Valdes vs RTC FACTS: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5 children.

Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, which was granted hence, marriage is null and void on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of their mother while the other 3 siblings are free to choose which they prefer. Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the procedure for the liquidation of common property in unions without marriage. During the hearing on the motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father. ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime should be based on co-ownership. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties are governed by the rules on co-ownership. Any property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said partys efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family. Santos v CA (G.R. 113054) FACTS: Petitioner Leouel Santos, Sr., an army lieutenant, and Julia Bedia a nurse by profession, were married in Iloilo City in 1986. Their union beget only one child, Leouel Santos, Jr. who was born July 18, 1987. From the time the boy was released from the hospital until sometime thereafter, he had been in the care and custody of his maternal grandparents, private respondents herein, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia. On September 2, 1990, petitioner along with his two brothers, visited the Bedia household, where three-year old Leouel Jr. was staying. Private respondents contend that through deceit and false pretensions, petitioner abducted the boy and clandestinely spirited him away to his hometown in Bacong, Negros Oriental. The spouses Bedia then filed a "Petition for Care, Custody and Control of Minor Ward Leouel

Santos Jr.," before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, with Santos, Sr. as respondent. After an exparte hearing on October 8, 1990, the trial court issued an order on the same day awarding custody of the child Leouel Santos, Jr. to his grandparents, Leopoldo and Ofelia Bedia. Petitioner appealed this Order to the Court of Appeals. In its decision dated April 30, 1992, respondent appellate court affirmed the trial court's order. Petitioner assails the decisions of both the trial court and the appellate court to award custody of his minor son to his parents-in-law, the Bedia spouses on the ground that under Art. 214 of the Family Code, substitute parental authority of the grandparents is proper only when both parents are dead, absent or unsuitable. Petitioner's unfitness, according to him, has not been successfully shown by private respondents. ISSUE: Who should properly be awarded custody of the minor Leouel Santos, Jr. RULING: The minor should be given to the legitimate father. When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent. The court held the contentions of the grandparents are insufficient as to remove petitioner's parental authority and the concomitant right to have custody over the minor. Private respondents' demonstrated love and affection for the boy, notwithstanding, the legitimate father is still preferred over the grandparents. The latter's wealth is not a deciding factor, particularly because there is no proof that at the present time, petitioner is in no position to support the boy. While petitioner's previous inattention is inexcusable, it cannot be construed as abandonment. His appeal of the unfavorable decision against him and his efforts to keep his only child in his custody may be regarded as serious efforts to rectify his past misdeeds. To award him custody would help enhance the bond between parent and son. The Court also held that his being a soldier is likewise no bar to allowing him custody over the boy. So many men in uniform who are assigned to different parts of the country in the service of the nation, are still the natural guardians of their children. Also, petitioner's employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws, though

unjustifiable, is likewise not a ground to wrest custody from him. Republic vs CA and Molina Republic vs. CA and Molina G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 FACTS: The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. HELD: The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity. The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case: burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined

such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.

Marriage; psychological incapacity; three basic requirements. To entitle petitioner spouse to a declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the totality of the evidence must sufficiently prove that respondent spouses psychological incapacity was grave, incurable and existing prior to the time of the marriage. Arabelle Mendoza v. Republic of the Philippines and Dominic Mendoza, G.R. No. 157649. November 12, 2012. Chi FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he Ming Tsoi vs CA

loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

marriage with Reyes declared null and void anchored in Article 36 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their marriage null and void. HELD:

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity.

HELD: The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage. Antonio vs Reyes GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006 FACTS: Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age met in 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December 1990. A child was born but died 5 months later. Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She even did not conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as adopted child of their family. They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his

Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. The petitioner, aside from his own testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on his wifes behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity. Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. The gravity of respondents psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect. Furthermore, Reyes case is incurable considering that petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remain unchanged. Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Camacho-Reyes vs. Reyes Civil Law; Marriage; Psychological incapacity A petition for review on certiorari attacking the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing thed e c i s i o n o f t h e R e g i o n a l T r i a l C o u r t of Quezon City nullifying the m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n t h e petitioner Camacho and respondent Reyes on the ground of psychological incapacity. Facts: Petitioner and respondent w ere campus sweethearts. The formers love to the latter

didn o t change even when she discovered that respondent was cutting classes and taking upmarijuana. He did not even finish college. By the time they married e a c h o t h e r , a l l l i v i n g expenses were shoulder ed by resp ondents parents, and they were li ving with the respondents p a r e n t s . When their first child was born, financial difficulties st a r t e d t o c o m e i n . T o p r o d respondent into assuming more responsibility, petitioner suggested that they live separately fromh e r i n laws. However, the new living arrange ment engendered further financial dif ficulty.P e t i t i o n e r w a s a s i n g l e income earner, and the business v e n t u r e s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t a l l floun dered. The couple became so estranged from each other that the respondent r e m a i n e d unconcerned and inattentive, not only to the petitioner but also to their children. To make thingsworse, petitioner was able to confirm that respondent was having an extra-marital affair. Issue: Whether or n ot the respondent is psychologically in capacitated to fulfill the essentialmarital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. Ruling: Yes, there existed psychological incapacity. The marriage between the petitioner and therespondent was nullified.Psych ological incapacity was shown by resp ondents 1.) sporadic financial support; 2.) extra -marital affairs; 3.) substance abuse; and 4.) failed business attempts. The high court found thatt h e m a r r i a g e b e t w e e n t h e p arties from its inception had this con g e n i t a l i n f i r m i t y w h i c h pertains to the inability of the parties to effectively function emotionally, intellectually andsocially towards each other in relation to their essential duties to mutually observe love, fidelityand respect as well as to mutually render help and sup port as mandated by Article 68 of theF a m i l y C o d e . S u c h f i n d i n g w a s a n c hored by the unanimous findings of th ree psychologyexperts: petitioner man ifested inadequacies along her affecti v e s p h e r e t h a t m a d e h e r l e s s responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, while the respondent manifested strong senseo f I n a d e q u a c y a l o n g m a s c uline strivings and narcissistic f e a t u r e s t h a t r e n d e r s h i m psych

ologically incapacitated to perform the duties and res ponsibilities of marriage. TheSupreme Court further ruled that such psychological incapacity, as stated by psychology experts,is permanent, incurable, and stable over time, and mere recommendation of one psychology expert that the incapacity is curable does not automatically imply curability. Therefore, the casehas the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability the three requirements of nullifyingmarriage based on psychological incapacity ARTICLE 40 LANDICHO VS RELOVA Case Digest LANDICHO V. RELOVA Facts: On February 27, 1963, petitioner was charged before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Branch I, presided over by respondent Judge, with the offense, of bigamy. It was alleged in the information that petitioner "being then lawfully married to Elvira Makatangay, which marriage has not been legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second marriage with Fe Lourdes Pasia." On March 15, 1963, an action was filed before the Court of First Instance of Batangas, likewise presided plaintiff respondent Judge Fe Lourdes Pasia, seeking to declare her marriage to petitioner as null and void ab initio because of the alleged use of force, threats and intimidation allegedly employed by petitioner and because of its allegedly bigamous character. On June 15, 1963, petitioner as defendant in said case, filed a thirdparty complaint, against the third-party defendant Elvira Makatangay, the first spouse, praying that his marriage with the said third-party defendant be declared null and void, on the ground that by means of threats, force and intimidation, she compelled him to appear and contract marriage with her before the Justice of the Peace of Makati, Rizal. Issue: Whether or not the civil case filed is a prejudicial question. Ruling: Where the first wife filed a criminal action for bigamy against the husband, and later the second wife filed a civil case for annulment of the marriage on the ground of force and intimidation, and the husband later files a civil case for annulment of

marriage against the first wife, the civil cases are not prejudicial questions in the determination of his criminal liability for bigamy, since his consent to the second marriage is not in issue. "The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by accused in a bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the criminal case. In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy, the fact that two marriage ceremonies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the petitioner who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only later that petitioner as defendant in the civil action, filed a third party complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. Assuming the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of a competent court and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy." Donato vs Luna TITLE: Donato vs. Luna CITATION: GR No. 53642, April 15, 1988 FACTS: An information for bigamy against petitioner Leonilo Donato was filed on January 23, 1979 with the lower court in Manila. This was based on the complaint of private respondent Paz Abayan. Before the petitioners arraignment on September 28, 1979, Paz filed with Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila, a civil action for declaration of

nullity of her marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978. Said civil case was based on the ground that Paz consented to entering into the marriage which was Donatos second since she had no previous knowledge that Donato was already married to a certain Rosalinda Maluping on June 30, 1978. Donato defensed that his second marriage was void since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain petitioner's consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the second marriage, Paz and Donato had lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of wedlock for 5 years proven by a joint affidavit executed by them on September 26, 1978 for which reason, the requisite marriage license was dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the Civil Code. Donato continued to live with Paz until November 1978 where Paz left their home upon learning that Donato already previously married. ISSUE: Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the lower court be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending before the juvenile and domestic relations court on the ground that latter constitutes a prejudicial question. HELD: Petitioner Leonilo Donato cant apply rule on prejudicial question since a case for annulment of marriage can only be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused if it was proved that petitioners consent to such marriage and was obtained by means of duress violence and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. Accordingly, there being no prejudicial question shown to exit the order of denial issued by the respondent judge dated April 14, 1980 should be sustained. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We make no pronouncement as to costs. Wiegel vs Sempio-Dy Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy 143 SCRA 449 FACTS:

Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia was married with a certain Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia on the ground of latters former marriage. Having been allegedly force to enter into a marital union, she contents that the first marriage is null and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was married to another woman before their marriage. ISSUE: Whether Karls marriage with Lilia is void. HELD: It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with force because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such marriage is valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married Karl, she is still validly married to her first husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there is no need of introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then such marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration before he can remarry. Accordingly, Karl and Lilias marriage are regarded void under the law. Domingo vs CA Domingo vs. CA 226 SCRA 572

ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration should only be filed for purposes of remarriage. HELD: The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required for purposed of remarriage. However, it is also necessary for the protection of the subsequent spouse who believed in good faith that his or her partner was not lawfully married marries the same. With this, the said person is freed from being charged with bigamy. When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states that final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Soledads prayer for separation of property will simply be the necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. Hence, the petitioners suggestion that for their properties be separated, an ordinary civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them.

Meynardo Beltran vs People and Judge Tuazon FACTS: Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property. She did not know that Domingo had been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She came to know the previous marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she came home from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she discovered that Roberto cohabited with another woman and had been disposing some of her properties which is administered by Roberto. The latter claims that because their marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand, Soledad insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of properties acquired during the marriage. In 1973, Beltran and Charmaine Felix married each other. Theyve had 4 children since then but after 24 years of marriage Beltran filed an action for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage due to Felixs PI. Felix countered that Beltran left the conjugal home to cohabit with a certain Milagros and that she filed a case of concubinage against Beltran. In 1997, the lower court found probable cause against Beltran and Milagros. In order to forestall the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him, Beltran raised the issue that the civil case he filed is a prejudicial question to the criminal case filed by Milagros. He said that the courts hearing the cases may issue conflicting rulings if the criminal case will not be suspended until the civil case gets

resolved. The lower court denied Beltrans petition and so did Judge Tuazon of the RTC upon appeal. Beltran then elevated the case to the SC. ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of a previous marriage be invoked as a prejudicial question in the case at bar. HELD: The rationale behind the principle of

of

other

than

remarriage,

other

evidence

is

acceptable. In a case for concubinage, the accused (Beltran) need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage void. With regard to Beltrans argument that he could be acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be declared null and void, suffice it to state that even a subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense. IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS vs. ISAGANI BOBIS GR No. 138509 July 31, 2000

prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of Beltrans marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be

considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined. Article 40 of the Family Code provides: The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. The SC ruled that the import of said provision is that for purposes of remarriage, the only legally

FACTS: On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani Bobis contracted a first marriage with Ma. Dulce Javier. With said marriage not yet annulled, nullified nor terminated, he contracted a second marriage with herein petitioner Imelda Marbella (on Jan. 25, 1996), and a third marriage with certain Julia Hernandez, thereafter. Petitioner then filed a case of bigamy against respondent on Feb. 25, 1998, at the RTC of Quezon City. Thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage license. He then filed a motion to suspend the criminal proceeding for bigamy invoking the civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The RTC granted the motion, while petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied. ISSUE:

acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void, whereas, for purposes

Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy. HELD: Any decision in the civil case the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the criminal charge. It is therefore not a prejudicial question. Respondent cannot be permitted to use his malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against him. A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein . It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. It must appear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the criminal action is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the civil case. Consequently, the defense must involve an issue similar or intimately related to the same issue raised in the criminal action and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter action may proceed. Its two essential elements are (a) the civil action involves an issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In the case at bar, the respondents clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite usually the marriage licenseand thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would render nugatory the provisions on bigamy. As

succinctly held in Landicho v. Relova, 22 SCRA 731(1968): Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, [as] only competent courts have such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case. A party who raises a prejudicial question is deemed to have hypothetically admitted that all the essential elements of a crime have been adequately alleged in the information, considering that the prosecution has not yet presented single evidence on the indictment or may not yet have rested its case. A challenge of the allegations in the information on the ground of prejudicial question is in effect a question on the merits of the criminal charge through a non-criminal suit. Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot be successfully invoked as an excuse. The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code. The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law. As respondent did not obtain the judicial declaration of nullity when he entered into the second marriage, why should he be allowed to belatedly obtain that judicial declaration in order to delay his criminal prosecution and subsequently defeat it by his own disobedience of the law? If he wants to raise the nullity of the previous marriage, he can do it as a matter of defense when he presents his evidence during the trial proper in the criminal case. The elements of bigamy are (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) that he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been

valid had it not been for the existence of the first. The exceptions to prosecution for bigamy are those covered by Article 41 of the Family Code and by PD 1083 otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Mercado vs Tan Mercado vs. Tan 337 SCRA 122 FACTS: Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void. ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage. HELD: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as void. In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. He contracted second marriage without the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. ARTICLE 41 Republic vs Nolasco Republic vs. Nolasco 220 SCRA 20 FACTS: Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a British, in bar in England. After that, Janet started living with Nolasco in his ship for six months. It lasted until the contract of Nolasco expired then

he brought her to his hometown in Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another contract, Nolasco left the province. In 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that his son had been born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and cut short his contract to find Janets whereabouts. He did so by securing another seamans contract going to London. He wrote several letters to the bar where they first met but it was all returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of presumptive death of Janet. ISSUE: Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife, Janet, is already dead? HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Nolascos efforts to locate Janet were not persistent to show that he has a well-founded belief that his wife was already dead because instead of seeking assistance of local authorities and the British Embassy, he even secured another contract. More so, while he was in London, he did not even try to solicit help of the authorities to find his wife. ARTICLE 42 SSS vs Teresita Jarque vda de Bailon on November 20, 2010 Article 41-42 In 1955 Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz married in Barcelona, Sorsogon. 15+ years later, Clemente filed an action to declare the presumptive death of Alice she being an absentee. The petition was granted in 1970. In 1983, Clemente married Jarque. The two live together untile Clementes death in 1998. Jarque then sought to claim her husbands SSS benefits and the same were granted her. On the other hand, a certain Cecilia Baion-Yap who claimed that she is the daughter of Bailon to a certain Elisa Jayona petitioned before the SSS that they be given the reimbursement for the funeral spending for it was actually them who shouldered the burial expenses of Clemente. They further claim that Clemente contracted three marriages; one

with Alice, another with Elisa and the other with Jarque. Cecilia also averred that Alice is alive and kicking and Alice subsequently emerged; Cecilia claimed that Clemente obtained the declaration of Alices presumptive death in bad faith for he was aware of the whereabouts of Alice or if not he could have easily located her in her parents place. She was in Sorsogon all along in her parents place. She went there upon learning that Clemente had been having extra-marital affairs. SSS then ruled that Jarque should reimburse what had been granted her and to return the same to Cecilia since she shouldered the burial expenses and that the benefits should go had to Alice because her

benefits obtained by a deceased member in case of disputes but such power does not include the appellate power to review a court decision or declaration. In the case at bar, the RTC ruling is binding and Jarques marriage to Clemente is still valid because no affidavit was filed by Alice to make known her reappearance legally. Alice reappeared only after Clementes death and in this case she can no longer file such an affidavit; in this case the bad faith [or good faith] of Clemente can no longer be raised the marriage herein is considered voidable and must be attacked directly not collaterally it is however impossible for a direct attack since there is no longer a marriage to be attacked for the same has been terminated upon Clementes death. ARTICLE 46 Aquino vs Delizo Aquino vs. Delizo 109 Phil 21 FACTS:

reappearance

terminated

Clementes

marriage with Harque. Further, SSS ruled that the RTCs decision in death declaring is Alice to be

presumptively

erroneous.

