Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967 The appellee contends that the law of
California should determine the nature
FACTS: and extent of the title, if any, that was
vested in Eva Johnson Gibbs citing article
Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the
Texas. He left two wills -- one devising a nature and extent of her title under said
certain amount of money to his first wife and certificates be governed by the law of the
three illegitimate children and another, leaving Philippine Islands, the laws of California
the rest of his estate to his seven legitimate govern the succession to such title, citing
children. Before partition, the illegitimate the second paragraph of article 10 of the
children who are Filipinos opposed on the Civil Code. It is argued that the conjugal right
ground that they are deprived of their of the California wife in community real estate
legitimes. in the Philippine Islands is a personal right and
must, therefore, be settled by the law
ISSUE: Whether the applicable law is Texas law
governing her personal status, that is, the law
or Philippine laws
of California. But our attention has not been
HELD: called to any law of California that
incapacitates a married woman from acquiring
Applying the nationality rule, the law of Texas or holding land in a foreign jurisdiction in
should govern the intrinsic validity of the will accordance with the lex rei sitae.
and therefore answer the question on
entitlement to legitimes. But since the law of The trial court found that under the law of
Texas was never proven, the doctrine of California, upon the death of the wife, the
processual presumption was applied. entire community property without
Hence, SC assumed that Texas law is the administration belongs to the surviving
same as Philippine laws, which upholds husband; that he is the absolute owner of
the nationality rule. all the community property from the
moment of the death of his wife, not by
Jose B. Suntay died intestate leaving properties The fact that the municipal district court
in the Philippines and a house in China. He is of Amoy, China, is a probate court must
survived by children from the 1st marriage and be proved. The law of China on procedure in
a child and his widow from the 2nd. Intestate the probate or allowance of wills must also be
proceedings were instituted. Thereafter the proved. The legal requirements for the
widow filed a petition for a probate of a will but execution of a valid will in China in 1931 should
was later denied when the will was lost after also be established by competent evidence.
the filing of said petition. On appeal, the There is no proof on these points.
petition was granted since there was
sufficiency to prove the loss of the will. In spite The unverified answers to the questions
of the fact that a commission from the probate propounded by counsel for the appellant
court was issued on 24 April 1937 for the to the Consul General of the Republic of
taking of the deposition of Go Toh, an attesting China objected to by counsel for the
witness to the will, on 7 February 1938 the appellee, are inadmissible, because apart
probate court denied a motion for continuance from the fact that the office of Consul
of the hearing sent by cablegram from China General does not qualify and make the
by the surviving widow and dismissed the person who holds it an expert on the
petition. In the meantime the Pacific War Chinese law on procedure in probate
supervened. After liberation, Silvino claimed to matters, if the same be admitted, the
have found a will by his father which was filed, adverse party would be deprived of his
recorded and probated in the Amoy district right to confront and cross-examine the
court, Province of Fookien, China and thus filed witness. Consuls are appointed to attend to
a petition in the intestate proceedings praying trade matters.
for the probate of the will.
The order of the municipal district court
Issue: of Amoy, China, does not purport to
probate or allow the will which was the
May a will filed, recorded, and probated in subject of the proceedings. In view thereof,
China be reprobated in the Philippines? the will and the alleged probate thereof cannot
be said to have been done in accordance with
the accepted basic and fundamental concepts
Held: and principles followed in the probate and
allowance of wills. Consequently, the
As to the will claimed to have been executed authenticated transcript of proceedings held in
on 4 January 1931 in Amoy, China, the law on the municipal district court of Amoy, China,
the point in Rule 78. cannot be deemed and accepted as
Likewise, the proceedings had in the Emil Johnson was a citizen of the State of
municipal district court of Amoy were for Illinois. In the absence of clear proof to the
the purpose of taking the testimony of contrary it should be presumed that a person
two attesting witnesses to the will and
naturalized in a court of a certain State thereby
that the order of the municipal district
court of Amoy does not purport to becomes a citizen of that State as well as of
probate the will. In the absence of proof that the United States.
the municipal district court of Amoy is a
probate court and on the Chinese law of In Section 625 of the Code of Civil
procedure in probate matters, it may be Procedure it is declared that "the
presumed that the proceedings in the matter of allowance by the court of a will of real or
probating or allowing a will in the Chinese personal property shall be conclusive as
courts are the a deposition or to a perpetuation to its due execution."
