
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
44
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
45
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Dr. Favis and his sneaky, greedy 2nd wife.
46
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Lupo Atienza alleges Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against Respondent Judge Francisco
Brillantes, Jr.
December 1991 Atienza found Brillantes sleeping in his bed, and was told that Brillantes was cohabiting with his baby
mama, Yolanda De Castro, even though Brillantes was allegedy married to a Zenaida Ongkiko.
Brillantes claims that he is not married to Ongkiko, because, despite having two marriage ceremonies (Nueva Ecija, April
1965; and Manila, June 1965), they didnt have a marriage license in either one. Ongkiko abandoned Brillantes 19 years
ago.
Brillantes married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles on December 4, 1991, supposedly believing that he was single
because his first marriage/s had no license/s.
Brillantes also claims that his remarriage did not require a judicial declaration of nullity because the first marriage was
not governed by the Family Code.
ISSUE(S): WON Brillantes acted immorally by getting remarried without a judicial declaration of nullity.
HELD: Yes, his acts were immoral. Dismissed from legal service.
RATIO:
Art. 40 of the Family Code applies to marriages entered into after its effectivity regardless of when prior marriages took
place.
Art. 256 of the FC gives the FC retroactive effect as long as vested rights are not impaired. This is especially true fir Art.
40 of the FC because it is a rule of procedure.
Brillantes cannot invoke good faith because he was already a lawyer, thus aware of the laws, when he twice got
married in 1965.
Brillantes cohabitation with De Castro took place when he was already in the judiciary.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
No vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws, therefore, procedural laws are generally retroactive.
There is no duality of morality. A public figure is judged by his private life.
47
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
48
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Parties were legally married and have been living together for a month in their conjugal dwelling.
The wife (petitioner) was maltreated after refusing the demands of her husband (respondent) to perform lascivious and
unchaste acts on his genitals.
She left the conjugal dwelling.
CFI ruled in favor of respondent and stated that petitioner could not compel her husband to support her except in the
conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting her separation or divorce from respondent as Art. 149
provides that the person obliged to give support may, at his option, satisfy it, either by paying the pension that may be
fixed or by receiving and maintaining in his own home the person having the right to the same.
ISSUE: Can the wife compel her husband to give her support outside the conjugal home?
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
Art. 149 of the Civil Code is not absolute." but it is insisted that there existed a preexisting or preferential right in each
of these cases which was opposed to the removal of the one entitled to support.
The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven away
from the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts.
In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of
the husband, she can therefore claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal
home.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
49
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
50
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
51
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
F.H. acknowledged the support of their child Chris Hermosisima but denied the fact that he promised to marry Soledad.
But RTC ruled in favor of Soledad stating:
a. Ordering Francisco to pay to the said child, through Soledad, the sum of P30, payable on or before the 5th day of
every month;
b. Sentencing him to pay to Soledad the sum of P4,500 for actual and compensatory damages;
c. The sum of P5,000 as moral damages; and
d. The further sum of P500 as attorney's fees for Soledad
CA affirmed decision but increased the amount of damages:
a. P5,614.25 for actual and compensatory damages; and
b. P7,000 for moral damages
ISSUE:
WON Soledad can recover moral damages
HELD: NO.
Our Congress eliminated Art. 56-65 due to the history of breach of promise to marry suits in the US and England has
shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous man. It is this
experience which has led to the abolition of rights of action in the so-called Balm suits in many of the American States.
CA also erred in stating that F.H. committed seduction as contemplated in Art. 337 and 338 of RPC.
SC stated that petitioner is not morally guilty of seduction, not only because he is 10 years younger than Soledad, who
was around 36 years old, but, also because, the RTC found that, Soledad "surrendered herself" to F.H. because she was
52
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Mariategui v. CA
[205 SCRA 337]
TOPIC: Requisites for valid marriage
PONENTE: Bidin, J.
53
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Sham Marriage with Your Honor
54
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, born male, is transsexual. He became a woman via hormone treatment, breast
augmentation in the US, and sex reassignment surgery in Thailand (where else?).
Later, she (see what I did there?) got engaged to Richard Edel, an American. Silverio then sought to change her name
and sex in her birth certificate to Mely and female, respectively.
The RTC of Manila decided in favor of Silverio, ordering the civil registrar to change the entries.
Afterwards, the OSG (/Republic) filed a petition to the CA, claiming that there was no law allowing the change of entries
in the birth certificate due to sex alteration. The CA ruled in favor of the Republic, saying that the RTCs decision lacked
legal basis.
Silverio then came to the SC, citing Arts. 407-413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, and RA
9048.
ISSUE(S): WON Silverio can have her name and sex in her birth certificate changed to fit her sex alteration.
HELD: No, she may not. Petition denied.
RATIO:
Based on RA 9048, which covers clerical and typographical errors, the petition fails because:
o The remedy was administrative, not yet judicial. It should have been filed with the local civil registrar at the Office
of the Civil Registrar where the birth certificate in question is kept.
o Silverio was not prejudiced by the use of her original name because sex reassignment does not make her a real
woman. (Blame Corona for this crap)
o The change of sex in the birth cert. is not merely clerical.
There is no legal basis for the correction of entries
o Entries under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, which are correctable under Rule 108, are provided for in Arts. 407 and
408 of the Civil Code; but they do not cover corrections due to sex reassignment.
55
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
56
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
March 1, 1987 - Roderick Recio, a Filipino citizen, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen. They lived
together in Australia.
May 18, 1989 - An Australian family court issued a decree of divorce.
June 26, 1992 - Recio obtained Australian citizenship.
January 12, 1994 - Recio and Grace Garcia, a Filipino citizen, got married. They lived together in Australia.
October 22, 1995 - They lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.
May 16, 1996 - Their conjugal assets were divided in accordance with the Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.