Teresita

appealed the decision of the SSS before the Social Security Comission and the SSC affirmed SSS. The CA however ruled the contrary. ISSUE: Whether or not the mere appearance of the absent spouse declared presumptively dead

automatically terminates the subsequent marriage. HELD: There is no previous marriage to restore for it is terminated upon Clementes death. Likewise there is no subsequent marriage to terminate for the same is terminated upon Clementes death. SSS is correct in ruling that it is futile for Alice to pursue the recording of her reappearance before the local civil registrar through an affidavit or a court action. But it is not correct for the SSS to rule upon the declaration made by the RTC. The SSC or the SSS has no judicial power to review the decision of the RTC. SSS is indeed empowered to determine as to who should be the rightful beneficiary of the

Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo that at the date of her marriage with the former on December 1954, concealed the fact that she was pregnant by another man and sometime in April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth to a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco represent the state in the proceedings to prevent collusion. Only Aquino testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the parties. Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence. CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioners complaint for annulment of marriage, which was affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions. ISSUE: Whether or not concealment of pregnancy as alleged by Aquino does not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage. HELD:

The concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is hard to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent especially since she was naturally plump or fat. It is only on the 6thmonth 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. In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case for new trial and decision complained is set aside. Buccat v Buccat (1941) Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat April 25, 1941 Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio. Facts: Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938, became engaged in September, and got married in Nov 26. On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months pregnant, gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and never returned to married life with her. On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the grounds that when he agreed to married Luida, she assured him that she was a virgin. The Lower court decided in favor of Luida. Issue: Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage? Held: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a sacred institution in whichthe State is interested and where society rests.

In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition considering that she was in an advanced stage developed of pregnancy (highly got married. Decision: SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiff-appellant ARTICLE 48 J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. G.R. NO. L-28569 February VS. JAVIER 27, 1970 physical

manifestation, ie. enlarged stomach ) when they

FACTS: On September 7, 1954, petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. entered a contract to sell with respondent Ligaya Javier a parcel of land known as Lot No. 28, Block No. 356, PSD 30328, of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision for the sum of Php3,691.20 with 10% interest per annum; Php396.12 will be payable upon execution of the contract, and an installment of Php43.92 monthly for a period of ten (10) years. It was further stipulated in the contract, particularly the sixth paragraph, that upon failure of respondent to pay the monthly installment, she is given a one month grace period to pay such installment together with the monthly installment falling on the said grace period. Furthermore, failure to pay both monthly installments, respondent will pay an additional 10% interest. And after 90 days from the end of the grace period, petitioner can rescind the contract, the payments made by respondent will be considered as rentals. Upon the execution of the contract, respondent religiously paid the monthly installment until January 5, 1962. Respondent, however, was unable to the pay the monthly installments within the grace period which petitioner, subsequently, sent a letter to respondent on May 22, 1964 that the contract has been rescinded and asked the respondent to vacate the said land. So, upon failure of respondent to vacate the said land, petitioner filed an action to the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the rescission of the contract. The CFI rendered a decision in favor of respondent in applying Article 1592 of the New Civil Code. Hence, petitioner made an appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that since Article 1592 of

the New Civil applies only to contracts of sale and not in contracts to sell. ISSUE: Did the CFI erroneously apply Article 1592 of the New Civil Code? RULING: Yes. Regardless, however, of the propriety of applying Article 1592, petitioner has not been denied substantial justice under Article 1234 of the New Civil Code. In this connection, respondent religiously satisfied the monthly installments for almost eight (8) years or up to January 5, 1962. It has been shown that respondent had already paid Php4,134.08 as of January 5, 1962 which is beyond the stipulated amount of Php3,691.20. Also, respondent has offered to pay all installments overdue including the stipulated interest, attorneys fees and the costs which the CFI accordingly sentenced respondent to pay such installment, interest, fees and costs. Thus, petitioner will be able recover everything that was due thereto. Under these circumstances, the SC feel that, in the interest of justice and equity, the decision appealed from may be upheld upon the authority of Article 1234 of the New Civil Code. ARTICLE 55 Gandiongco vs Penaranda Gandionco vs Penaranda GR No. 72984, November 27, 1987 FACTS: Private respondent, Teresita Gandionco, filed a complaint against herein petitioner, Froilan Gandionco for legal separation on the ground of concubinage as a civil case. Teresita also filed a criminal complaint of concubinage against her husband. She likewise filed an application for the provisional remedy of support pendent elite which was approved and ordered by the respondent judge. Petitioner moved to suspend the action for legal separation and the incidents consequent thereto such as the support for pendent elite, in view of the criminal case for concubinage filed against him. He contends that the civil action for legal separation is inextricably tied with the criminal action thus, all proceedings related to legal separation will have to be suspended and await the conviction or acquittal of the criminal case. ISSUE: Whether or not a civil case for legal separation can proceed pending the resolution of the criminal case for concubinage.

HELD: Supreme Court ruled that the contentions of the petitioner were incorrect. A civil action for legal separation on the ground of concubinage may proceed ahead of, or simultaneously with, a criminal action for concubinage, because said civil action is not one to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense, even if both the civil and criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense. Such civil action is one intended to obtain the right to live separately, with the legal consequences thereof including the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, custody of the children, support and disqualifications from inheriting from the innocent spouse. Decree of legal separation may be issued upon proof by preponderance of evidence, where no criminal proceeding or conviction is necessary. Furthermore, the support pendente lite, as a remedy, can be availed of in an action for legal separation, and granted at the discretion of the judge. If in case, the petitioner finds the amount of support pendente lite ordered as too onerous, he can always file a motion to modify or reduce the same. ARTICLE 56 Bugayong vs Ginez GR No. 10033, December 28, 1956 FACTS: Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the US Navy was married with Leonila Ginez on August 1949 at Pangasinan while on furlough leave. Immediately after the marriage, they lived with the sisters of Bugayong in said municipality before he went back to duty. The couple came to an agreement that Ginez would stay with his sisters who later moved in Manila. On or about July 1951, she left the dwelling of the sisters-in-law and informed her husband by letter that she had gone to Pangasinan to reside with her mother and later on moved to Dagupan to study in a local college. Petitioner then began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco, (plaintiffs sister-in-law) and some from anonymous writers, which were not produced at the hearing, informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife. He admitted that his wife informed him by letter that a certain Eliong kissed her. All these communications, prompted him in October 1951 to seek the advice of the Navy

Chaplain who asked him to consult with the navy legal department. In August 1952, Bugayong went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife. They met in the house of the defendants godmother. They proceeded to the house of Pedro, cousin of the plaintiff where they stayed for 1 day and 1 night as husband and wife. The next day, they slept together in their own house. He tried to verify with Leonila the truth on the information he received but instead of answering, she merely packed up and left which he took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity. He then filed a complaint for legal separation. ISSUE: Whether there was condonation between Bugayong and Ginez that may serve as a ground for dismissal of the action. HELD:

Trial proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidence. However, before the trial could be completed, respondent already scheduled to present surrebuttal evidence, petitioner died in a vehicular accident on May 1969. Her counsel duly notified the court of her death. Eufemio moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation on June 1969 on the grounds that the said petition was filed beyond the one-year period provided in Article 102 of the Civil Code and that the death of Carmen abated the action for legal separation. Petitioners counsel moved to substitute the deceased Carmen by her father, Macario Lapuz. ISSUE: Whether the death of the plaintiff, before final decree in an action for legal separation, abate the action and will it also apply if the action involved property rights. HELD:

Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation. A single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation and where the parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation. Furthermore, Art. 100 of the Civil Code states that the legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery or concubinage. Lapuz-Sy vs Eufemio 43 SCRA 177 FACTS: Carmen Lapuz-Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio Eufemio on August 1953. They were married civilly on September 21, 1934 and canonically after nine days. They had lived together as husband and wife continuously without any children until 1943 when her husband abandoned her. They acquired properties during their marriage. Petitioner then discovered that her husband cohabited with a Chinese woman named Go Hiok on or about 1949. She prayed for the issuance of a decree of legal separation, which among others, would order that the defendant Eufemio should be deprived of his share of the conjugal partnership profits. Eufemio counterclaimed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lapuz-Sy on the ground of his prior and subsisting marriage with Go Hiok.