of testimony, and even if it were so it does not
measure same as those provided for in our
The due execution of a will involves conditions
laws on the subject. It is a proceedings in
relating to a number of matters, such as the
rem and for the validity of such
age and mental capacity of the testator, the
proceedings personal notice or by
signing of the document by the testator, or by
publication or both to all interested
someone in his behalf, and the
parties must be made. The interested
acknowledgment of the instrument by him in
parties in the case were known to reside
the presence of the required number of
in the Philippines. The evidence shows
witnesses who affix their signatures to the will
that no such notice was received by the
to attest the act. The proof of all these
interested parties residing in the
requisites is involved in the probate; and
Philippines. The proceedings had in the
as to each and all of them the probate is
municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be
conclusive. Our reported cases do not contain
likened to or come up to the standard of such
the slightest intimation that a will which has
proceedings in the Philippines for lack of notice
been probated according to law, and without
to all interested parties and the proceedings
fraud, can be annulled, in any other proceeding
were held at the back of such interested
whatever, on account of any supposed
parties.
irregularity or defect in the execution of the will
or on account of any error in the action of the
The decree appealed from is affirmed, without court upon the proof adduced before it.
pronouncement as to costs.
We are not unmindful of the fact that when a
In re: Johnson citizen of one State leaves it and takes up his
abode in another State with no intention of
Emil H. Johnson, a native of Sweden and a returning, he immediately acquires citizenship
naturalized citizen of the United States, died in in the State of his new domicile. This is in
the city of Manila, leaving a holographic will accordance with that provision of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
and is signed by himself and two witnesses
the United States which says that every citizen
only, instead of three witnesses required by of the United States is a citizen of the State
section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. where in he resides. The effect of this
However, a petition was presented in the Court provision necessarily is that a person
of First Instance of the city of Manila for the transferring his domicile from one State
probate of this will, on the ground that Johnson to another loses his citizenship in the
State of his original above upon acquiring
was at the time of his death a citizen of the
citizenship in the State of his new abode.
State of Illinois, United States of America; that The acquisition of the new State citizenship
the will was duly executed in accordance with extinguishes the old. That situation, in our
the laws of that State; and hence could opinion, has no analogy to that which
properly be probated here. Petitioner contends arises when a citizen of an American
that the decedent is not a citizen of Illinois and State comes to reside in the Philippine
prays to annul the decree of probate and put Islands. Here he cannot acquire a new
citizenship; nor by the mere change of
the estate into intestate administration, thus
domicile does he lose that which he
preparing the way for the establishment of the brought with him.
claim of the petitioner as the sole legitimate
heir of her father. Proper rule in taking judicial notice: The
proper rule is to require proof of the statutes of
Issue: the States of the American Union whenever
their provisions are determinative of the issues
Whether or not judgment from which the in any action litigated in the Philippine courts.
petitioner seeks relief should be set aside
because the testator was not a resident of the Collector vs. Fisher
Facts:
• Custom is defined as “a rule of
conduct formed by repetition of acts,
uniformly observed (practiced) as a On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III
social rule, legally binding and married Lady Myros M. Villanueva in the
obligatory.” The law requires that “a Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their
custom must be proved as a fact, marriage was blessed with a son and a
according to the rules of evidence. daughter.
[Article 12, Civil Code] On this score the
Court had occasion to state that “a local In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United
custom as a source of right cannot be States bringing along their son
considered by a court of justice unless such Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano
custom is properly established by discovered that his wife had been naturalized
competent evidence like any other fact. as an American citizen.
The same evidence, if not one of a higher
degree, should be required of a foreign Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his
custom. son that his wife had obtained a divorce
• Construing this provision of law the Court decree and then married a certain Innocent
has held that to establish a valid foreign Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him
marriage two things must be proven, currently live in San Gabriel, California.
namely 1) the existence of the foreign
law as a question of fact; and 2) the Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial
alleged foreign marriage by court a petition for authority to remarry
convincing evidence. invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the
• In the case at bar petitioners did not Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding
present any competent evidence merit in the petition, the court granted the
relative to the law and custom of same. The Republic, herein petitioner,
China on marriage. The testimonies of through the Office of the Solicitor General
Yao and Gan Ching (brother) cannot be (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was
considered as proof of China’s law or denied.