March 3, 1998 - Garcia filed a Complaint for Nullity of Marriage on the grounds of bigamy. She claimed that Recio was
incapacitated to marry her because of his prior marriage to Editha Samson.
July 7, 1998 - Recio obtained a divorce decree from a Sydney family court. He then filed a motion to dismiss. OSG agreed.
RTC decided that the marriage was dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized
in the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Was the divorce between Recio and Samson valid?
HELD:
The case was remanded to RTC to determine his legal capacity to marry Garcia.
RATIO:
In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Art. 26 of the Family Code allow the Filipino to contract a
subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact
and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. To
be admitted as evidence, the divorce decree must be proven as a public record of a foreign country by (1) an official
publication, or (2) a certified true copy (attestation). If the record is not kept in the Philippines, it must be authenticated
and certified by a diplomatic or consular officer in a Philippine embassy/consulate in the foreign country.
The divorce decree between Recio and Samson appeared authentic but compliance with the rules on evidence was not
demonstrated.
57
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
1953 Aurora and Fernando married, a month later Fernando filed an action for annulment of their marriage on the
ground that his consent to the marriage was obtained through force and intimidation
The action was then dismissed, and the validity of the marriage was upheld. Auroras counterclaim was then granted.
While the amount for the counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando admitted that several months prior to their
wedding, he had a pre-marital relationship with his close relative
Aurora alleges that this non-divulgement of Fernandos pre-marital relationship constituted in fraud to obtain her consent
to marry
Aurora now prays for the annulment of their marriage on this ground (non-divulgement as fraud), and moral damages
ISSUE(S):
WON non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of
marriage.
HELD:
NO. This is not considered fraud, and therefore a ground for annulment of marriage.
Appealed decision is upheld.
RATIO:
The FRAUD being discussed in this case does not include non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship. NCC only admits to (1)
misrepresentation as to identity, (2) non-disclosure of previous conviction of a crime, and (3) concealment by wife of the fact
that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband (NCC 86). It is clear that non-disclosure of a
pre-marital relationship does not fall in any of those stated. Further, the last paragraph of Art. 86 states that no other
58
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
59
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
60
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
61
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
62
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
63
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
64
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
65
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: Pam
NOTES: (if applicable)
66
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
67
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
68
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
69
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
70
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Family Code took effect on Aug. 3, 1988.
Considering that the marriage was held in 1970, Art 80., NCC shall govern, wherein no marriage shall be solemnized
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.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, marriage license was an essential requisite of a valid marriage.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
71
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
This is a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between Syed Azzar Abbas (Syed), a Pakistani, and Gloria Goo
Abbas (Gloria), a Filipino citizen. They married at a Taipei Mosque in Taiwan.
Syed was in his mother in laws residence in the Philippines. He was told that he will undergo a certain ceremony but he
did not know what kind. He signed a document with Gloria. He claimed that he did not know it was a marriage ceremony
until Gloria told him.
In the marriage contract, it is stated that a marriage license was issued in Carmona, Cavite. He testified that he never
went to Carmona, Cavite to acquire a marriage license nor reside in the area. Their marriage license number was
registered under the name of another couple as testified by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite.
On cross examination, Syed testified that Gloria filed bigamy cases against him and that he went to Carmona, Cavite to
check the validity of their marriage license.
Gloria testified that a certain Qualin was the one who acquired their marriage license for them.
Testimonies: Rev. Dauz (that he solemnized the marriage and there was a valid marriage certificate), Atty. Sanchez (that
he was a sponsor and he requested for Qualin to get a marriage license), Felicitas Goo (that her daughter married Syed
and asked for the help of Atty. Sanchez to secure a marriage license).
RTC No valid marriage license was issued and declared the marriage void ab initio.
CA It was in favor of Gloria. It held that the certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar failed to make a diligent search
of the marriage license of Gloria and Syed and there were sufficient testimonies saying that they were validly married.
Petition was reversed.
ISSUE: Was there a valid marriage license?
HELD: No. Petition granted. CA decision reversed and set aside. RTC ruling reinstated.
RATIO:
Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license and relied on the marriage certificate and the testimonies. She failed
to explain why the license was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a place wherein no party resided.
Syed, on the other hand, went to Cavite to prove that there was no marriage license issued and a certification was issued
that indeed the license number they had belonged to another couple.
Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states that there is a disputable presumption that an official duty has been
72
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
73
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J.
FACTS:
December 8, 1982 first marriage; stairs of Manila City Hall; no marriage license; arranged through a fixer.
March 26, 1983 second marriage; church in Tondo; alleged license was from Carmona, Cavite.
Restituto claims that the marriage license during the second marriage was a sham because neither party lived in
Carmona, nor did either of them go to Carmona to get the license. Also, that the marriage license number (7054133)
does not match the license number in their marriage contract (7054033).
Rosita claims that Restituto only filed for annulment in order to evade prosecution for a concubinage charge she filed
against him.
The RTC and CA denied the petition for annulment, with the CA stating that Restituto did not present evidence to
overcome the presumption of validity of the marriage license.
ISSUE(S): WON their marriage is void due to lack of a marriage license.
HELD: No, the marriage is valid. There is a valid marriage license. Petition denied.
RATIO:
(NOTE: Since the marriage took place before the Family Code came into effect, the old Civil Code applies.)
Under Art. 53 of the Civil Code, a marriage license is a requisite of marriage, without which, the marriage is void ab initio.
The Court cited cases wherein this was applied:
o In Republic v. CA, the marriage therein was declared void because, after due search and inability to find, the civil
registrar issued a certificate affirming that the license could not be found.
o In Cario v. Cario, the marriage contract bore no license number, and the civil registrar issued a certificate
stating that their office had not issued a license to the parties.
o In Sy v. CA, the marriage license was issued one year after the ceremony took place.
The law requires that the absence of a marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract or supported by
74
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The presumption is always in favor of the validity of the marriage.
