Garcia vs.

Recio Case Digest

Garcia vs. Recio G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 Facts: Article 26; The respondent, Rederick Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Rizal in 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, the Australian family court issued a decree of divorce supposedly dissolving the marriage. In 1992, respondent acquired Australian citizenship. In 1994, he married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, herein petitioner, inCabanatuan City. In their application for marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino. Since October 1995, they lived separately, and in 1996 while in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided. In 1998, petitioner filed Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy, claiming that she learned of the respondents former marriage only in November. On the other hand, respondent claims that he told petitioner of his prior marriage in 1993, before they were married. Respondent also contended that his first marriage was dissolved by a divorce a decree obtained in Australia in 1989 and hence, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. The trial court declared that the first marriage was dissolved on the ground of the divorce issued in Australia as valid and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this petition was forwarded before the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not respondent has legal capacity to marry Grace Garcia. Ruling: In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. A divorce obtained abroad by two aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective laws. Therefore, before our courts can recognize a foreign divorce, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. In this case, the divorce decree between the respondent and Samson appears to be authentic, issued by an Australian family court. Although, appearance is not sufficient, and compliance with the rules on evidence regarding alleged foreign laws must be demonstrated, the decree was admitted on account of petitioners failure to object properly because he objected to the fact that it was not registered in the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City, not to its admissibility. Respondent claims that the Australian divorce decree, which was validly admitted as evidence, adequately established his legal capacity to marry under Australian law. Even after the divorce becomes absolute, the court may under some foreign statutes, still restrict remarriage. Respondent also failed to produce sufficient evidence showing the foreign law governing his status. Together with other evidences submitted, they dont absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry.

VILLANUEVA MIJARES vs CA Case Digest

VILLANUEVA- MIJARES ET. AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS April 12, 2000

FACTS: Felipe Villanueva left a 15,336-square-meter parcel of land in Kalibo, Capiz to his eight children: Simplicio, Benito, Leon, Eustaquio, Camila, Fausta and Pedro. In 1952, Pedro declared

under his name 1/6 portion of the property (1,905 sq. m.). He held the remaining properties in trust for his co-heirs who demanded the subdivision of the property but to no avail. After Leons death in 1972, private respondents discovered that the shares of Simplicio, Nicolasa, Fausta and Maria Baltazar had been purchased by Leon through a deed of sale dated August 25, 1946 but registered only in 1971. In July 1970, Leon also sold and partitioned the property in favor of petitioners, his children, who thereafter secured separate and independent titles over their respective pro- indiviso shares. Private respondents, who are also descendants of Felipe, filed an action for partition with annulment of documents and/or reconveyance and damages against petitioners. They contended that Leon fraudulently obtained the sale in his favor through machinations and false pretenses. The RTC declared that private respondents action had been barred by res judicata and that petitioners are the legal owners of the property in question in accordance with the individual titles issued to them. ISSUE: Whether or not laches apply against the minors property that was held in trust. RULING: No. At the time of the signing of the Deed of Sale of August 26,1948, private respondents Procerfina, Prosperedad, Ramon and Rosa were minors. They could not be faulted for their failure to file a case to recover their inheritance from their uncle Leon, since up to the age of majority, they believed and considered Leon their co-heir administrator. It was only in 1975, not in 1948, that they became aware of the actionable betrayal by their uncle. Upon learning of their uncles actions, they filed for recovery. Hence, the doctrine of stale demands formulated in Tijam cannot be applied here. They did not sleep on their rights, contrary to petitioners assertion. Furthermore, when Felipe Villanueva died, an implied trust was created by operation of law between Felipes children and Leon, their uncle, as far as the 1/6 share of Felipe. Leons fraudulent titling of Felipes 1/6 share was a betrayal of that implied trust.