Art. 34. Mutual rights and obligations. RECTO VS. HARDEN (supra)
—
FACTS: Facts:
Jose Corominas, Jr. and Sonia Lizares were • Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen
married in Iloilo on January 5, 1935. On of the Philippines while private respondent
November 29,1954, a decree of divorce was Richard Upton is a US citizen; they were
granted by the Court of the State of Nevada married in Hong Kong in 1972; after the
dissolving the bonds of matrimony between marriage, they established their residence
Sonia Lizares and Jose Corominas, Jr. . . . in the Philippines and begot 2 children;
Alicia filed for divorce in Nevada; the
Trinidad Teodoro met Jose Corominas, Jr. in parties were divorced in Nevada, US, in
Hongkong on October 30, 1955. . . . On March 1982; and petitioner has remarried also in
26, 1956, they went through a Buddhist Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
wedding ceremony in Hongkong. Upon their • On June 18, 1983 Upton filed a suit against
return to the Philippines they took up residence petitioner in the RTC-Pasay, stating that
in a rented house at No. 2305 Agno Street . . . petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila (the
Manila. On September 5, 1961, plaintiff and Galleon Shop), is conjugal property and
Jose Corominas, Jr. were married for a second asking that petitioner be ordered to render
time on Washoe County, Nevada. U.S.A. an accounting of that business, and that
Upton be declared as having the right to
Additional Pertinent facts, also mentioned in manage the conjugal property.
the decision under review and controverted by
the parties, are that Sonia Lizares is still living Held:
and that the conjugal partnership formed by
her marriage to Corominas was dissolved by
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of • Owing to the nationality principle
Manila upon their joint petition, the decree of embodied in Art. 13, NCC, only
dissolution having been issued on October 21, Philippine nationals are covered by
1957. Trinidad questioned the levy on the the policy against absolute divorce
property since the property in question was her the same being considered contrary to
paraphernal property. our concept of public policy and
morality. However, aliens may obtain
divorce abroad, which may be recognized
ISSUE:
in the Philippines provided they are valid
according to their national law.
Whether or not the properties in question are • In this case, the divorce in Nevada
conjugal? released private respondents from the
marriage from the standards of
RULING: American law, under which divorce
dissolves the marriage.
There is no doubt that the decree of • Court said that “Ours is not only a court
divorce granted by the Court of Nevada in of law but also a court of equity.” The
1954 is not valid under Philippine law, Court could not turn its back on its citizen
which has outlawed divorce altogether; when the foreign national itself benefited
that the matrimonial bonds between Jose from such divorce decree;
Corominas, Jr. and Sonia Lizares have not been
dissolved, although their conjugal partnership • Thus, pursuant to his national law,
was terminated in 1957; and that the former's Upton is no longer the husband of
subsequent marriage in Hongkong to Trinidad petitioner. He would have no standing to
Teodoro is bigamous and void. sue in the case below as petitioner's
husband who is entitled to exercise control
In the present case, however, we find no need over conjugal assets.
to pass on this question. The particular • To maintain, as Upton does, that under our
properties involved here which were admittedly laws, petitioner has to be considered still
acquired by respondent Teodoro, cannot be married to him and still subject to a wife's
deemed to belong to such co-ownership obligations under the NCC cannot be just.
because, as found by the trial court and Petitioner should not be obliged to live
confirmed by the Court of Appeals, the funds together with, observe respect and fidelity,
used in acquiring said properties were and render support to private respondent.
fruits of respondent's paraphernal The latter should not continue to be one of
investments which accrued before her her heirs w/ possible rights to conjugal
"marriage" to Corominas. In other words properties. She should not be discriminated
they were not acquired by either or both of the against in her own country if the ends of
partners in the void marriage through their justice are to be observed.
work or industry or their wages and salaries,
and hence cannot be the subject of co-
ownership under Article 144. They remain
respondent's exclusive properties, beyond the PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA
First, there is no such thing as one American Whether respondent was proven to be legally
law. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 capacitated to marry petitioner;
of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to
general American law. There is no such law Held:
governing the validity of testamentary
provisions in the United States. Each State of A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be
the union has its own law applicable to its recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such
citizens and in force only within the State. It decree is valid according to the national law of
can therefore refer to no other than the law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree
the State of which the decedent was a and the governing personal law of the
resident. Second, there is no showing that alien spouse who obtained the divorce
the application of the renvoi doctrine is must be proven. Our courts do not take
called for or required by New York State judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment;
law. hence, like any other facts, both the divorce
decree and the national law of the alien must
be alleged and proven according to our law on
“However, intestate and testamentary evidence.
succession, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional Was the first divorce validly obtained and
rights and to the intrinsic validity of binding?