The absence of a marriage license must be apparent. (Also for Topic #2)
The presumption of regularity in the discharge of official duties by government officials must be overturned by clear,
positive evidence.
Irregularity in any of the formal requisites does not affect the marriages validity, but the party/ies responsible are civilly,
criminally, and administratively liable. (Also for Topic #2)
75
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
76
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
77
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Complainant Mayor Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte contends that Judge Hernando Domagtoy exhibited gross
misconduct as well as ineffiency in office and ignorance of the law.
First Respondent judge solemnized a marriage despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his first
wife.
Judge Domagtoy contented that he relied on the affidavit issued by RTC Judge of Bassey, Samar that the groom
and his first wife have not seen each other for seven years. However, the certified true copy of the marriage said
that his civil status was separated.
Second It is alleged that he performed a marriage ceremony outside his courts jurisdiction. He hold office in MCTC Sta.
Monica Burgos, Surigao del Norte but he solemnized a marriage in the municipality of Dapa in his residence.
He maintains that he did not violate Art. 7, par. 1 which states that Marriage may be solemnized by: (1) Any
incumbent member of the Judiciary within the courts jurisdiction
ISSUE:
First Can a court solemnize another marriage of a husband who has merely separated from his wife for almost 7 years?
Second Can a judge solemnize marriages in his residence?
HELD: No. Judge Domagtoy is suspended for 6 months and is given a stern warning.
RATIO:
First The groom still remains married to his first wife. To contract a subsequent marriage, the spouse must institute a
summary proceeding as provide in the Code for the declaration of presumptive death.
Second FC Art. 8 further gave exceptions that a judge may solemnize marriages not in his jurisdiction when the
contracting parties are at the point of death or in remote place. There is no pretense that the parties were at the point of
their death or in a remote place. Judges who are appointed to specific jurisdiction may officiate in marriages only within
said areas and not beyond.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's jurisdiction;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and
registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted by his church or religious sect
78
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
79
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
80
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Aug. 30, 1990 Lucio Morigo married Lucia Barrete.
Aug. 19, 1991 Lucia was granted a divorce from Lucio in Canada, to take effect on Feb. 17, 1992.
Oct. 4, 1992 Lucio married Maria Lumbago.
Sept. 21, 1993 Lucio sought a judicial declaration of the nullity of his marriage with Lucia, alleging that no marriage
ceremony took place.
Oct. 19, 1993 the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran charged Lucio with bigamy. Lucio moved for suspension because his
judicial nullification posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. The suspension was granted, then denied.
Aug. 5, 1996 the Bohol RTC convicted Lucio of bigamy. The RTC cited Domingo v. CA and said that lack of a valid
marriage ceremony is not a defense against a charge of bigamy. They also cited Ramirez v. Gmur and said that a divorce
issued by the court in a country where neither spouse is domiciled has no jurisdiction to determine their marital status.
Oct. 23, 1997 while Lucios appeal to the CA was pending, his marriage to Lucia was declared void, and it became final
and executory.
Oct. 21, 1999 the CA affirmed the RTCs conviction, claiming that Art. 349 of the RPC punishes the act of contracting a
second marriage before the first one is dissolved; also claiming that the divorce is against public policy, thus, ineffectual.
Lucios motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE(S): WON Lucio Morigo committed bigamy
If so, WON his defense of good faith is valid
HELD: No, he did not commit bigamy. Petition granted.
RATIO:
A marriage declared void ab initio is deemed to have never taken place at all, because such a declaration retroacts to
the date of the supposed marriage. Lucios marriage to Lucia was declared void because they merely signed a marriage
contract without the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore, the first element of bigamy as laid down in Bobis v.
Bobis, that the offender has been legally married, is absent.
Unlike in Mercado v. Tan, where the first marriage was solemnized twice, and the declaration of nullity was obtained after
the second marriage was celebrated.
81
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
82
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
83
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Fujiki v. Marinay
AUTHOR: Ocampo, Miguel
G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
TOPIC: Law governing validity of marriages
abroad (Lex loci celebrationis, NCC17)
(FC26, FC21, FC10)
PONENTE: Carpio, J.
FACTS:
On Jan. 23, 2004, Minoru Fujiki (Japanese) married Maria Marinay (Pinay) in PH. However, the marriage did not go well
due to Fujikis parents and so Fujiki couldnt bring her to Japan and lost contact w/ each other.
On 2008, Marinay met another Japanese named Shinichi Maekara and they got married w/o dissolving her marriage with
Fujiki. But later on, Marinay alleges she was physically abused by Maekara. Thus, prompting her to reunite w/ Fujiki.
On 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay get a judgment from Japan w/c declared Maekara-Marinay marriage void due to bigamy.
On Jan. 14, 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC to recognize the foreign judgment but RTC dismissed the petition due to
Fujiki being an improper party filing the petition. RTC cites A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC:
a. Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages - (a) Who may file - A petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. x x x
b. It means that only Marinay or Maekara can file this petition.
Fujiki then argues that:
a. The A.M. does not apply because a petition to recognize a foreign judgment is a special proceeding w/c seeks to
establish a status, a right or a particular fact, and not a civil action which is for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
b. To apply Section 2(a) in bigamy would be absurd because only the guilty parties would be permitted to sue. He has
material interest and therefore has personality to nullify the bigamous marriage.
But RTC still dismissed the petition on the same basis above. It considered Fujiki as a 3rd person in the proceeding
because he was not the husband in the divorce decree issued by the Japan court.
However, the Solicitor General (OSG) agreed with Fujiki for him being the spouse of the 1st marriage, is an injured party
who can sue to declare the subsequent marriage bigamous. He cited Juliano-Llave v. Republic w/c held:
a. That the A.M. is not applicable; and
84
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
85
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
86
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
87
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
88
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
89
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
90
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
1976 Vincent Mercado married Ma. Thelma Oliva, both civilly and in a church.
1991 Mercado married Ma. Consuelo Tan, both civilly and religiously, without a judicial declaration of nullity for his first
marriage.