An action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if property rights are involved. These rights are mere effects of decree of separation, their source being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive separation; and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn. The petition of Eufemio for declaration of nullity is moot and academic and there could be no further interest in continuing the same after her demise, that automatically dissolved the questioned union. Any property rights acquired by either party as a result of Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines 6 could be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition by either the appellee or by the heirs of the appellant. ARTICLE 63 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OFMINOR ANGELIE ANNE C. CERVANTESNELSON L. CERVANTES and ZENAIDA CARREON CERVANTES,petitioners, vs.GINA CARREON FAJARDO and CONRADO FAJARDO, respondents.G.R. No. 79955 January 27, 1989Second Division, PADILLA, J.: Facts: This is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus

filed with this Court over the personof the minor Angelie Anne Cervantes.The minor was born on 14 February 1987 to resp ondents Conrado Fajardo andGina Carreon, who are common-law husband and wife. Respondents offered the childfor adoption to Gina Carreon's sister and brother-in-law, the herein petitioners ZenaidaCarreon-Cervantes and Nelson Cervantes, spouses, who took care and custody of thechild when she was barely two (2) weeks old. An Affidavit of Consent to the adoption of the child by herein petitioners, was a lso executed by resp on dent Gina Carreon on 29 April 1987.The appropriate petition for adoption (Sp. Proc. No. 057 -B) was filed by hereinpetitioners over the child before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal , Fourth JudicialDistrict, Branch 67 which, on 20 August 1987, rendered a decision granting the petition.The child was then known as Angelie Anne Fajardo. The court ordered that the child be"freed from parental authority of her natural parents as well as from legal obligation andmaintenance to them and that from now on shall be, for all legal intents and purposes,known as Angelie Anne Cervantes, a child of herein petitioners and capable of inheritingtheir estate ."Sometime in March or April 1987, the adoptive parents, herein petitioners Nelsonand Zenaida Cervantes, received a letter from the respondents demanding to be paid theamount of P150,000.00, otherwise, they would get back their child. Petitioners refusedto accede to the demand. A s a result, on 11 September 1987, while petitioners were out at work, t h e respondent Gina Carreon took the child from her "yaya" at the petitioners' residence in A n g o n o , R i z a l , o n t h e p r e t e x t t h at she was instructed to do so by h e r m o t h e r . Resp ondent Gina Carreon brought the child to her house in Paraaque. Petitioners thereupon demanded the return of the child, but Gina Carreon refused, saying that shehad no desire to give up her child for adoption and that the affidavit of consent to thea d o p t i o n s h e h a d e x e c u t e d w a s not fully explained to her. She s ent word to the Digested by: Jennelyn D. BilocuraDate: September 20, 2011 petitioners that she will, however, return the child to the petitioners if she were paid theamount of P150,000.00. Issue: Whether or not it is the petitioner who has proper custody over the minor. Resolution:

Yes, the petitioner who has proper custody over the minor. In all cases involvingthe custody, care, education and property of children, the latter's welfare is paramount.The provision that no mother shall be separated from a child under five (5) years of age, w i l l n o t apply where the Court finds compellin g r e a s o n s t o r u l e o t h e r w i s e . I n a l l contro versies regarding the custody of minors, the foremost consideration is the moral,physical and social welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the resources andmoral as well as social standing of the contending parents. Never has this Court deviatedfrom this criterion.It is undisputed that respondent Conrado Fajardo is legally married to a womanother than respondent Gina Carreon, and his relationship with the latter is a common-law husband and wife relationship. His open cohabitation with co-respondent GinaCarreon will not accord the minor that desirable atmosphere where she can grow anddevelop into an upright and moral-minded person. Besides, respondent Gina Carreonhad previously given birth to another child by another married man with whom shelived for almost three (3) years but who eventually left her and vanished. For a minor (like Angelie Anne C. Cervantes) to grow up with a sister whose "father" is not her truefather, could also affect the moral outlook and values of said minor. Upon the other hand, petitioners who are legally married appear to be morally, physically, financially,and socially capable of supporting the minor and giving her a future better th an whatthe natural mother (herein respondent Gina Carreon), who is not only jobless but alsomaintains an illicit relation with a married man, can most likely give her.B e s i d e s , t h e m i n o r h a s b e e n l e g ally adopted by petitioners with t h e f u l l knowledge and con sent of respondents. A decree of adoption has the effect, amongothers, of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents over the adopted child,except where the adopting parent is the spouse of the natural parent of the adopted, in w h i c h c a s e , p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r the adopted shall be exercised jointly b y b o t h spouses. The adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adoptedchild and exercise parental authority and responsibility over him. Espiritu vs CA Espiritu vs. CA GR 115640, March 15, 1995 FACTS:

Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masanding began to maintain a common law relationship of husband while in US. Teresita works as a nurse while Reynaldo was sent by his empolyer, National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh for a temporary post. They begot a child in 1986 named Rosalind. After a year, they went back to the Philippines for a brief vacation when they also got married. Subsequently, they had a second child named Reginald. In 1990, they decided to separate. Reynaldo pleaded for second chance but instead of Teresita granting it, she left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines and left them with his sister. When Teresita returned in the Philippines sometime in 1992, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Reynaldo and his sister to gain custody of the children. ISSUE: WON the custody of the 2 children should be awarded to the mother. HELD: In cases of care, custody, education and property of children, the latters welfare shall be the paramount concern and that even a child under 7 years of age may be ordered to be separated from the mother for compelling reasons. The presumption that the mother is the best custodian for a child under seven years of age is strong but not conclusive. At the time the judgment was rendered, the 2 children were both over 7 years of age. The choice of the child to whom she preferred to stay must be considered. It is evident in the records submitted that Rosalind chose to stay with his father/aunt. She was found of suffering from emotional shock caused by her mothers infidelity. Furthermore, there was nothing in the records to show that Reynaldo is unfit well in fact he has been trying his best to give the children the kind of attention and care which their mother is not in the position to extend. On the other hand, the mothers conviction for the crime of bigamy and her illicit relationship had already caused emotional disturbances and personality conflicts at least with the daughter. Hence, petition was granted. Custody of the minors was reinstated to their father. ARTICLE 68 Goitia vs Campos-Rueda Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda 35 Phil 252

FACTS: Luisa Goitia y de la Camara, petitioner, and Jose Campos y Rueda, respondent, were married on January 7, 1915 and had a residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino Manila. They stayed together for a month before petitioner returned to her parents home. Goitia filed a complaint against respondent for support outside the conjugal home. It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs. Petitioner refused to perform such acts and demanded her husband other than the legal and valid cohabitation. Since Goitia kept on refusing, respondent maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her lops, face and different body parts. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent and stated that Goitia 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. Goitia filed motion for review. ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to support her outside the conjugal home. HELD: The obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The law provides that the husband, who is obliged to support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his own home at his option. However, this option given by law is not absolute. 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. Arroyo v Vasquez (1921) ARROYO v VASQUEZ (1921) FACTS: Plaintiff Mariano and defendant Dolores were married in 1910, and lived in Iloilo City. They lived together with a few short intervals of separation. On July 4, 1920, defendant Dolores went away from their common home and decided to live separately from plaintiff. She claimed that she was

compelled to leave on the basis of cruel treatment on the part of her husband. She in turn prayed for a decree of separation, a liquidation of their conjugal partnership, and an allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate maintenance. CFI ruled in favor of the defendant and she was granted alimony amounting to P400, also other fees Plaintiff then asked for a restitution of conjugal rights, and a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to return to the conjugal home and live with him as his wife. ISSUES: 1. WON defendant had sufficient cause for leaving the conjugal home 2. WON plaintiff may be granted the restitution of conjugal rights or absolute order or permanent mandatory injunction HELD: 1. The wife had sufficient cause for leaving the conjugal home. Cruelty done by plaintiff to defendant was greatly exaggerated. The wife was inflicted with a disposition of jealousy towards her husband in an aggravated degree. No sufficient cause was present. Courts should move with caution in enforcing the duty to provide for the separate maintenance of the wife since this recognizes the de facto separation of the two parties. Continued cohabitation of the pair must be seen as impossible, and separation must be necessary, stemming from the fault of the husband. She is under obligation to return to the domicile. When people understand that they must live togetherthey they cannot learn shake to soften become by good mutualaccommodation that yoke which they know off; they husbands and wivesnecessity is a powerful master in teaching the duties which it imposes (Evans v. Evans)