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated
by the national law of the person whose At the outset, the Court lays the following basic
succession is under consideration, legal principles; Philippine law does not provide
whatever may be the nature of the property for absolute divorce; hence, Philippine courts
and regardless of the country wherein said cannot grant it. A marriage between two
property may be found.” (emphasis ours) Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce
obtained abroad, because of Articles 1522 and
1723 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages
Likewise, Lorenzo Llorente was already an involving a Filipino and a foreigner,
American citizen when he divorced Paula. Article 26 of the Family Code allows the
Such was also the situation when he married former to contract a subsequent marriage
Alicia and executed his will. As stated in in case the divorce is "validly obtained
Article 15 of the civil code, aliens may abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
obtain divorces abroad, provided that him or her to remarry." A divorce obtained
they are valid in their National Law. Thus abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may
the divorce obtained by Llorente is valid be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is
because the law that governs him is not consistent with their respective national laws.
Philippine Law but his National Law since the
divorce was contracted after he became an Before a foreign divorce decree can be
American citizen. Furthermore, his National recognized by our courts, the party
Law allowed divorce. pleading it must prove the divorce as a
fact and demonstrate its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it. Presentation
The case was remanded to the court of origin solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. In
for determination of the intrinsic validity of the case at bar, Respondent only presented the
Lorenzo Llorente’s will and determination of divorce decree;
the parties’ successional rights allowing proof
of foreign law. Likewise, before a foreign judgment is
given presumptive evidentiary value, the
GARCIA V. RECIO document must first be presented and
October 2, 2001 admitted in evidence. A divorce obtained
abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself.
• Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the
Editha Samson, an Australian in Malabon judgment itself. The decree purports to be a
Rizal. However, on 1989, they got divorced written act or record of an act of an officially
in an Australian family court. body or tribunal of a foreign country.
• On 1992, Rederick became an
However, under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule
Australian Citizen. He later married
132, a writing or document may be proven as a
Petitioner in 1994 in Cabanatuan City.
public or official record of a foreign country by
• Thereafter, the two separated and either (1) an official publication or (2) a
petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration copy thereof attested by the officer
of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of having legal custody of the document. If
bigamy. the record is not kept in the Philippines,
• While the suit was pending, Rederick such copy must be (a) accompanied by a
was able to obtain a divorce decree in certificate issued by the proper
Australia. Trial Court declared the marriage diplomatic or consular officer in the
dissolved based on the subsequent divorce Philippine Foreign Service stationed in
decree obtained by the respondent. the foreign country in which the record is
Issues:
Held: TITLE II
LEGAL SEPARATION
Taking into consideration the legislative intent
and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be filed on any of the following grounds:
interpreted to include cases involving (1) Repeated physical violence or
parties who, at the time of the grossly abusive conduct directed
celebration of the marriage were Filipino against the petitioner, a common child,
citizens, but later on, one of them becomes or a child of the petitioner;
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
likewise be allowed to remarry as if the (2) Physical violence or moral pressure
other party were a foreigner at the time to compel the petitioner to change
of the solemnization of the marriage. To religious or political affiliation;
rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity
and injustice. Where the interpretation of a (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or
statute according to its exact and literal import induce the petitioner, a common child,
would lead to mischievous results or or a child of the petitioner, to engage in
contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, prostitution, or connivance in such
it should be construed according to its spirit corruption or inducement;
and reason, disregarding as far as necessary
the letter of the law. A statute may therefore (4) Final judgment sentencing the
be extended to cases not within the literal respondent to imprisonment of more
meaning of its terms, so long as they come than six years, even if pardoned;
within its spirit or intent.
