BUCCAT V.

BUCCAT
A. FACTS:
The husband petitioned for the annulment of marriage on the ground of
fraudulent consent. Buccats wife had already been seven months pregnant
when they contracted the marriage.
B. ISSUE:
W/N fraudulent consent can be appreciated to annul a marriage when petitioner
married a woman who was already seven months pregnant
C. HELD:
NO. When the husband at the time of the marriage knew that the wife was
pregnant, the marriage, fraudulent consent cannot be appreciated. Here, the
child was born less than 3 months after the celebration of the marriage. The
Court refuse to annul the marriage for the reason that the woman was at an
advance stage of pregnancy at the time of the marriage and such condition must
have been patent to the husband.

AQUINO V. DELIZO
A. FACTS:
Petitioner Fernando Aquino and respondent Conchita Delizo were married on
December 27, 1054. Four months after, respondent gave birth to a child who
petitioner denies to be his. On September 6, 1955, petitioner filed a petition to
annul the marriage on the ground of fraudulent consent.
B. ISSUE:
W/N the concealment of the four months pregnancy prior to the celebration of the
marriage can be appreciated for annulment?
C. HELD:
YES. Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more than four months
pregnant at the time of her marriage to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not
prepared to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially since she
was naturally plump or fat as alleged by the plaintiff. According to medical
authorities, it is only on the sixth month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the
womans abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness
of the abdomen more general and apparent.

TUASON V. CA
A. FACTS:
Respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason was married to petitioner Emilio R.
Tuason on June 3, 1972. In 1989, respondent filed a petition for annulment or
declaration of nullity of her marriage with petitioner on the grounds that the latter
used prohibited drugs, cohabited with three women in succession, gave minimal
support to the family and abused his administration of the conjugal partnership.
Two hearings were held in which petitioner failed to appear. The trial court
rendered judgment in favor of the respondent. Petitioner justifies his absence on
the ground that he was then confined for medical and/or medical reasons.
Moreover, petitioner appeals invoking Art. 48 of the Family Code in collusion.
B. ISSUE:
W/N the petitioner was denied due process?
C. HELD:
NO. The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is to determined whether
collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not
suppressed or fabricated. Petitioners vehement opposition to the annulment
proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties.
Under these circumstances, the Court was convinced that the non-intervention of
a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties
is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court.

CORPUS V. ORCHOTORENA
A. FACTS:
Margie Corpus-Macia filed a complaint accusing Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotrena of
the RTC of Zamboanga of bias, partiality and violation of judicial conduct in
connection with his disposition of a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage
between the former and Mariano Joaquin S. Macias. Margie alleged that instead
of resolving the Motion to Dismiss filed by her within the 30-day reglementary
period , respondent judge completely ignored it and proceeded with the trial on
the merits of the case by receiving Mr. Macias evidence ex parte, ordered the
termination of the trial and thereafter considered the case submitted for decision
despite Mrs. Macias filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.
B. ISSUE:
W/N the decision by respondent judge is valid?
C. HELD:
NO. Sec. 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states: If the defending
party in an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage or for legal
separation fails to answer, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to
investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties exists, and if there is
no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the evidence
submitted is not fabricated. Thus, the report of the Public Prosecutor is a
condition sine qua non for further proceedings to go in the case. Respondent
judge ignored this rule.

REPUBLIC V. IYOY
A. FACTS:
Respondent Crasus married Fely on December 16, 1951 in Cebu City,
Philippines. The marriage thereafter was blessed with five children. Fely left the
Philippines for the United States of America in 1984 and barely year after, her
husband received a letter requesting that he sign the enclosed divorce papers.
Crasus ignored Felys request. Sometime in 1985, Crasus learned that Fely
married an American, with whom she eventually had a child. It had been 13
years since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus and apparently, there
was no more possibility of reconciliation between them. Fely filed her Answer and
Counterclaim asserting that she was already an American citizen and was now
married to Stephen Micklus.
Crasus filed a complaint alleging that Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to
the family and clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity. He petitioned
for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Fely under Art. 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.
B. ISSUE:
W/N Fely obtained a valid divorce from Crasus making her subsequent marriage
with Stephen Micklus valid?
C. HELD:
NO. By a plain and literal interpretation of Art. 26, Par. 26 of the Civil Code, the
said provision cannot be applied to the case of Crasus and his wife Fely because
at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. In the
Answer by her, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At
1985, when she filed her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen bound by
Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity,
even when she was living abroad. Philippine laws do not recognize divorce
between Filipino spuses. The Court sustains the validity and existence of the
marriage between Crasus and Fely. Consequently, Felys have not validly
contracted a marriage with Stephen Micklus under Philippine law.