2. On granting the restitution of conjugal rights. It is not within the province of the courts to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. In the case ofproperty rights, such an action may be maintained. Said order, at best, would have no other purpose than to compel the spouses to live together. Other countries, such as England and Scotland have done this with much criticism. Plaintiff is entitled to a judicial declaration that the defendant absented herself without sufficient cause and it is her duty to return. She is also not entitled to support. ARTICLE 76 G.R. No. 164201 December 10, 2012

EFREN PANA, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE, SR. and JOSE JUANITE, JR., Respondents. DECISION ABAD, J.: This case is about the propriety of levy and execution on conjugal properties where one of the spouses has been found guilty of a crime and ordered to pay civil indemnities to the victims' heirs. The Facts and the Case The prosecution accused petitioner Efren Pana (Efren), his wife Melecia, and others of murder before the. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City in Criminal Cases 4232 and 4233.1 On July 9, 1997 the RTC rendered a consolidated decision2 acquitting Efren of the charge for insufficiency of evidence but finding Melecia and another person guilty as charged and sentenced them to the penalty of death. The RTC ordered those found guilty to pay each of the heirs of the victims, jointly and severally, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 each as moral damages, and P150,000.00 actual damages. On appeal to this Court, it affirmed on May 24, 2001 the conviction of both accused but modified the

penalty toreclusion perpetua. With respect to the monetary awards, the Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity and moral damages but deleted the award for actual damages for lack of evidentiary basis. In its place, however, the Court made an award of P15,000.00 each by way of temperate damages. In addition, the Court awarded P50,000.00 exemplary damages per victim to be paid solidarily by them.3 The decision became final and executory on October 1, 2001.4 Upon motion for execution by the heirs of the deceased, on March 12, 2002 the RTC ordered the issuance of the writ,5 resulting in the levy of real properties registered in the names of Efren and Melecia.6 Subsequently, a notice of levy7 and a notice of sale on execution8 were issued. On April 3, 2002, petitioner Efren and his wife Melecia filed a motion to quash the writ of execution, claiming that the levied properties were conjugal assets, not paraphernal assets of Melecia.9 On September 16, 2002 the RTC denied the motion.10 The spouses moved for reconsideration but the RTC denied the same on March 6, 2003.11 Claiming that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the challenged orders, Efren filed a petition forcertiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 29, 2004 the CA dismissed the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing its assailed orders.12 It also denied Efrens motion for reconsideration,13 prompting him to file the present petition for review on certiorari. The Issue Presented The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia can be levied and executed upon for the satisfaction of Melecias civil liability in the murder case. Ruling of the Court To determine whether the obligation of the wife arising from her criminal liability is chargeable against the properties of the marriage, the Court has first to identify the spouses property relations. Efren claims that his marriage with Melecia falls under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, given that they were married prior to the enactment of the Family Code and that they did not execute any prenuptial agreement.14Although

the heirs of the deceased victims do not dispute that it was the Civil Code, not the Family Code, which governed the marriage, they insist that it was the system of absolute community of property that applied to Efren and Melecia. The reasoning goes: Admittedly, the spouses were married before the effectivity of the Family Code. But that fact does not prevent the application of [A]rt. 94, last paragraph, of the Family Code because their property regime is precisely governed by the law on absolute community. This finds support in Art. 256 of the Family Code which states: "This code shall have retroactive effect in so far as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." None of the spouses is dead. Therefore, no vested rights have been acquired by each over the properties of the community. Hence, the liabilities imposed on the accused-spouse may properly be charged against the community as heretofore discussed.15 The RTC applied the same reasoning as above.16 Efren and Melecias property relation was admittedly conjugal under the Civil Code but, since the transitory provision of the Family Code gave its provisions retroactive effect if no vested or acquired rights are impaired, that property relation between the couple was changed when the Family Code took effect in 1988. The latter code now prescribes in Article 75 absolute community of property for all marriages unless the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement. As it happens, Efren and Melecia had no prenuptial agreement. The CA agreed with this position.17 Both the RTC and the CA are in error on this point. While it is true that the personal stakes of each spouse in their conjugal assets are inchoate or unclear prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains and, therefore, none of them can be said to have acquired vested rights in specific assets, it is evident that Article 256 of the Family Code does not intend to reach back and automatically convert into absolute community of property relation all conjugal partnerships of gains that existed before 1988 excepting only those with prenuptial agreements. The Family Code itself provides in Article 76 that marriage settlements cannot be modified except prior to marriage.

Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136. Clearly, therefore, the conjugal partnership of gains that governed the marriage between Efren and Melecia who were married prior to 1988 cannot be modified except before the celebration of that marriage. Post-marriage modification of such settlements can take place only where: (a) the absolute community or conjugal partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon a decree of legal separation;18 (b) the spouses who were legally separated reconciled and agreed to revive their former property regime;19 (c) judicial separation of property had been had on the ground that a spouse abandons the other without just cause or fails to comply with his obligations to the family;20 (d) there was judicial separation of property under Article 135; (e) the spouses jointly filed a petition for the voluntary dissolution of their absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains.21 None of these circumstances exists in the case of Efren and Melecia. What is more, under the conjugal partnership of gains established by Article 142 of the Civil Code, the husband and the wife place only the fruits of their separate property and incomes from their work or industry in the common fund. Thus: Art. 142. By means of the conjugal partnership of gains the husband and wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work or industry, and divide equally, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage. This means that they continue under such property regime to enjoy rights of ownership over their separate properties. Consequently, to automatically change the marriage settlements of couples who got married under the Civil Code into absolute community of property in 1988 when the Family Code took effect would be to impair their acquired or vested rights to such separate properties. The RTC cannot take advantage of the spouses loose admission that absolute community of property governed their property relation since the record shows that they had been insistent that their

property regime is one of conjugal partnership of gains.22 No evidence of a prenuptial agreement between them has been presented. What is clear is that Efren and Melecia were married when the Civil Code was still the operative law on marriages. The presumption, absent any evidence to the contrary, is that they were married under the regime of the conjugal partnership of gains. Article 119 of the Civil Code thus provides: Art. 119. The future spouses may in the marriage settlements agree upon absolute or relative community of property, or upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the same are void, the system of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains as established in this Code, shall govern the property relations between husband and wife. Of course, the Family Code contains terms governing conjugal partnership of gains that supersede the terms of the conjugal partnership of gains under the Civil Code. Article 105 of the Family Code states: "x x x x The provisions of this Chapter [on the Conjugal Partnership of Gains] shall also apply to conjugal partnerships of gains already established between spouses before the effectivity of this Code, without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws, as provided in Article 256."23 Consequently, the Court must refer to the Family Code provisions in deciding whether or not the conjugal properties of Efren and Melecia may be held to answer for the civil liabilities imposed on Melecia in the murder case. Its Article 122 provides: Art. 122. The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. Neither shall the fines and pecuniary indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership. However, the payment of personal debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage, that of fines and indemnities imposed upon them, as well as the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, may be enforced against the

partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding Article have been covered, if the spouse who is bound should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient; but at the time of the liquidation of the partnership, such spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purpose above-mentioned. Since Efren does not dispute the RTCs fin ding that Melecia has no exclusive property of her own,24 the above applies. The civil indemnity that the decision in the murder case imposed on her may be enforced against their conjugal assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered.25Those responsibilities are as follows: Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for: (1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions of this Code on Support; (2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other; (3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the extent that the family may have benefited; (4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the conjugal partnership property; (5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the separate property of either spouse; (6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or other activity for self-improvement; (7) Antenuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the family; (8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and