(5) Drug addiction or habitual
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin alcoholism of the respondent;
elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of
Article 26 as follows:
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the
respondent;
3. There is a valid marriage that has
been celebrated between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner; and (7) Contracting by the respondent of a
4. A valid divorce is obtained abroad subsequent bigamous marriage,
by the alien spouse capacitating whether in the Philippines or abroad;
him or her to remarry.
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
The reckoning point is not the citizenship
of the parties at the time of the (9) Attempt by the respondent against
celebration of the marriage, but their the life of the petitioner; or
citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse (10) Abandonment of petitioner by
capacitating the latter to remarry. respondent without justifiable cause for
more than one year.
5. Legal Separation
For purposes of this Article, the term "child"
Civil Code: shall include a child by nature or by adoption.
(9a)
Art. 97. A petition for legal
separation may be filed:
Art. 56. The petition for legal separation shall
1. For adultery on the part of be denied on any of the following grounds:
the wife and for
concubinage on the part of (1) Where the aggrieved party has
the husband as defined in condoned the offense or act
the Penal Code; or complained of;
(4) Where both parties have given (3) The custody of the minor children
ground for legal separation; shall be awarded to the innocent
spouse, subject to the provisions of
(5) Where there is collusion between Article 213 of this Code; and
the parties to obtain decree of legal
separation; or (4) The offending spouse shall be
disqualified from inheriting from the
(6) Where the action is barred by innocent spouse by intestate
prescription. (100a) succession. Moreover, provisions in
favor of the offending spouse made in
the will of the innocent spouse shall be
Art. 57. An action for legal separation shall be revoked by operation of law. (106a)
filed within five years from the time of the
occurrence of the cause. (102)
Art. 64. After the finality of the decree of legal
separation, the innocent spouse may revoke
Art. 58. An action for legal separation shall in the donations made by him or by her in favor
no case be tried before six months shall have of the offending spouse, as well as the
elapsed since the filing of the petition. (103) designation of the latter as beneficiary in any
insurance policy, even if such designation be
Art. 59. No legal separation may be decreed stipulated as irrevocable. The revocation of the
unless the Court has taken steps toward the donations shall be recorded in the registries of
reconciliation of the spouses and is fully property in the places where the properties are
satisfied, despite such efforts, that located. Alienations, liens and encumbrances
reconciliation is highly improbable. (n) registered in good faith before the recording of
the complaint for revocation in the registries of
Art. 60. No decree of legal separation shall be property shall be respected. The revocation of
based upon a stipulation of facts or a or change in the designation of the insurance
confession of judgment. beneficiary shall take effect upon written
notification thereof to the insured.
In any case, the Court shall order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to The action to revoke the donation under this
take steps to prevent collusion between the Article must be brought within five years from
parties and to take care that the evidence is the time the decree of legal separation become
not fabricated or suppressed. (101a) final. (107a)
Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for legal Art. 65. If the spouses should reconcile, a
separation, the spouses shall be entitled to live corresponding joint manifestation under oath
separately from each other. duly signed by them shall be filed with the
court in the same proceeding for legal
separation. (n)
The court, in the absence of a written
agreement between the spouses, shall
designate either of them or a third person to Art. 66. The reconciliation referred to in the
administer the absolute community or conjugal preceding Articles shall have the following
partnership property. The administrator consequences:
appointed by the court shall have the same
powers and duties as those of a guardian under (1) The legal separation proceedings, if
the Rules of Court. (104a) still pending, shall thereby be
terminated at whatever stage; and
Art. 62. During the pendency of the action for
legal separation, the provisions of Article 49 (2) The final decree of legal separation
shall likewise apply to the support of the shall be set aside, but the separation of
spouses and the custody and support of the property and any forfeiture of the
common children. (105a) share of the guilty spouse already
effected shall subsist, unless the
Art. 63. The decree of legal separation shall spouses agree to revive their former
have the following effects: property regime.
(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live The court's order containing the foregoing shall
separately from each other, but the be recorded in the proper civil registries.
marriage bonds shall not be severed; (108a)
(2) The absolute community or the Art. 67. The agreement to revive the former
conjugal partnership shall be dissolved property regime referred to in the preceding
and liquidated but the offending Article shall be executed under oath and shall
spouse shall have no right to any share specify:
of the net profits earned by the
Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, Art. 129. Those given the authority and
parental authority shall be exercised by the responsibility under the preceding Article shall
parent designated by the Court. The Court shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages
take into account all relevant considerations, caused by the acts or omissions of the
especially the choice of the child over seven unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial
years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. guardians or the persons exercising substitute
(n) parental authority over said minor shall be
subsidiarily liable.
