(art 26) Cases Family Code (Article 26) Enriquez vs.

Enriquez Facts: Carmela de la Cavada, one of the defendants-appellants, appealed from a judgment of the CFI of Manila, when the trial court revoked the conveyance made to her by Antonio Enriquez of a real property on March 1883. The judgment favored the plaintiffs, the heirs of Antonio Enriquez, entitling them on them of the undivided half of the property; further ordering Carmen de la Cavada to pay the plaintiffs of P 13,000.00 as rents and profits thereof. It rooted from the facts that Antonio Enriquez and Doa Ciriaca Villanueva, mother of the herein plaintiffs, cohabited and deemed married prior to the celebration of marriage on 1865, wherein, within that time, the property in question became part of the conjugal partnership when Doa Ciriaca Villanueva transferred it to Antonio. The above proposition was sustained due to the fact that a marriage celebration was solemnized in 1865, and they had lived as husband and wife prior to that marriage celebration. Issue: WON Antonio and Doa Ciriaca Villanueva was married prior to 1865 Held: No. the absence of cogent evidence of that alleged marriage celebrated prior to 1865 is untenable. What are known common law marriages were never recognized in the Philippines. It was held that Antoniuo Enriquez and Dona Ciriaca were not legally married prioir to 1865. And the property acquired by Antonio in 1861 was his paraphernal property brought to marriage in 1865.

Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo Facts: Petitioner, Wong Woo Yiu, was admitted as a non-quota immigrant on June 28, 1961 by Board of Special Inquiry No. 3. The Board of Commissioner recognized with Perfecto Bias whom she was married in China. The petitioner was a Chinese, and her husband Perfecto, a Filipino, have several children in China. However, on June 1962, the same Board of Commissioners composed of new set of officers, set aside the decision of Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 and ordering the petitioner to be excluded forn the country. Wong Woo Yiu filed an instant petition to declare the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 valid. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition prayed for by the petitioner. The Board of Commissioner, appealed to the SC to reverse the decision of CFI of Manila. They alleged that aside from the testimony given by the petitioner, there was no other sufficient evidence to prove her alleged marriage to Perfecto solemnized by their tribe leader. Her oral testimony that she married Perfecto in 1929 was likewise highly questionable, due to the inconsistency of the public documents entered by her alleged husband, Pefecto, that the latter visited China in 1936, making it impossible for the parties to contract marriage in 1929. Issue: WON the insistent of the petitioner of her alleged marriage in China is tenable

Held: No. The State holds the presumption of validity of marriage unless there are substantial evidences to invalidate such. The discrepancies in the statements of the petitioner and Perfecto Bias put her claim of marriage with the latter highly dubious. No validity can be given to the contention that a marriage contracted outside the Philippines, which is valid under the law of the country where celebrated, is also valid in the country if there are no proofs presented relative to the law of marriage in such foreign country. Ching Huat vs. Co Heong Facts: The petitioner, Ching Huat, prays for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the before the court his daughter who was allegedly 15 years of age, and requiring the respondent to justify his neglect to the custody of the said minor. The respondent answered that on June 1946, he and Maria Ching were married at Plaridel, Bulacan. To prove the respondents claim, he presented the certificate of the Local Civil Registrar and he further contended that no defect in the essential when Marioa reached the legal age. Petitioner asserted that the respondent was married in China to Gue Min, and the marriage between the respondent and Maria Ching void for the lack of legal capacity to contract the second marriage Issue: WON the respondents marriage to Maria Ching should be rendered void on the ground of the formers alleged marriage in China Held: No. The Sc ruled that the presumption was in favor of the validity and good faith of Philippine marriage, in the absence of any cogent proof to prove such alleged marriage of the respondent to a another woman. Further since Maria ching having been validly married on June 1946, she became emancipated from her parents on the same date

Yao-Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales Facts: Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died on January 17, 1977, leaving properties in the Philippines. Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition for them to admister the properties left by the deceased, and they are the legitimate children of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego. Such petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Zse Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen, alleging that they were the legitimate children of the deceased with Yao Kee. They claim that Sy Kiat and Yao Kee was married in accordance with Chinese laws and customs. The CFI of Rizal rendered decision in favor of the oppositors. Thereafter, the alleged heirs of Sy Kiat with Asuncion Gillego assailed the decision of the Trial Court in the Court of Appeals. The appellate court modified the decision, declaring Sy Kiat and Asuncion cohabited without the benefit of marriage, their children will only of inherit in the extent provided by the law for natural children. On the other hand, the appellate court likewise declared the offspring of Sy Kiat with Yao Kee as natural children, on the ground that the marriage between them was not proven and established.