(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless. If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.1wphi1 Contrary to Efrens contention, Article 121 above allows payment of the criminal indemnities imposed on his wife, Melecia, out of the partnership assets even before these are liquidated. Indeed, it states that such indemnities "may be enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding article have been covered."[26] No prior liquidation of those assets is required. This is not altogether unfair since Article 122 states that "at the time of liquidation of the partnership, such [offending] spouse shall be charged for what has been paid for the purposes above-mentioned." WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 77198 dated January 29, 2004 and May 14, 2004. The Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 30, shall first ascertain that, in enforcing the writ of execution on the conjugal properties of spouses Efren and Melecia Pana for the satisfaction of the indemnities imposed by final judgment on the latter accused in Criminal Cases 4232 and 4233, the responsibilities enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code have been covered. SO ORDERED. ARTICLE 94 BA Finance Corp vs CA BA Finance Corp vs. CA GR 61464, May 28 1988 FACTS: Augusto Yulo secured a loan from the petitioner in the amount of P591,003.59 as evidenced by a promissory note he signed in his own behalf and as a representative of A&L Industries. Augusto presented an alleged special power of attorney executed by his wife, Lily Yulo, who managed the business and under whose name the said business was registered, purportedly authorized the husband to procure the loan and sign the promissory note. 2months prior the procurement of the loan, Augusto left Lily and their children which in turn abandoned their conjugal home. When the obligation became

due and demandable, Augusto failed to pay the same. The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of attachment alleging that said spouses were guilty of fraud consisting of the execution of Deed of Assignment assigning the rights, titles and interests over a construction contract executed by and between the spouses and A. Soriano Corporation. The writ hereby prayed for was issued by the trial court and not contented with the order, petitioner filed a motion for the examination of attachment debtor alleging that the properties attached by the sheriff were not sufficient to secure the satisfaction of any judgment which was likewise granted by the court. ISSUE: WON A&L Industries can be held liable for the obligations contracted by the husband. HELD: A&L Industries is a single proprietorship, whose registered owner is Lily Yulo. The said proprietorship was established during the marriage and assets were also acquired during the same. Hence, it is presumed that the property forms part of the conjugal partnership of the spouses and be held liable for the obligations contracted by the husband. However, for the property to be liable, the obligation contracted by the husband must have redounded to the benefit of the conjugal partnership. The obligation was contracted by Augusto for his own benefit because at the time he incurred such obligation, he had already abandoned his family and left their conjugal home. He likewise made it appear that he was duly authorized by his wife in behalf of the company to procure such loan from the petitioner. Clearly, there must be the requisite showing that some advantage accrued to the welfare of the spouses. Thus, the Court ruled that petitioner cannot enforce the obligation contracted by Augusto against his conjugal properties with Lily. Furthermore, the writ of attachment cannot be issued against the said properties and that the petitioner is ordered to pay Lily actual damages amouting to P660,000.00. FELICIANO, J.: The present Petition for Review seeks to set aside the Decision dated 9 December 1986 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 03299. The appellate court affirmed a Decision dated 31 May 1983 of Branch 83 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. 2896C filed by petitioner company against private respondent spouses. On 2 May 1975, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Maris Trading and petitioner Marmont Resort Hotel Enterprises, Inc. ("Marmont"), a corporation engaged in the hotel and resort business with office and establishment at Olongapo City. Under the agreement, Maris Trading undertook to drill for water and to provide all equipment necessary to install and complete a water supply facility to service the Marmont Resort Hotel in Olongapo, for a stipulated fee of P40,000.00. In fulfillment of its contract, Maris Trading drilled a well and installed a water pump on a portion of a parcel of land situated in Olongapo City, then occupied by respondent spouses Federico and Aurora Guiang. Five (5) months later, a second Memorandum of Agreement was executed between Maris Trading and Aurora Guiang, with Federico Guiang signing as witness. This second agreement in essential part read: 1 That the First Party [Maris Trading] has dug, drilled and tapped water source for Marmont Resort, located at Bo. Barretto, Olongapo City in accordance with their agreement executed on May 2, 1975 and notarized before Isagani M. Jungco, Notary Public and entered as Doc. No. 166; Page No. 135; Book No. XV; Series of 1975. That the First Party has erected, built and drilled for the water source of Marmont Resort on the land owned by the Second Party [Aurora Guiang] at the corner of J. Montelibano Street and Maquinaya Drive (Provincial Road) with the latter's permission. That for and in consideration of the sum of P1,500.00 the Second Party hereby Sell, Transfer and Cede all possessory rights, interest and claims over that portion of the lot wherein the water source of Marmont Resort is located unto and in favor of Maris Trading.

G.R. No. 79734 December 8, 1988 MARMONT RESORT HOTEL ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. FEDERICO GUIANG, AURORA GUIANG, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. Isagani M. Jungco for petitioner.

After some time, the water supply of the Marmont Resort Hotel became inadequate to meet the hotel's water requirements. Petitioner Marmont secured the services of another contractor (the name of which was not disclosed), which suggested that in addition to the existing water pump, a submersible pump be installed to increase the pressure and improve the flow of water to the hotel. Accordingly, Juan Montelibano, Jr., manager of the Marmont Resort Hotel, sought permission from the Guiang spouses to inspect the water pump which had been installed on the portion of the land previously occupied by the spouses and to make the necessary additional installations thereon. No such permission, however, was granted. On 13 May 1980, petitioner Marmont filed a Complaint 2 against the Guiang spouses for damages resulting from their refusal to allow representatives of petitioner and the second contractor firm entry into the water facility site. The claimed damages were broken down as follows: (a) P10,000.00 representing the amount advanced in payment to the second contractor; (b) P40,000.00 representing the total project cost of the installation made by Maris Trading: (c) P50,000.00 representing additional expenses incurred and incidental losses resulting from failure of the original pump to cope with the water requirements of the Marmont Resort Hotel; and (d) P10,000.00 for Attorney's fees. In their Answer, 3 the Guiang spouses (defendants below) denied having had any previous knowledge of the first Memorandum of Agreement and asserted that the second Memorandum of Agreement was invalid for not having been executed in accordance with law. The spouses added a counterclaim for damages in the amount of P200,000.00. On 2 October 1980, at the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed on the following stipulation of facts and issues embodied in a Pre-Trial Order: 4 III In addition to the admission made elsewhere in their respective pleadings, the parties entered into the following stipulation of facts: 1. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with office at Montelibano Street, Barrio Barretto, Olongapo City;

2. The contract referred to in paragraph 2 of the complaint between the plaintiff and Maris Trading is contained in a document captioned Memorandum Agreement executed on May 2, 1975, a xerox copy of which is Annex 'A' of plaintiffs complaint; 3. On October 7, 1975, the Maris Trading represented by Ceferino Cabral and defendant Aurora Guiang entered into a memorandum agreement; 4. The portion sold under Annex 'A' is still a part of the public domain. IV The plaintiff marked the following exhibits in evidence: Exhibit 'A'-Memorandum Agreement dated May 2, 1975 Exhibit 'B-Memorandum Agreement dated October 7, 1975 V The issues left to be ventilated during the trial are the following: 1. Whether defendants has actually prohibited the plaintiff [from) making repairs, [on] the pump constructed by Maris Trading for the plaintiff under the agreement Exhibit 'A,' if so; 2. Whether defendants [have] the right to prohibit the Maris Trading from performing the repairs and if not 3. Whether defendants are liable for damages under the human relations provision of the Civil Code. On I January 1980, the Guiang spouses moved to dismiss the Complaint. 5 The spouses there assailed the validity of the second Memorandum of Agreement, alleging that the subject matter thereof involved conjugal property alienated by Aurora Guiang without the marital consent of her husband, Federico Guiang. Further, it was alleged that the land upon which the hotel's water supply facility was installed-and which the Guiang spouses occupied-formed part of the public domain and was then still the subject of a Miscellaneous Sales Application submitted by Federico Guiang. The

Motion to Dismiss, however, was denied by the trial court. No evidence having been adduced by the Guiang spouses on their behalf, the case was submitted for derision. On 31 May 1983, the trial court rendered a decision, 6 dismissing the complaint. The trial court found that Aurora Guiang had validly alienated her rights over the disputed portion of land to Maris Trading, but held that the evidence failed to show that Maris Trading, in turn, had transferred such rights to petitioner Marmont. Petitioner Marmont appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. 7 The appellate court, citing Section 55, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, held that the first and second Memoranda of Agreement could not legally be considered by the court as included in the body of evidence of the case, as neither document had been formally offered in evidence by either party. It also held that, in any event, neither document showed that Marmont had in fact acquired from Maris Trading whatever rights the latter had over the land in dispute. In the instant Petition for Review, petitioner assigns the following errors: 8 1. The Court of Appeals erred in not considering the Memorandum of Agreement of May 2, 1975 and 7 October 1975 as the same were already admitted in the pre-trial order; and 2. The Court of Appeals erred in deciding that ownership belongs to Maris Trading hence, private respondent Guiang can prohibit Marmont Resort from entering the land. We find for the petitioner. Both the trial and appellate courts held that the first and second Memoranda of Agreement are not properly considered as forming part of the record of this case, because neither had been formally presented and offered in evidence at the trial of Civil Case No. 2896-C. The record shows, however, as noted earlier, that at the pre-trial conference held on 2 October 1980, both petitioner Marmont and respondent spouses had agreed upon a stipulation of facts and issues recognizing the existence of those same two (2) agreements. Such stipulation of facts constitutes a judicial admission, the veracity of which requires no further proof and which may be controverted only upon a clear showing that such stipulation had been entered