Art. 214. In case of death, absence or
unsuitability of the parents, substitute parental The respective liabilities of those referred to in
authority shall be exercised by the surviving the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is
grandparent. In case several survive, the one proved that they exercised the proper diligence
designated by the court, taking into account required under the particular circumstances.
the same consideration mentioned in the
preceding article, shall exercise the authority. All other cases not covered by this and the
(355a) preceding articles shall be governed by the
provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)
Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in
a criminal case, to testify against his parents
and grandparents, except when such testimony
is indispensable in a crime against the Chapter 3. Effect of Parental Authority
descendant or by one parent against the other. Upon the Persons of the Children
(315a)
Art. 220. The parents and those exercising
parental authority shall have with the respect
Chapter 2. Substitute and Special Parental to their unemancipated children on wards the
Authority following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially support, educate and instruct them by
appointed guardian, the following person shall right precept and good example, and
exercise substitute parental authority over the to provide for their upbringing in
child in the order indicated: keeping with their means;
(1) The surviving grandparent, as
provided in Art. 214; (2) To give them love and affection,
advice and counsel, companionship
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over and understanding;
twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and (3) To provide them with moral and
spiritual guidance, inculcate in them
(3) The child's actual custodian, over honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-
twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate
disqualified. their interest in civic affairs, and inspire
in them compliance with the duties of
Whenever the appointment or a judicial citizenship;
guardian over the property of the child
becomes necessary, the same order of (4) To furnish them with good and
preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, wholesome educational materials,
354a) supervise their activities, recreation
and association with others, protect
Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned them from bad company, and prevent
neglected or abused children and other them from acquiring habits detrimental
children similarly situated, parental authority to their health, studies and morals;
shall be entrusted in summary judicial
proceedings to heads of children's homes, (5) To represent them in all matters
orphanages and similar institutions duly affecting their interests;
accredited by the proper government agency.
(314a) (6) To demand from them respect and
obedience;
Art. 224. The measures referred to in the Art. 227. If the parents entrust the
preceding article may include the commitment management or administration of any of their
of the child for not more than thirty days in properties to an unemancipated child, the net
entities or institutions engaged in child care or proceeds of such property shall belong to the
in children's homes duly accredited by the owner. The child shall be given a reasonable
proper government agency. monthly allowance in an amount not less than
that which the owner would have paid if the
The parent exercising parental authority shall administrator were a stranger, unless the
not interfere with the care of the child owner, grants the entire proceeds to the child.
whenever committed but shall provide for his In any case, the proceeds thus give in whole or
support. Upon proper petition or at its own in part shall not be charged to the child's
instance, the court may terminate the legitime. (322a)
commitment of the child whenever just and
proper. (391a)
Chapter 5. Suspension or Termination of
Parental Authority
Chapter 4. Effect of Parental Authority Upon
the Property of the Children Art. 228. Parental authority terminates
permanently:
Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly (1) Upon the death of the parents;
exercise legal guardianship over the property
of the unemancipated common child without (2) Upon the death of the child; or
the necessity of a court appointment. In case of
disagreement, the father's decision shall (3) Upon emancipation of the child.
prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the (327a)
contrary.
Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final
Where the market value of the property or the judgment, parental authority also terminates:
annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, (1) Upon adoption of the child;
the parent concerned shall be required to
furnish a bond in such amount as the court
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent “In Ching Leng the provision in the 1935
court divesting the party concerned of Constitution stating "those whose fathers are
parental authority; or citizens of the Philippines" refers only to
legitimate children. When the 1973 and 1987
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence Constitutions were drafted, the framers did not
or incapacity of the person exercising attempt to change the intent of this provision,
parental authority. (327a) even as they were presumably aware of the
Ching Leng doctrine.
