Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
MARRIAGE:
P a g e | 1 of 6
FACTS:
Jennifer Cagandahan alleged that she was born on
January 13, 1981, registered as a female in the
Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up
developed secondary male characteristics and
eventually diagnosed with Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia (CAH). On December 11, 2003,
respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in
Birth Certificate before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan,
Laguna.
Respondent alleges that she had clitoral hypertrophy in
her early years, at age six, after an ultrasound, it was
discovered that she had small ovaries but at 13 years
old, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had
diminished, stopped growing and had no breast or
menses. For al intents and purposes, as well as in
disposition, considered herself male. To prove her claim,
respondent presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of the
Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH, who issued a medical
certificate stating that respondent, is genetically female
but her body secretes male hormones, has two organs of
which the female part is undeveloped.
RTC granted respondents petition.
ISSUE: Can a genetically female but predominantly
male person request for change of name and gender?
REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE:
Silverio v. Republic
P a g e | 2 of 6
Perido v.Perido,
63 SCRA 97
FACTS:
Lucio Perido married twice during his lifetime. His first
wife was Benita Talorong,. After Benita died Lucio
married
Marcelina
Baliguat.
The
children
and
grandchildren of the first and second marriages of Lucio
Perido
executed
a
document
denominated
as
"Declaration of Heirship and Extra-judicial Partition,"
The heirs from the first marriage opposed the
declaration of the CA that Lucios children in the 2 nd
marriage are his legitimate chiidren.
The first issue pertains to the legitimacy of the five
children of Lucio Perido with Marcelina Baliguat. The
petitioners insist that said children were illegitimate on
the theory that the first three were born out of wedlock
even before the death of Lucio Perido's first wife, while
the last two were also born out of wedlock and were not
recognized by their parents before or after their
marriage. In support of their contention they allege that
Benita Talorong died in 1905, after the first three
P a g e | 3 of 6
MARRIAGE LICENSE:
RENE RONULO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014.
BRION, J.:
P a g e | 4 of 6
P a g e | 5 of 6
Republic v. Dayot
CONSENT:
Facts:
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and
Albios were married before Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch59, Mandaluyong City
(MeTC), as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage with
Register No. 2004-1588. On December 6, 2006, Albios
filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of
her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that immediately
after their marriage, they separated and never lived as
husband and wife because they never really had any
intention of entering into a married state or complying
or
not
Domagtoy
acted
without
HELD:
Domagtoys defense is untenable and he did display
gross ignorance of the law. Tagadan did not institute a
summary proceeding for the declaration of his first
wifes presumptive death rendering his marriage to his
first wife subsisting. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, it
was manifest error on the part of Domagtoy to have
accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom.
Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a
bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. On the second
issue, the request to hold the wedding outside
Domagtoys jurisdiction was only done by one party, the
bride NOT by both parties. More importantly, under Art 7
of FC, marriage may be solemnized by, any incumbent
member of the judiciary within the courts jurisdiction.
Article 8, which is a directory provision, refers only to the
venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or
qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as
provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance
herewith will not invalidate the marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 3 minor children be legally adopted
without the written consent of a natural parent on the
ground that Herbert has abandoned them.
RULING:
Yes.
Article 188 amended the statutory provision on consent
for adoption, the written consent of the natural parent to
the adoption has remained a requisite for its validity.
Rule 99 of the Rules of the Court requires a written
consent to the adoption signed by the child, xxx and by
each of its known living parents who is not insane or
hopelessly intemperate or has not abandoned the child.
Article 256 of the Family Code requires the written
consent of the natural parent for the decree of adoption
to be valid unless the parent has abandoned the child or
that the parent is "insane or hopelessly intemperate."
In reference to abandonment of a child by his parent,
the act of abandonment imports "any conduct of the
parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all
parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the
child." It means "neglect or refusal to perform the
natural and legal obligations of care and support which
parents owe their children."
In this case, however, Herbert did not manifest any
conduct that would forego his parental duties and
relinquish all parental claims over his children as to,
constitute abandonment. Physical abandonment alone,
without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount
to abandonment. While Herbert was physically absent,
he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of
love, care and support for his children. The Court find
pieces of documentary evidence that he maintained
regular communications with his wife and children
through letters and telephone, and send them packages
catered to their whims.
HERBERT CANG VS CA
FACTS:
Orbecido and Villanueva were married ad had two
children. Wife went to US to work and later became a US
citizen. Thereafter he learned from his son that his wife
obtained divorce and married another man. Orbecido
filed a petition for authority to remarry under the Article
26 (2) of the Family Code. RTC Zamboanga del Sur
granted his petition. The SolGen's motion for
reconsideration was denied. Orbecido filed a petition for
review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26
(2).
RULING:
Yes. Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include
cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but
Bayot vs. CA
P a g e | 9 of 6
Facts
Corpuz was a former Filipino who acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization
He married Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City
Corpuz went to Canada for work and when he returned
to the Philippines he found out that his wife was having
an affair with another man
He filed a petition for divorce in Canada and the same
was granted
After two years from the effectivity of the divorce
decree, Corpuz found a new Filipina to love
Corpuz went to the Pasig Civil Registry Office and
registered the divorce decree on his and Sto. Tomas'
marriage certificate
Corpuz filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign
divorce before the RTC
RTC denied his petition, it ruled that only the Filipino
spouse can avail of the remedy under Art. 26(2) of the
Family Code
Issue
W/N Art. 26(2) of the Family Code extends to aliens the
right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the
recognition of a foreign divorce decree
Ruling
The alien spouse can claim no right under Art. 26(2) of
the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is
in favor of the Filipino spouse
The legislative intent behind Art 26(2) is to avoid
the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse
remains married to the alien spouse who, after
obtaining a divorce is no longer married to the
Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is for the
benefit of the Filipino spouse by clarifying his or her
marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce
decree
Art. 17 of the New Civil Code provides that the
policy against absolute divorces cannot be
subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign
country. The inclusion of Art. 26(2) of the Family Code
provides the direct exception to the rule and serves as
basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage
between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse
An action based on Art. 26(2) is not limited to the
recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court
finds that the decree capacitated the aliens spouse to
Facts:
In 2001, Edelina Tungul married a Japanese citizen
named Yuichiro Kobayashi. In 2004, Kobayashi obtained
a divorce decree against Edelina in Japan. Kobayashi
later married someone else.
In 2005, Edelina again married another Japanese citizen
named Masatomi Ando.
Thereafter, Edelina tried to renew her passport but this
time she wanted to use her married name she wanted
to use Andos name. However, the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) told her that same cannot be
issued to her until she can prove by competent court
decision that her marriage with her said husband
Masatomi Ando is valid until otherwise declared.
In 2010, Edelina filed a petition for declaratory relief as
she insists that she should be issued a passport bearing
her married name even without a judicial declaration
that her marriage with Ando is valid because, according
to the law, void and voidable marriages enjoy the
presumption of validity until proven otherwise. And also
on that juncture, she prayed that the court recognize her
second marriage as valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for declaratory relief
should prosper.
P a g e | 10 of 6
P a g e | 11 of 6