into through "palpable mistake." On this point, Section 2, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Section 2. Judicial Admissions.--Admission made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings do not require proof and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake. (emphasis supplied) There has been no showing and respondent spouses do not claim that "palpable mistake" had intervened here, in respect of the formulation of the facts stipulated by the parties at the pre-trial conference. Absent any such showing, that stipulation of facts is incontrovertible, 9 and may be relied upon by the courts. 10 Respondent spouses are estopped from raising as an issue in this case the existence and admissibility in evidence of both the first and second Memoranda of Agreement which, having been marked as exhibits during pretrial, properly form part of the record of this case, even though not formally offered in evidence after trial. 11 We consider briefly respondent spouses' argument that the second Memorandum of Agreement was invalid for having been executed by Aurora Guiang without the marital consent of Federico, contrary to Articles 165 and 172 of the Civil Code. Article 165 and 172 state the general principle under our civil law, that the wife may not validly bind the conjugal partnership without the consent of the husband, who is legally the administrator of the conjugal partnership. In this particular case, however, as noted earlier, the second Memorandum of Agreement, although ostensibly contracted solely by Aurora Guiang with Maris Trading, was also signed by her husband Federico, as one of the witnesses thereto. This circumstance indicates not only that Federico was present during the execution of the agreement but also that he had, in fact, given his consent to the execution thereof by his wife Aurora. Otherwise, he should not have appended his signature to the document as witness. Respondent spouses cannot now disown the second Memorandum of Agreement as their effective consent thereto is sufficiently manifested in the document itself. That the land in dispute was, at the time of execution of the second Memorandum of Agreement, public land, is of no consequence here. Pending approval of Federico's Miscellaneous Sales Application over said land, respondent spouses enjoyed possessory and other rights over

the same which could validly be assigned or transferred in favor of third persons. In this case, respondent spouses chose to transfer such rights (over the portion upon which the water pump was installed) to Maris Trading, as evidenced by the fourth paragraph of the second Memorandum of Agreement, quoted earlier. Furthermore, assuming (though only for the sake of argument) that the alienation to Maris Trading was legally objectionable, respondent spouses are not the proper parties to raise the issue of invalidity, they and Maris Trading being in pari delicto. Only the government may raise that issue. Finally, respondent spouses allege that dismissal of the complaint by the trial court was not improper as petitioner Marmont was not privy to the second Memorandum of Agreement, and that accordingly, petitioner had no valid cause of action against respondents. A closer scrutiny of the second and third paragraphs of the second Memorandum of Agreement discloses that the first Memorandum of Agreement, including the obligations imposed thereunder upon Maris Trading, had been acknowledged therein: That the First Party (i.e., Maris Trading) has dug, drilled and tapped water source for Marmont Resort, located at Bo. Barretto, Olongapo City in accordance with their agreement executed on May 2, 1975 and notarized before Isagani M. Jungco, Notary Public and entered as Doc. No. 166; Page No. 135; Book No. XV; Series of 1975. That the First Party has erected, built and drilled for the water source of Marmont Resort on the land owned by the Second Party [respondent spouses] at the corner of J. Montelibano Street and Maquinaya Drive (Provincial Road) with the latter's permission;... (Emphasis supplied) The above paragraphs establish, among other things, that construction work had been performed by Maris Trading on the land occupied by respondent spouses; that such construction work had been performed in accordance with terms and conditions stipulated in the first Memorandum of Agreement and that the purpose of the work was to build a water supply facility for petitioner Marmont. The same excerpts also show that the work so performed was with the knowledge and consent of the Guiang spouses, who were then occupying the land.

It is clear from the foregoing stipulations that petitioner Marmont was to benefit from the second Memorandum of Agreement. In fact, said stipulations appear to have been designed precisely to benefit petitioner and, thus, partake of the nature of stipulations pour autrui, contemplated in Article 1311 of the Civil Code. A stipulation pour autrui is a stipulation in favor of a third person conferring a clear and deliberate favor upon him, which stipulation is found in a contract entered into by parties neither of whom acted as agent of the beneficiary.12 We believe and so hold that the purpose and intent of the stipulating parties (Maris Trading and respondent spouses) to benefit the third person (petitioner Marmont) is sufficiently clear in the second Memorandum of Agreement. Marmont was not of course a party to that second Agreement but, as correctly pointed out by the trial court and the appellate court, the respondent spouses could not have prevented Maris Trading from entering the property possessory rights over which had thus been acquired by Maris Trading. That respondent t spouses remained in physical possession of that particular bit of land, is of no moment; they did so simply upon the sufferance of Maris Trading. Had Maris Trading, and not the respondent spouses, been in physical possession, we believe that Marmont would have been similarly entitled to compel Maris Trading to give it (Marmont) access to the site involved. The two (2) courts below failed to take adequate account of the fact that the sole purpose of Maris Trading in acquiring possessory rights over that specific portion of the land where well and pump and piping had been installed, was to supply the water requirements of petitioner's hotel. That said purpose was known by respondent spouses, is made explicit by the second Memorandum of Agreement. Maris Trading itself had no need for a water supply facility; neither did the respondent spouses. The water facility was intended solely for Marmont Resort Hotel. The interest of Marmont cannot therefore be regarded as merely "incidental ." 13 Finally, even if it be assumed (for purposes of argument merely) that the second Memorandum of Agreement did not constitute a stipulation pour autrui, still respondent spouses, in the circumstances of this case, must be regarded as having acted contrary to the principles of honesty, good faith and fair dealing embodied in Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code when they refused petitioner Marmont access to the water facility to inspect and repair the same and to increase its capacity and thereby to benefit from it. In so doing, respondent spouses forced petitioner Marmont to locate an alternative source of water for its hotel which of course involved expenditure of money and

perhaps loss of hotel revenues. We believe they should respond in damages. The evidence on record, however, appears insufficient for determination of the amount of damages for which respondent spouses should be liable. For this reason, the Court is compelled to remand this case to the trial court for determination of such damages in appropriate further proceedings. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 9 December 1986 of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 03299, as well as the Decision dated 31 May 1983 of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 2896-C, are REVERSED. This case is REMANDED to the trial court for determination, in further proceedings consistent with this decision, of the amount of petitioner is entitled to receive from respondent spouses. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-57757 August 31, 1987 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PRAGMACIO VITUG AND MAXIMO VITUG, respondents.

On December 1, 1963, Donata Montemayor also mortgaged in favor of PNB certain properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888-Pampanga to guarantee the payment of the loan account of her son Salvador Vitug in the amount of P35,200.00, which mortgage was duly registered in the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. 2 The above-mentioned Transfer Certificates of Titles covering said properties were all in the name of Donata Montemayor, of legal age, Filipino, widow and a resident of Lubao, Pampanga at the time they were mortgaged to PNB 3 and were free from all hens and encumbrances. 4 Salvador Vitug failed to pay his account so the bank foreclosed the mortgaged properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888. They were sold at public auction on May 20, 1968 in which the PNB was the highest bidder. The titles thereto were thereafter consolidated in the name of PNB. Likewise, Salvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani failed to settle their accounts with the PNB so the latter foreclosed the properties covered by TCT No. 2889 which were sold at public auction and likewise PNB was the buyer thereof. On August 30, 1968, a certificate of sale was issued by the Register of Deeds covering said properties in favor of the PNB. When the title of the PNB was consolidated a new title was issued in its name. 5 On September 2, 1969, the PNB sold the properties covered by TCT Nos. 2887 and 2888 Pampanga to Jesus M. Vitug, Anunciacion V. de Guzman, Prudencia V. Fajardo, Salvador Vitug and Aurora V. Gutierrez in those names the corresponding titles were issued. 6 During the lifetime of Clodualdo Vitug he married two times. His first wife was Gervacia Flores with whom he had 3 children, namely, Victor, Lucina and Julio all surnamed Vitug. Victor now dead is survived by his 5 children: Leonardo, Juan, Candida Francisco and Donaciano, an surnamed Vitug. Juan Vitug is also dead and is survived by his only daughter Florencia Vitug. The second wife of Clodualdo Vitug was Donata Montemayor with whom he had 8 children, namely, Pragmacio, Maximo, Jesus, Salvador, Prudencio and Anunciacion, all surnamed Vitug, the late Enrique Vitug represented by his wife Natalia Laquian, and the late Francisco Vitug who is survived by 11 children, namely, Antonio, Francisco, Aurora, Pedro, Honorio, Corazon, Anselmo, Benigno, Eligio Jesus and Luz.