Oct. 5, 1992 Tan filed a complaint for bigamy against Mercado.
Nov. 13, 1992 Mercado filed an action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva.
March 1, 1993 Bigamy case began.
May 6, 1993 Mercado-Oliva marriage was declared void.
Both the RTC and the CA found Mercado guilty of bigamy, citing the requirement of a judicial declaration of nullity before
remarriage based on Art. 40 of the Family Code.
ISSUE(S): WON Mercado is guilty of bigamy.
HELD: Yes he is. Petition denied.
RATIO:
When the information was filed on January 22, 1993, all the elements of bigamy were present. The declaration that the
first marriage was void came after the information was filed, therefore the crime of bigamy was already consummated.
While jurisprudence until then was conflicting regarding the need for a judicial declaration of nullity, Art. 40 erases all
doubts and makes a judicial declaration of absolute nullity essential before one may remarry.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
A marriage declared void ab initio is not a defense against a charge of bigamy if such declaration came after the
bigamous marriage.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Justice Vitug:
The necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity should only refer to cases wherein the marriage had, at least ostensibly,
taken place. Thus, marriages that are obviously void should not need such a declaration.
91
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
92
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
93
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
94
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
95
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
96
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
97
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
98
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
99
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
100
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
101
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
102
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Respondent Roridel Molina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Reynaldo Molina. She
alleged that he showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father because he spent more time
with his friends than with his family, he squandered his money, he lost his job, etc. After a big fight, Roridel went to
Baguio to live with her parents, and weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their children.
Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but his reason was that she
would refuse to perform her marital duties, like cooking, and her failure to manage their finances.
During the pre-trial, Roridel presented the testimony of witnesses, which included her friends, a social worker, and a
psychiatrist. Reynaldo did not present any evidence. The RTC declared the marriage void, and the CA affirmed it on
appeal.
ISSUE(S):
WON the marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo Molina is void due to psychological incapacity.
HELD:
No, there is no psychological incapacity present. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Citing Leouel Santos v. CA, the Court said that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity; that the law confines its meaning to personality disorders which demonstrate an insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage; that it must exist at the time of the marriage; and that it must
be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability.
In the present case, the Roridel merely showed that she and Reynaldo could not get along with each other. Difficulty,
refusal, neglect, and irreconcilable differences are not equal to psychological incapacity. What is essential is that a party
is incapable of fulfilling their marital duties.
Dr. Sisons, the psychiatrist, evaluation only showed incompatibility, not psychological incapacity.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The Court set guidelines for the interpretation of Art. 36 of the Family Code:
103
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
104
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
105
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
106
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
107
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
108
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
109
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
110
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
111
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
112
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Romulo Tolentino filed a suit for annulment of his marriage to respondent Helen Villanueva. His reason, among
others, was that his consent was obtained through fraud because he discovered that Helen was pregnant shortly after
they were married, despite not having any sexual relations with her prior to the ceremony.
Helen was served with a summons, but she failed to file a responsive pleading. Because of that, Romulo filed a motion to
declare her in default, and to set a date for his presentation of evidence. Respondent Judge Corazon Agrava declared
Helen in default, but referred the case to the City Fiscal of Manila in order to determine whether or not collusion exists
between the parties. This was pursuant to Arts. 88 and 101 of the Civil Code.
The fiscal, upon receipt of a copy of the complaint, had 60 days within which to submit his report. Romulo submitted the
copy on July 3, 1962.
The Asst. City Fiscal then subpoenaed Romulos counsel, requiring him to bring Romulo and copies of other documents
pertaining to the annulment case on August 27, 1962. However, on August 24, 1962, petitioners counsel said that he
could not comply with the subpoena because it would expose his evidence.
On Oct. 29, 1962, Romulo prayed that Judge Agrava set the date for reception of his evidence because the City Fiscals
60-day period had elapsed without the submission of a report. On Nov. 6, 1962, Judge Agrava denied the motion
because Romulo would not submit himself for interrogation by the fiscal. On July 29, 1963, Judge Agrava dismissed the
complaint because Romulo still would not submit himself for interrogation.
ISSUE(S):
WON Romulo may compel Judge Agrava to receive his evidence without submitting himself to the City Fiscal for interrogation.
HELD:
No, the City Fiscal must file a report ensuring no collusion between the parties.
RATIO:
Arts. 88 and 101 of the Civil Code direct that, if the defendant in an annulment suit does not appear, the court shall
order the prosecuting attorney to inquire whether or not collusion between the parties exists, and if none, said
prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the state to prevent fabrication of evidence for the plaintiff.
113
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
114
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
115
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
116
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
117
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
118
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
119
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
120
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
121
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Respondent Karl Wiegel sought a declaration of nullity for his marriage to petitioner Lilia Wiegel because she had a prior,
existing marriage to Eduardo Maxion.
Lilia acknowledged the marriage to Eduardo, but claimed that both of them were forced to marry each other, rendering
the marriage void.
In the pre-trial, both parties agreed that the issue to be ruled upon by respondent Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy was whether
Lilias first marriage was void or voidable; but Lilia contested this, asking for an opportunity to present evidence that a)
she and Eduardo were forced to marry, and b) Eduardo was already married to someone else when he married Lilia.
Judge Sempio-Diy denied the presentation of evidence because the existence of force exerted upon both Lilia and
Eduardo had already been agreed upon.
ISSUE(S):
WON Lilia Wiegel should be allowed to present evidence proving the existence of force in her first marriage.
HELD:
No, Judge Sempio-Diys Orders affirmed. Marriage between the Wiegels (hehe) VOID.