Mariategui vs CA Case Digest

Mariategui vs. CA G.R. No. L-57062 January 24, 1992 Facts: Lupo Mariategui contracted three marriages during his lifetime. On his first wife, Eusebia Montellano, who died on November 8, 1904, he begot four children, Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbana and Ireneo. With his second wife, Flaviana Montellano, he begot a daughter named Cresenciana. And his third wife, Felipa Velasco, he begot three children, namely Jacinto, Julian and Paulina. At the time of Lupos death he left certain properties with which he acquired when he was still unmarried. Lupo died without a will. Upon his death, descendants from his first and second marriages executed a deed of extrajudicial partition on Lot No. 163. However, the children on Lupos third marriage filed with the lower court an amended complaint claiming that they were deprive on the partition of Lot No. 163 which were owned by their common father. The petitioners, children on first and second marriage, filed a counterclaim to dismiss the said complaint. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss and also the complaint by the respondents, children on third marriage. Respondents elevated the case on CA on the ground that the trial court committed an error for not finding the third marriage to be lawfully married and also in holding respondents are not legitimate children of their said parents. CA rendered a decision declaring all the children and descendants of Lupo, including the respondents, are entitled to equal shares of estate of their father. However, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision. Issue: Whether or not respondents were able to prove their succession rights over the said estate.

Ruling: With respect to the legal basis of private respondents' demand for partition of the estate of Lupo Mariategui, the Court of Appeals aptly held that the private respondents are legitimate children of the deceased. Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco were alleged to have been lawfully married in or about 1930. This fact is based on the declaration communicated by Lupo Mariategui to Jacinto who testified that "when his father was still living, he was able to mention to him that he and his mother were able to get married before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig, Rizal." The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the community to be such. Although no marriage certificate was introduced to this effect, no evidence was likewise offered to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present. Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.

Madridejo v. De Leon Facts Eulogio de Leon and Flaviana Perez, man and wife, had but one child, Domingo de Leon. The wife and son survived Eulogio de Leon, who died in the year 1915. During her widowhood, Flaviana Perez lived with Pedro Madridejo, a bachelor. The registry of births of the municipality of Siniloan, Laguna, shows that on June 1, 1917, a child was born to Pedro Madridejo and Flaviana Perez, which was named Melecio Madridejo, the necessary data being furnished by Pedro Madridejo. On June 17, 1917, a 24-day old child of Siniloan, Laguna, as a son of Flaviana Perez, no mention being made of the father. On July 8, 1920, Flaviana Perez, being at death's door, was married to Pedro Madridejo, a bachelor, 30 years of age, by the parish priest of Siniloan. She died on the following day, July 9, 1920, leaving Domingo de Leon, her son by Eulogio de Leon, and the plaintiff-appellee Melecio Madridejo, as well as her alleged second husband, Pedro Madridejo. Domingo de Leon died on the 2nd of May, 1928. Lower Court ruled that the marriage of Madridejo and Perez was valid and the Melecio Madridejo was legitmated by that marriage. Appellant (Gonzalo de leon) contends that trial court erred in declaring that the marriage in question was valid and that Pedro Madridejo was legitimated by that marriage. Issues Whether or not the marriage of Flaviana Perez to Pedro Madridejo is valid Whether or not the marriage subsequently legitimated Melecio Madridejo HELD

With regard to the first assignment of error, the mere fact that the parish priest of Siniloan, Laguna, who married Pedro Madridejo and Flaviana Perez, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary does not invalidate the marriage in articulo mortis, it not appearing that the essential requisites required by law for its validity were lacking in the ceremony, and the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate is not one of said essential requisites. In the second issue, it is evident that Melecio Madridejo has not been acknowledged by Pedro Madridejo and Flaviana Perez, either voluntarily or by compulsion, before or after their marriage, and therefore said marriage did not legitimate him.

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera Case Digest

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653 Facts: Article 26; On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in the Federal Republic of Germany. The marriage started auspiciously enough, and the couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila. Thereafter, marital discord set in, followed by a separation de facto between them. After about three and a half years of marriage, private respondent initiating a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany. He claimed that there was failure of their marriage and that they had been living apart since April 1982. On January 15, 1986, Schoneberg Local Court promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to petitioner. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the Regional Trial Court of Manila on January 23, 1983. More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that, while still married to said respondent, petitioner "had an affair with a certain William Chia as early as 1982 and with yet another man named James Chua sometime in 1983". On October 27, 1987, petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash. Issue: Whether or not the criminal cases filed by the German ex-spouse may prosper. Ruling: Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. Hence, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery. In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons. Private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.