GANCAYCO, J.: Does the presumption of conjugality of properties acquired by the spouses during coverture provided for in Article 160 of the Civil Code apply to property covered by a Torrens certificate of title in the name of the widow? This is the issue posed in this petition to review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 60903 which is an action for reconveyance and damages. * On November 28, 1952, Donata Montemayor, through her son, Salvador M. Vitug, mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) several parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2289 Pampanga to guarantee the loan granted by the PNB to Salvador Jaramilla and Pedro Bacani in the amount of P40,900.00 which was duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga. 1

Clodualdo Vitug died intestate on May 20, 1929 so his estate was settled and distributed in Special Proceeding No. 422 in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga wherein Donata Montemayor was the Administratrix. 7 Meanwhile, on May 12,1958, Donata Montemayor executed a contract of lease of Lot No. 24, which is covered by TCT No. 2887-R in favor of her children Pragmacio and Maximo both surnamed Vitug. This lease was extended on August 31, 1963. By virtue of a general power of attorney executed by Donata Montemayor on Sept. 19, 1966 in favor of Pragmacio Vitug, the latter executed a contract of lease on Sept. 19, 1967 of the said lot in favor of Maximo Vitug. 8 On March 21, 1970 Pragmacio Vitug and Maximo Vitug filed an action for partition and reconveyance with damages in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga against Marcelo Mendiola, special administrator of the intestate estate of Donata Montemayor who died earlier, Jesus Vitug, Sr., Salvador, Natalia, Prudencia, Anunciacion, all surnamed Vitug, Antonio, Francisco, Aurora, Pedro, Honorio, Corazon, Anselmo, Benigno, Eligio Jesus and Luz, all surnamed Fajardo and the PNB. The subject of the action is 30 parcels of land which they claim to be the conjugal property of the spouses Donata Montemayor and Clodualdo Vitug of which they claim a share of 2/11 of 1/2 thereof. They assailed the mortgage to the PNB and the public auction of the properties as null and void. They invoked the case of Vitug vs. Montemayor, L5297 decided by this Court on Oct. 20, 1953 which is an action for partition and liquidation of the said 30 parcels of land wherein the properties were found to be conjugal in nature. In a decision of Sept. 15, 1975, the lower court dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiffs and ordered them to pay attorney's fees of P5,000.00 to the defendant's counsel. Plaintiffs then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, wherein in due course a decision was rendered on May 20, 1981, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside, and another one entered in accordance with the tenor of the prayer of appellant's complaint with the modification that the sale at public auction of the 22 parcels be considered valid with respect to the 1/2 thereof. No costs.

Hence the herein petition for certiorari filed by the PNB raising the following assignments of error: I THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING TO THE CASE AT BAR THE RULING OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN FLORENCIA VITUG VS. DONATA MONTEMAYOR, ET AL., 91 PHIL. 286 (1953) BECAUSE: A. BETWEEN A PROVISION OF A SPECIAL LAW AND THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND/OR APPLICATION OF A PROVISION OF A GENERAL LAW, THE FORMER PREVAILS. B. THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS IS NOT MECHANICAL FORMULA OF ADHERENCE. C. PNB WAS NOT A PARTY, AND HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABOVECITED CASE. A

NO

D. SIMILARLY, PRAGMACIO VITUG AND MAXIMO VITUG WERE NOT PARTIES IN SAID CASE. II THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE CERTIFICATE, OF TITLE, AS PROVIDED IN ACT 496, AS AMENDED (THE LAND REGISTRATION). III THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN IGNORING THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF OWNERSHIP OF DONATA MONTEMAYOR OVER THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE REGISTERED EXCLUSIVELY IN HER NAME WHEN PRIVATE RESPONDENTS (PRAGMACIO VITUG AND MAXIMO VITUG), AS LESSEES, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT OF LEASE WITH DONATA MONTEMAYOR AS THE OWNER-LESSOR. IV THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PNB WAS A MORTGAGEE IN BAD FAITH. The petition is impressed with merit. When the subject properties were mortgaged to the PNB they were registered in the name of Donata Montemayor, widow. Relying on the torrens certificate of title covering said properties the mortgage loan applications of Donata were

granted by the PNB and the mortgages were duly constituted and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds. In processing the loan applications of Donata Montemayor, the PNB had the right to rely on what appears in the certificates of title and no more. On its face the properties are owned by Donata Montemayor, a widow. The PNB had no reason to doubt nor question the status of said registered owner and her ownership thereof. Indeed, there are no liens and encumbrances covering the same. The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man make such inquiry. 9 A torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership of the land covered by a final degree of registration. 10Once the title is registered the owner may rest assured without the necessity of stepping into the portals of the court or sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land. 11 Article 160 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Art. 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. The presumption applies to property acquired during the lifetime of the husband and wife. In this case, it appears on the face of the title that the properties were acquired by Donata Montemayor when she was already a widow. When the property is registered in the name of a spouse only and there is no showing as to when the property was acquired by said spouse, this is an indication that the property belongs exclusively to said spouse. 12 And this presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code cannot prevail when the title is in the name of only one spouse and the rights of innocent third parties are involved. 13 The PNB had a reason to rely on what appears on the certificates of title of the properties mortgaged. For all legal purposes, the PNB is a mortgagee in goodfaith for at the time the mortgages covering said properties were constituted the PNB was not aware to any flaw of the title of the mortgagor. 14

True it is that in the earlier cases decided by this Court, namely Vitug VS. Montemayor decided on May 15, 1952, which is an action for recovery of possession of a share in said parcels of land, 15 and in the subsequent action for partition between the same parties decided on Oct. 20, 1953, 16 this court found the 30 parcels of land in question to be conjugal in nature and awarded the corresponding share to the property of Florencia Vitug, an heir of the late Clodualdo Vitug from the first marriage. In said cases this Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. In the dispositive part of the decision of the trial court it made the observation that "but from the conduct of Clodualdo Vitug and Donata Montemayor during the existence of their marital life, the inference is clear that Clodualdo had the unequivocal intention of transmitting the full ownership of the 30 parcels of land to his wife Donata Montemayor, thus considering the 1/2 of the funds of the conjugal property so advanced for the purchase of said parcels of land as reimbursible to the estate of Clodualdo Vitug on his death. 17 That must be the reason why the property was registered in the name of Donata Montemayor as widow after the death of Clodualdo Vitug. 18 At any rate, although actions for recovery of real property and for partition are real actions, however, they are actions in personam that bind only the particular individuals who are parties thereto. 19 The PNB not being a party in said cases is not bound by the said decisions. Nor does it appear that the PNB was aware of the said decisions when it extended the above describe mortgage loans. Indeed, if the PNB knew of the conjugal nature of said properties it would not have approved the mortgage applications covering said properties of Donata Montemayor without requiring the consent of all the other heirs or co-owners thereof. Moreover, when said properties were sold at public auction, the PNB was a purchaser for value in good faith. So its right thereto is beyond question. 20 Pragmacio and Maximo Vitug are now estopped from questioning the title of Donata Montemayor to the said properties. They never raised the conjugal nature of the property nor took issue as to the ownership of their mother, Donata Montemayor, over the same. Indeed private respondents were among the defendants in said two cases wherein in their answers to the complaint they asserted that the properties in question are paraphernal properties belonging exclusively to Donata Montemayor and are not conjugal in nature. 21 Thus they leased the properties from their mother Donata Montemayor for many years knowing her to be the owner. They were in possession of the property for a long time and they knew that the

same were mortgaged by their mother to the PNB and thereafter were sold at public auction, but they did not do anything. 22 It is only after 17 years that they remembered to assert their rights. Certainly, they are guilty of laches. 23 Moreover, as correctly held by the lower court. Pragmacio and Maximo Vitug as occupants and lessees of the property in question cannot now dispute the ownership of their mother over the same who was their lessor. 24 WHEREFORE, the subject decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and set aside and another decision is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint and ordering private respondents to pay attomey's fees and expenses of litigation to petitioner PNB in the amount of P20,000.00 and the costs of the suit. SO ORDERED.