RATIO:
Even if Lilia is allowed to present evidence, the presence of force would only render her marriage to Eduardo voidable,
not void. When she married Karl, her marriage to Eduardo was still valid and subsisting.
If Lilia was able to prove that Eduardo was already married before he married her, she would still need a judicial
declaration of nullity for that marriage before she could validly marry Karl.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Even if a previous marriage is deemed void, a party from that marriage needs a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting
another marriage. Otherwise, that party would still be deemed married.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S): N/A
122
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
123
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
124
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
125
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
126
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
127
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
128
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
129
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
130
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
131
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
132
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
133
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
134
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Virginia Remo is married to a Francisco Rallonza. In her passport, her entries were: Rallonza for her surname,
Maria Virginia for her given name, and Remo for her middle name.
Virginias passport was expiring, so she was having it renewed. However, she also requested from the Philippine DFA
office in Chicago to revert to her maiden surname in the passport, i.e. Remo.
The request was denied by (in order) : DFA office in Chicago, main DFA office in the Philippines, the Office of the
President of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals.
Virginia cited both Yasin v. Honorable Judge Sharia District Court and Art. 370 of the Civil Code in her petitions. Art. 370
of the Civil Code states that a married woman may use her full maiden name + husbands surname; her first name +
husbands surname; or her husbands full name with something like Mrs. at the beginning; or, she may simply continue
using her full maiden name, period.
ISSUE(S):
WON Virginia Remo may revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport, even though she previously used her
husbands surname.
HELD: No, she may not. Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
5(d) of RA 8239 (The Philippine Passport Act of 1996) provides the only instances when a (formerly married) woman
may revert to the use of her maiden name, and these are:
o divorce
o annulment of marriage
o declaration of nullity of marriage
o death of the husband
Said provision is not in conflict with Art. 370 of the Civil Code.
Unlike in Yasin, where the woman was divorced, Virginias marriage is still subsisting. Also, Virginia requested to use her
maiden name in a replacement passport, while in Yasin, it was a request to use her maiden name in general, again.
135
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
136
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
137
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
138
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
139
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
140
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
141
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Nilo Oropesa filed a petition for guardianship over his fathers, respondent General Cirilo Oropesa, properties.
Nilo claims that his father is not fit to manage his own properties because, after two strokes in 2003 or even before that,
his judgment and memory are impaired.
A social worker was sent by the court to assess Gen. Cirilo, but he refused to see her, so her report contained no findings
on him. Gen. Cirilo then filed an Opposition.
Nilo presented testimonial evidence from himself, his sister, and Gen. Cirilos former nurse, and some documentary
evidence, but he did not file a written formal offer of evidence. Gen. Cirilo then filed an Omnibus Motion to:
1. declare Nilo to have waived the presentation of his evidence,
2. to expunge Nilos documents from the record, and
3. to grant leave to Gen. Cirilo to file demurrer for evidence.
The Omnibus Motion was granted, and Gen. Cirilo filed his Demurrer, which was also granted. The CA dismissed Nilos
appeal.
ISSUE(S):
WON Gen. Cirilo is considered incompetent, as defined under 2, Rule 92 of the RoC, who must be placed under
guardianship.
HELD: No, he is not. Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
Guardianship is a relationship between a guardian and a ward, whom the law regards as incapable of managing his own
affairs. The court may appoint a guardian if the prospective ward is proven to be a minor or an incompetent.
o 2, Rule 91 of the RoC defines and enumerates who are incompetent persons, which includes persons not being
of unsound mind, but by reason of age, disease, weak mind, and other similar causes who cannot take care of
themselves and manage their property without outside aid.
Finding that a person is incompetent should be anchored on clear, positive, and definite evidence.
o The only medical document presented by Nilo failed to prove incompetence, and actually showed that Gen. Cirilo
142
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
143
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
144
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Buccat v. Buccat
AUTHOR: Ocampo, Miguel
G.R. No. 47101, April 25, 1941
TOPIC: Ground for annulment, Fraud, NCC
1338-1344
PONENTE: Horrilleno, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Godofredo Buccat met respondent Luida Buccat on March, 1938. They got married on Nov. 26 of the same
year.
However, on Feb. 23, 1939, Luida gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to her.
On March, 23, 1939, he filed this petition for annulment of their marriage on the ground of fraud, that when he agreed to
married Luida, she assured him that she was still a virgin.
RTC ruled in favor of Luida, denying Godofredos petition.
ISSUE:
WON the marriage should be annulled on the ground of concealment of pregnancy. NO.
HELD:
SC states that it did not find sufficient proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud. It was unlikely
for Godofredo, who is a first-year law stundent, to not suspect anything about Luidas condition considering that she was
in an advanced stage of pregnancy (Malaki na tiyan) when they got married.
145
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Villanueva has a pending bigamy case prior to the petition. SC thinks it
was filed hoping that it will get Villanueva a favorable judgment that will
lead to his acquittal from his bigamy case. (He was found guilty of
bigamy prior to SCs review.)
146
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
147
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
This is a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage by Veronica Alcazar. She was married to respondent Rey
Alcazar.
When they went back to Manila after the wedding, Rey did not live with Veronica. He left for Saudi Arabia to work.
The couple did not communicate the whole time Rey was abroad despite numerous attempts by Veronica to call him. She
only learned he was coming home to the Philippines from a co-teacher about a year and a half after Rey left for Riyadh.
Veronica further averred in her Complaint that when Rey arrived in the Philippines, he did not go home to Veronica in
Manila; instead, he proceeded to his parents house in Occidental Mindoro. She asserted that from the time Rey arrived
in the Philippines, he never contacted her.
Thus, Veronica concluded that Rey was physically incapable of consummating his marriage with her, providing sufficient
cause for annulment of their marriage pursuant to paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Family
Code).
There was also no more possibility of reconciliation between Veronica and Rey. RTC of Malolos City dismissed the
Complaint, a decision later affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE(S):
WON Rey is psychologically incapacitated.