Art. 230. Parental authority is suspended upon
conviction of the parent or the person Nevertheless, I believe that it is now time to
exercising the same of a crime which carries abandon the Ching Leng doctrine. (Tecson V.
with it the penalty of civil interdiction. The Comelec)”
authority is automatically reinstated upon
service of the penalty or upon pardon or The prevailing doctrine today is that an
amnesty of the offender. (330a) illegitimate child of a Filipino father and an
alien mother follows the citizenship of the alien
Art. 231. The court in an action filed for the mother as the only legally known parent. The
purpose in a related case may also suspend illegitimate child, even if acknowledged and
parental authority if the parent or the person legally adopted by the Filipino father, cannot
exercising the same: acquire the citizenship of the father. The Court
made this definitive doctrinal ruling in Ching
Leng v. Galang which involved the illegitimate
(1) Treats the child with excessive minor children of a naturalized Filipino of
harshness or cruelty; Chinese descent with a Chinese woman, Sy An.
The illegitimate children were later on jointly
(2) Gives the child corrupting orders, adopted by the naturalized Filipino and his
counsel or example; legal wife, So Buan Ty.
(3) Compels the child to beg; or The facts in Ching Leng as quoted by the Court
from the trial court’s decision are as follows:
(4) Subjects the child or allows him to
be subjected to acts of lasciviousness. After the petitioner Ching Leng Alias
Ching Ban Lee obtained judgment in this
The grounds enumerated above are deemed to Court dated May 2, 1950 granting his
include cases which have resulted from petition for naturalization, he together with
culpable negligence of the parent or the person his wife So Buan Ty filed another petition also
exercising parental authority. in this Court in Special Proc. No. 1216 for the
adoption of Ching Tiong Seng, Ching Liong
Ding, Victoria Ching Liong Yam, Sydney Ching
If the degree of seriousness so warrants, or the and Ching Tiong An, all minors and
welfare of the child so demands, the court shall admittedly the illegitimate children of
deprive the guilty party of parental authority or petitioner Ching Leng with one Sy An, a
adopt such other measures as may be proper Chinese citizen. Finding the petition for
under the circumstances. adoption proper, this Court granted the same
in a decision dated September 12, 1950,
The suspension or deprivation may be revoked declaring the said minors free from all legal
and the parental authority revived in a case obligations of obedience and maintenance with
filed for the purpose or in the same proceeding respect to their mother Sy An and to all legal
if the court finds that the cause therefor has intents and purposes the children of the
ceased and will not be repeated. (33a) adopter Ching Leng alias Ching Ban Lee
and So Buan Ty with all the legal rights
Art. 232. If the person exercising parental and obligations provided by law.
authority has subjected the child or allowed
him to be subjected to sexual abuse, such On September 29, 1955, Ching Leng took his
person shall be permanently deprived by the oath of allegiance and became therefore
court of such authority. (n) a full pledge (sic) Filipino citizen. Believing
now that his adopted illegitimate children
Art. 233. The person exercising substitute became Filipino citizens by virtue of his
parental authority shall have the same naturalization, petitioner Ching Leng addressed
authority over the person of the child as the a communication to the respondent
parents. Commissioner of Immigration requesting that
the alien certificate of registration of the said
minors be cancelled. (Bold underscoring
In no case shall the school administrator, supplied)
teacher of individual engaged in child care
Moreover, as used in said section 15 of It is true that the petitioner, Ng Hian, had never
the Naturalization Law, the term been in the Philippine Islands before. It is also
"children" could not possibly refer to true that the said Marcosa S. Dy Jingco
those whose relation to the naturalized was his stepmother. She swore positively
person is one created by legal fiction, as, that she had adopted him. That fact is not
for instance, by adoption, for, otherwise, denied of record. Until the fact is denied we
the place and time of birth of the child must accept it. There is nothing in the
would be immaterial. The fact that the record which shows or tends to show that
adopted persons involved in the case at bar she had not adopted him in good faith.
are illegitimate children of appellant Ching The question whether or not Marcosa S. Dy
Leng does not affect substantially the legal Jiongco could bring Ng Hian into the territory of
situation before us, for, by legal fiction, they the Philippine Islands as her adopted son has
are now being sought to be given the status of been discussed by the Federal Courts of the
legitimate children of said appellant, despite United States. In the case of Ex parte Fong
the circumstance that the Civil Code of the Yim (134 Fed. Rep., 938), the court held
Philippine does not permit their legitimation. that:
Exam is on Wednesday
630 to 830
Coverage is from start to parents and
children