CERVANTES V. FAJARDO
A. FACTS:
Minor Angelie Anne Cervantes was born to respondents Conrado Fajardo and
Gina Carreon. When the minor was barely 2-weeks old, an Affidavit of Consent
to the adoption of the child was executed to petitioner spouses Zenaida CarreonCervantes and Nelson Cervantes. Sometime in 1987, the adoptive parents
received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid the amount of
P150,000, otherwise, they would get back their child. Petitioner pouses Zenaida
Carreon-Cervantes and Nelson Cervantes filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus over the person of the minor.
B. ISSUE:
W/N the adoptive parents should be granted the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus?
C. HELD:
YES. The provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five
years of age, will not apply where the Court finds compelling reasons to rule
otherwise. Petitioners, who are legally married appear to be morally, physically
and financially, and socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a
future better than what the natural mother, who is not only jobless but also
maintains an illicit relationship with a married man, can most likely give her.
Moreover, with the decree of adoption, the adoptive parents have the right to the
care and custody of the adopted child and exercise parental authority and
responsibility over her.

ESPIRITU V. CA
A. FACTS:
Petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and respondent Teresita Masauding bore a daughter
named Rosalind, thereafter married each other and bore another offspring
named Reginald. Both children are now over seven years of age. The
relationship of the couple deteriorated until they decided to separate sometime in
1990. Teresita left Reynaldo and went back to California. Reynaldo brought his
children to the Philippines, but because his assignment in Pittsburgh was not yet
completed, he was sent back by his company to Pittsburgh. Teresita claims that
she did not immediately follow her children because Reynaldo filed a bigamy
case against her. Meanwhile, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to
gain custody over the children.
B. ISSUE:
W/N the custody of children seven years of age shall automatically be given to
the mother?
C. HELD:
NO. Whether a child is under or below seven years of age, the paramount
criterion must always be the childs interest. Discretion is given to the court to
decide who can best assure the welfare of the child, and award the custody on
the basis of that consideration. The Court found that Rosalind felt unloved and
uncared for by the mother. The child was found suffering from emotional shock
caused by her mothers infidelity. The childrens interest would be better served
in an environment characterized by emotional stability and a certain degree of
material sufficiency. There is nothing in records to show that Reynaldo is an
unfit person.

MANGONON V. CA
A. FACTS:
Petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then minor children Rica
and Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support with the Makati
RTC. It was alleged that petitioner and respondent Federico Delgado were civilly
married on February 16, 1975. At that time, petitioner was only 21 years old while
respondent was only 19 years old. As the marriage was solemnized without the
required consent, it was annulled on August 11, 1975. Seven months after the
annulment, petitioner gave birth to twins Rica and Rina. At the time of the
institution of the petition, Rica and Rina were about to enter college in the USA,
hence the petition for support. Meanwhile, respondents stated that as the birth
certificates of the twins do not bear the signature of Federico, it is essential that
their legitimacy be first established and even assuming that he is responsible for
support, respondent contends that he could not be made to answer beyond what
petitioner and the father could not afford.
B. ISSUE:
W/N respondents are obliged to give financial support to the twins?
C. HELD:
YES. The Court was exhibited letters of which the father of the respondent
address the twins as Rica and Rina Delgado. Likewise, the father referred to
himseld as either Lolo Paco or Daddy Paco. On top of this, respondent even
gave the twins a treat to Hong Kong during their visit to the Philippines. Indeed,
respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt that the twins are the
children of Federico. In view however of Federicos incapacities, the obligation to
furnish said support should be borne by Francisco, Federicos father. Under Art.
199 of the Family Code, respondent Francisco, as the next immediate relative of
Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in default of their
parents. Moreover, Francisco insists that the twins should move here to the
Philippines to study in any of the local universities as he has the option under the
law as to how he could perform his obligation to support the them. This option
however cannot be availed of in case there are circumstances, legal or mral,
which should be considered. The Court could not see Rica and Rina moving
back here in the Philippines in the company of those who have disowned them.