HELD: No, he is not. Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
It is important to note that the initial Complaint filed by Veronica was for ANNULMENT of marriage (voidable) based on
Art. 45(5) of the Family Code physical incapacity.
o Said article refers to lack of power to copulate. It is a permanent inability to have sex with each other, caused
by a physical defect, an illness, or even fear arising from psychophysical conditions in either or both parties.
o Veronica admitted to having intercourse with Rey after their wedding, and before he left. It appears that he was
not physically incapable, hence, there was no ground for annulling the marriage. This is why the initial complaint
was dismissed.
148
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
149
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Petition for review on certiorari of a CA decision affirming the RTC decision declaring marriage of Fringer and Albios as
void ab initio
Oct. 22, 2004 Daniel Lee Fringer (American citizen) and Liberty Albios got married
Dec. 6, 2006 Albios filed with RTC a petition for declaration of nullity other marriage with Fringer
She alleges that after the marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never had any
intention of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential marital obligation, she describes that
their marriage was a marriage made in jest so null and void
Apr. 25, 2008 RTC declared the marriage void ab initio, RTC was of the view that the parties only married for
convenience
Albios stated that she married Fringer to acquire American citizenship in consideration of $2000
OSG filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied this, the OSG then filed an appeal to the CA
CA affirmed the RTC ruling and found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking
ISSUE(S):
WON marriage contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of $2000 is void ab initio on
ground of lack of consent
HELD:
NO. This does not render the marriage void ab initio
RATIO:
Under FC 2, consent is an essential requisite of a marriage. For consent to be valid, it must be freely given, made in presence of
solemnizing officer, must be real and not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vices of consent. It must also be conscious and
intelligent; parties must be capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their acts.
Albios and Fringer freely gave their consent, it was not vitiated, it was also conscious and intelligent, as they understood the
nature of it. They willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage with the intention to enter into a real and valid marriage,
which is required to accomplish Albios goal of acquiring American citizenship. Consent was not lacking, so marriage is valid.
Petition is GRANTED!
150
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
151
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
152
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
153
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
154
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
155
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Effectivity of NCC: Aug 30, 1950
FC: Aug 3, 1988
156
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
157
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Petition for review on certiorari of a CA decision and resolution affirming DFA decision denying Maria Virginia Remos
request to revert to the use of her maiden name in her replacement passport
Remos (married Filipino citizen) Philippine passport was then expiring on Oct. 27, 2000
Remo being then married to Francisco R. Rallonza, the ff. entries appear on her passport; Rallonza (surname), Maria
Virgina (given name), Remo (middle name)
Prior to the expiry of the validity of her passport, and while her marriage was still subsisting, she requested to revert to
her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport (DFA Chicago), this was denied
Petitioner then wrote to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo Siason, this was also denied
She then filed an appeal with the Office of the President but it was dismissed, ruling that RA 8239 (Philippine Passport
Act) only cites 4 instances where a married woman may revert to her maiden name; (1) divorce, (2) annulment, (3)
declaration of nullity of marriage, and (4) death of husband
Remo then moved for reconsideration before the CA but this was also denied, hence the present petition
ISSUE(S):
WON Remo (who originally used her husbands surname in her expired passport) can revert to the use of her maiden name in
replacement passport
HELD:
NO. Remo may not revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport.
RATIO:
RA 8239 (Philippine Passport Act) cites only 4 instances where a married woman may revert to the use of her maiden name in
the passport. These are; (1) divorce, (2) annulment, (3) declaration of nullity of marriage, and (4) death of husband. Clearly
Remo does not fall within any of the categories, so her petition must fail.
Truthfully, Remo could have used her maiden name in the passport but she chose to use her husbands surname in her expired
passport. Once a married woman opted to adopt her husbands surname in her passport, she may not revert back to the use of
her maiden name anymore.
158
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
159
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
160
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
161
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
162
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
TENCHAVEZ v ESCAO
[15 SCRA 355, 1965]
TOPIC: Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment
PONENTE: Reyes, JBL., J.
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
The complaint against the parents were dismissed for lack of
evidence.
163
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Imelda Pilapil and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German, were married in Germany sometime in 1979.
They lived in Manila and had a child one year later.
In 1983, Erich initiated divorce proceedings in Germany. Around the same time, Imelda filed for legal separation in
Manila. In January 1986, the divorce in Germany was granted. The divorce was validly recognized here.
June 27, 1986 in Manila, Erich filed two complaints for adultery against Imelda one for an affair with a William Chia
beginning in 1982, and the other for an affair with Jesus/James Chua in 1983.
o Initially dismissed, the cases were each raffled to two different RTC branches: Imeldas and Chias to respondent
Judge Ibay-Someras branch, and Imeldas and Chuas to Judge Cruz.
Imelda and Chua filed petitions with the Secretary of Justice to have the cases dismissed. The SoJ, through the Chief
State Prosecutor, directed the respondent City Fiscal Luis Victor to defer proceedings if the accused were not yet
arraigned, and to elevate the records to his office for review. Pursuant to this, Imelda filed a motion in both cases to defer
her arraignment and suspend further proceedings.
Judge Cruz suspended proceedings, but Judge Ibay-Somera only reset the date of the arraignment. Imelda moved to
defer and suspend again, and to quash Judge Ibay-Someras order for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Ibay-Somera then denied
the motion, and ordered the arraignment of Imelda and Chua.
Chia pleaded not guilty, while Imelda refused to be arraigned. After being fined and detained for contempt, Imelda also
pleaded not guilty. Hence, this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a TRO, seeking to annul
164
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
165
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
166
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
167
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
168
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
169
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
170
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
MC Art. 186 (2) A marriage contracted by a Muslim male prior to the
effectivity of this Code in accordance with non-Muslim law shall be
considered as one contracted under Muslim law provided the spouses
register their mutual desire to this effect.
171
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
MC Art. 13 (1) provides that the code applies to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are Muslims, or wherein
only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any
part of the Philippines.
BUT SC already ruled in Tamano v Ortiz (complaint of Llave against the jurisdiction of RTC in the instant case) that
Article 13 of MC does not provide for a situation where the parties were married both in civil and Muslim rites.
Therefore, MC cannot apply to the first marriage since it was celebrated under both civil and Muslim rites; and that
Zorayda and Tamano did not register their mutual desire to have their marriage be covered under MC.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The law in effect at the time of the marriage is the law that governs the personal status of the spouses.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
172
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
173
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
174
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
175
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
176
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
177
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
178
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Case did not mention anything about legal separation. Im assuming this
is related to grounds for legal separation
[Art. 55 (8): Adultery] in relation to Art. 57: An action for legal separation
shall be filed within five years from the time of the occurrence of the
cause.
179
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
180
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
Petition for certiorari to annul a decision of Court of First Instance in declaring a decree of Legal Separation to Enrico
Pacete and Concepcion (Conchita) Analis & declaring marriage of Pacete and Clarita de la Concepcion null and void ab
initio
Oct. 29, 1979 Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the marriage between Pacete and Clarita, as well
as for the legal separation between her and Pacete and for the accounting and separation of property
Apr. 30, 1938 Pacete and Alanis married and had 1 child
1948 Pacete married Clarita de la Concepcion
Aug. 1, 1979 Alanis learned of the 2nd marriage
Alanis avers that during her marriage to Pacete, he acquired several properties (lands, fishponds, motor vehicles) which
he fraudulently placed in his name, Claritas, their childrens and other dummies
Pacete ignored her efforts for settlements and reconciliation is impossible since Pacete evidently preferred to continue
living with Clarita
Nov. 15, 1979 Pacete and Clarita were served with summons, they filed for extension 3 times
1. 20 days from Nov. 30, 1979 GRANTED!
2. 30 days from Dec. 20, 1979 GRANTED ONLY FOR 20 DAYS!
3. 15 days from expiration of 30 day period previously requested DENIED!
rd
3 extension was denied on ground that defendants filed after the original period given, as 2 nd extension had expired
Alanis filed a motion to declare the defendants in default GRANTED!
Mar. 17, 1980 the court declared the LegSep of Alanis and Pacetes marriage, and properties were declared as their
conjugal ownership, as well as declared the marriage of Pacete and Clarita as void
Hence, the petition
ISSUE(S):
WON Court of First Instance gravely abused its discretion in denying Pacete and Claritas motion for extension of time and
declaring them in default
HELD:
181
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
RATIO:
Under normal circumstances, petition would have been dismissed because the proper remedy was to appeal form judgment by
default or to file for a petition for relief from judgment. This rule is not inflexible, a petition for certiorari may be allowed when;
(1) default order is improperly declared, (2) even when properly declared, is attended by grave abuse of discretion.
The default order was not legally sanctioned, FC 58 and 60 mandates for the intervention of the state and to provide for a
cooling off period of 6 months before a decree of legal separation may be tried; court will also take steps to reconcile the
parties. Rule 18, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court also provides that if the defendants fail to answer, the court will investigate for
possible collusion.
Other remedies prayed for, will not excuse anyone from compliance with provisions mentioned/procedures
Petition is GRANTED!
Mar. 17, 1980 decision is NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE!
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
182
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
183
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
184
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Because of this, Remedios prayed for legal separation, the liquidation of the conjugal properties, and that
Sabalones is forfeited of his share because of his adultery. She also prayed to enjoin him from disturbing the
tenants in Forbes Park and from disposing any of the conjugal properties.
The lower court decreed the legal separation and the forfeiture of Sabalones share in the conjugal properties.
Sabalones appealed this decision. While the case was pending, Remedios filed a writ of preliminary injunction to
prevent Sabalones from interfering with the administration of their properties alleging that Sabalones was
harassing the tenants in Forbes Park.
The Court of Appeals granted the preliminary injunction.
Sabalones filed for petition for review of this order arguing FC Art. 124 provides that the administration and
enjoyment of the conjugal properties belong to both spouses jointly. Therefore, no injunctive relief can be issued
against him.
And that the court failed to appoint an administrator of the conjugal assets after the filing of the petition for legal
separation, as mandated by Art. 61.
ISSUE(S): WON the injunctive relief should be issued despite FC Art 124.
HELD: Yes. Petition denied. Injunction affirmed.
185
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
186
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Petitioner Teodoro Lerma and Respondent Concepcion Diaz are married.
August 22, 1969 Lerma filed a complaint for adultery against Diaz and a Teodoro Ramirez.
November 18, 1969 Diaz filed a complaint against Lerma for legal separation, with an urgent petition for support
pendente lite (PL) for her and the youngest son, who was in her custody; her grounds were concubinage and attempt
against her life.
In opposition to the PL, Lerma used the adultery charge against Diaz as his defense; but the judge granted the
application for PL, then modified it later, lowering the amount.
Lerma then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prelim. injunction to annul the grant of PL
because they were issued with GAD. The CA complied, and later granted Lerma the opportunity to present evidence (to
the lower court, not CA) in support of his defense against the application for PL.
Diaz moved to reconsider this decision because Lerma did not ask for permission to present evidence to the lower court.
The CA sided with her, and dismissed Lermas petition.
January 23, 1974 Lerma filed an urgent motion for prelim. injunction and/or restraining order because during the
pendency of Lermas appeal until Dec. 5, 1973, Diaz never sought enforcement of the orders granting PL, and only
sought enforcement now because Lerma filed a second adultery complaint against her. Diaz and Ramirez were convicted
of adultery (first case) by the CFI on Sept. 26, 1972, though it was then brought up to the CA.
Diaz argued that an order granting PL, though interlocutory, is immediately executed, even if appealed, unless enjoined.
ISSUE(S):
1. (Procedural) WON Petitioner should be allowed to present evidence of Diaz adultery in the lower court in support of his
defense.
2. (Substantive) WON adultery is a good defense against claims for support pendente lite.
HELD: Petition GRANTED.
RATIO:
1. Moot.
187
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
188
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
189
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
People v Schneckenburger
TOPIC: Defenses in actions for Legal Separation
consent (FC 56(2))
PONENTE:Locsin, J.
FACTS: (chronological order)
ISSUE(S):
WON Schneckenburger should be acquitted of the crime of concubinage in view of the agreement between him and Cartagera
HELD:
YES! Agreement serves as consent, so Schneckenburger should be acquitted!
RATIO:
190
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
191
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
192
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
193
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
Recrimination the accuser is as guilty as the accused.
194
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
She merely obtained his permission to bring them to Manila, for the purpose of attending the funeral of their maternal
grandfather. She obtained and has the physical possession of the minors in a precarious manner. He may, therefore,
demand their return at any time, and she is bound to comply immediately with such demand.
Again, it is conceded that children over ten (10) years of age, whose parents are divorced or living separately, may
choose which parent they prefer to live with, unless the parent chosen is unfit to take charge of their care by reason of
moral depravity, habitual drunkenness, incapacity or poverty (Rule 100, section 6, Rules of Court).
The fact remains that she is without means of livelihood and, according to her own admission, she lives on the charity of
her brothers. She has no home of her own to offer to her children, but only she would shelter them under the roof of her
195
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
196
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
197
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
198
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
199
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Erlinda Kalaw and Atty. Potenciano Ilusorio (Atty. P) (Chairman and Pres. Of Baguio Country Club) were married and lived
together for 30 years, after which they separated in fact for undisclosed reasons. Erlinda lived in Antipolo, while Atty. P
lived in different, high-end places.
They had six children, incl. Erlinda Bildner (Bildner) and Sylvia Ilusorio-Yap.
Once, after arriving from the US, Atty. P lived with Erlinda for 5 mos. In Antipolo. Sylvia and Bildner alleged that, during
this time, Erlinda gave Atty. P an overdose of Zoloft, which caused deterioration in his health. Erlinda then filed a petition
for guardianship over Atty. P due to his deteriorated state.
Later, after coming from a meeting in Baguio, Atty. P did not return to Antipolo but lived at Cleveland Condominium,
Makati. It was because of this that Erlinda filed a petition with the CA for habeas corpus to have custody of Atty. P,
alleging that Bildner and Sylvia refused her demands to visit him, and prevented him from visiting her.
The CA rendered a two-part decision:
o That Bildner, Sylvia, the staff of Cleveland Condos, etc., allow Erlinda to visit Atty. P for humanitarian
consideration. (Hence, Atty. P and his daughters petition to nullify this, and enjoin enforcement of visitation)
o Recalling the previous issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, and dismissing it entirely. (Hence, Erlindas petition
to reverse the CAs dismissal of the application for the writ)
ISSUE(S): (#2 may be subsumed under #1)
3. WON Erlinda may secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel Atty. Potenciano to live with her.
4. WON Erlinda should be granted visitation rights.
HELD: No to both. Erlindas petition DISMISSED; Atty. Potencianos petition GRANTED.
RATIO:
1. No, she may not.
A writ of habeas corpus is only a remedy in cases of involuntary and illegal restraint that must be actual and
effective, not nominal or moral. It extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, or by which the rightful
custody of a person is withheld from the one entitled to that custody.
In this case, Atty. P was able to prove that he was capacitated and still mentally able, despite being 86 years old,
meaning it was his full and free choice to live away from Erlinda. In addition, he never asked the condominium to
200
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
201
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
202
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
203
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
204
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
205
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
AUTHOR: PARIAN
NOTES: (if applicable)
206
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
207
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
FACTS:
Private respondent Irish Sagud and petitioner Rustan Ang were classmates in college and became on-off sweethearts
towards the end of 2004. When Irish later learned that Rustan had a live-in partner (current wife) whom he impregnated,
she broke up with him.
Before getting married to wifey, Rustan tried to convince Irish to elope with him, saying that he did not love wifey. Irish
told him to take responsibility, and changed her number, but Rustan found it somehow. He would text her, but she would
ask him to leave her alone.
Rustan then sent Irish an MMS picture of a naked woman with spread legs with Irishs face superimposed on it. He
threatened that he could easily make more, similar pictures, and spread it on chatrum in Tarlac.
Irish went to the vice mayor (why?!) and was referred to the police. They began an entrapment operation, and Rustan
was caught, and his cell phone and SIM cards were taken. While being questioned at the police station, Rustan
shouted at Irish, Malandi ka kasi!
Rustan presented an alternate version of the facts, which included the allegation that Irish asked to meet him to get his
help in identifying a prankster, among other things. He pretended to be Irish and contacted the prankster through his cell
phone, but the prankster sent the lewd photos, which Rustan then forwarded to Irish (hence, the photos coming from his
number).
The RTC found Irishs testimony completely credible because it was spontaneous and because she cried (Seriously. They
cited the crying as proof of credibility, complete with an explanation why they did.), and found Rustan guilty of violating
5(h) of R.A. 9262 (Anti-VAWC). The CA affirmed this decision.
ISSUE(S):
WON Rustan sent Irish the photos, which caused anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her, in violation of
5(h) of R.A. 9262.
HELD: Yes he did. Petition DENIED; CA decision AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
The elements of the crime are present:
o Rustan and Irish had a sexual or dating relationship (3(e) and (f))
o One act of sending an offensive picture is an act or series of acts that constitutes violence. (3(a))
208
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
209
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
210
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
211
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2
212
Magsino Padrones Parian Ocampo Rayos Del Sol Villaseor
1/2