Issue: WON the marriage between Sy Kiat and Yao Kee contracted in acordnce with the Chinese laws was valid under the Philippine Laws Held: The Supreme Court ruled in negative. Art. 71 of the Civil Code provides that All marriages performed outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous marriages, as determined by the Philippine law. The absence of cogent proofs regarding existence and validity of the Chinese marriage between Sy Kiat and Yao Kee, the court did not recognize the validity of such marriage under the Philippine law. Board of Commissioner (CID) vs. Dela Rosa Facts: Yam Ka Lim, the plaintiff, sought of admission in the Philippines. The plaintiff is a Chinese and invoked that he was a legitimate son of Yam Long Sai, a resident merchant in the country. His right to enter the Philippines was inquired by the Board of Special Inquiry, wherein, on December 15, 1913, after hearing and considering the testimony of witnesses, the Board refused the admission of the plaintiff. Upon the petition of the party of the plaintiff, the CFI of Manila, preceded in the hearing of evidences and presentation of proofs whether Yam Ka Lim was a legitimate son of Yam Long Sai , the trial court, after consideration of the laws of China, granted the petition of the plaintiff favoring the his admission to the Philippines. The Insular Collector of Custom through the Attorney-General assailed such decision of the CFI of Manila Issues: WON the court erred in taking judicial notice of Chinese laws with regards the marriage and child legitimacy, even without the any proof of its consistency with the laws in force in the Philippines Held: Yes. According to the SC the trial court committed an error in taking Judicial Notice of what the laws of Marriage in China are. The statutes of other countries must be pleaded and proved the same as another fact. In the absence of such pleading and proof the laws of a foreign state will be presumed to be the same as our own. In this case, the findings of the Board of Special Inquiry, Yam Ka Lim was not a legitimate minor son of the said Yam Long Sai.
Tenchavez v. Escao Facts: In 1948, Pastor Tenchavez, the plaintiff, contracted a secret marriage with the respondent Vicenta Escano and it was duly registered with the local civil register. The secret marriage was found of Vicentas parents and suggested a recelebration of marriage believing that the secret marriage contracted by the couple was an invalid one. But the re-celebration did not take place when the father of Vicenta, found out that Pastor Tenchavez has an amorous relationship with Pacita Noel, a student of San Carlos College. Thereafter, Vicenta decided to live with her parents. On 1940, without informing his husband, Vicenta went for the United States. In August of the same year, Vicenta filed a verified complaint for divorce in the Second Judicial District of Neveda. A degree of absolute divorce was issued by the said tribunal. Issue: WON divorce degree coursed by a Filipino and decided by court abroad shall be recognized under the Philippine law

Held: No. Divorce decree filed by a Filipino abroad shall not be recognized in the Philippines. In case of recognition of our courts with divorce decrees issued abroad, it would be violative of our public policy which will constitute a great discrimination where wealthy spouse could just sojourn abroad and secure a divorce decree. Article 15 of our Civil Code explicitly provides that Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. In view of the provision above-cited, Vicenta Escano is still affected by the Philippine laws, due to her national character. Miciano v. Brimo Facts: Juan Miciano, the petitioner and appellee, was the judicial Administrator of the estate left by the deceased Joseph Brimo. He filed a scheme partition in accordance with the Philippine Laws, as requested by the decedent, at the CFI of Manila where it was approved by the said court. Andre Brimo, the appellant and brother of Joseph Brimo, assailed said partition scheme. Such opposition, rooted from his contention that the scheme of partition is not in accordance with the law of his deceased brother who is Turkish. Making the said partition scheme, which was approved by CFI, null and void since it violates the Art 10 of the Civil Code (now is Art 16 of the NCC). Issue: WON the Turkish Law is impertinent in this case Held: No. However, the absence of proof that the said testamentary disposition is not in accordance to the Turkish law, it is presumed that such foreign law is not in conflict with the Philippine law. Affirming the approval of CFI of Manila in the partition scheme by Juan Miciano, the court ordered for is execution. Valdez vs. Republic GR No. 180863, September 8, 2009 (pp.277) FACTS:Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She gave birth to a baby girl named Nancy. They argued constantly because Sofio was unemployed and did not bring home any money. In March 1972, the latter left their house. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided to go back to her parents home. 3 years have passed without any word from Sofio until in October 1975 when he showed up and they agreed to separate and executed a document to that effect. It was the last time they saw each other and had never heard of ever since. Believing that Sofio was already dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilios application for naturalization in US was denied because petitioners marriage with Sofio was subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed a petition seeking declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. HELD:The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of Sofios death is necessary because Civil Code governs during 1971 and not Family Code where at least 7 consecutive years of absence is only needed. Thus, petitioner was capacitated to marry Virgilio and their marriage is legal and valid. REPUBLIC V. NOLASCO (pp. 279) Facts: Gregorio Nolasco filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antique a petition for the declarationof the presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker, invoking Article 41 of the Family Code. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition through the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique who had been deputized to assist the Solicitor General in the case. During trial, Nolasco testified that he was seaman and that he had first met Parker, a British subject, in a bar in England during one of his ships port calls. From that chance meeting onwards, Parker lived with Nolasco on his ship fo r six months until they returned to Nolascos hometown of San Jose, Antique in 1980 after his seamans contract expired. On January 1982, NOlasco married Parker in San Jose, Antique. After the marriage celebration, Nolasco obtained another employment as a seaman and left his wife with his parents in Antique. Sometime in 1983, while working overseas, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that Parker had left Antique. Nolasco claimed he asked permission to leave the ship and return home to look for

his wife. He testified that his efforts to look for her whenever their ship docked in England were fruitless, that the letters he sent to Parkers address in England were all returned to him, and that their friends received no news from Parker. He testified that he had no knowledge of her family background even after the marriage and did not report the disappearance to the authorities. The petition was granted by lower court and was also affirmed by the appellate court. As such, the republic appealed to the SC. Issue:Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead. Held:The respondent failed to establish that he had the well-founded belief required by law that his absent wife was already dead that would sustain the issuance of a court order declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively dead. In the case at bar, the Court considers that the investigation allegedly conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts is too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead. When he arrived in San Jose, Antique after learning of Janet Monica's departure, instead of seeking the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy, he secured another seaman's contract and went to London, a vast city of many millions of inhabitants, to look for her there. The Court also views respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her personal background even after she had married respondent 17 too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. The same can be said of the loss of the alleged letters respondent had sent to his wife which respondent claims were all returned to him. Respondent said he had lost these returned letters, under unspecified circumstances.

RECTO V. HARDEN (1959) Short summary: Recto was hired by American wife to represent her in RP case for protection of her interest in the conjugal property, vs. American husband, in conjunction with the divorce proceeding she's going to file in US. They won in TC, but on appeal, American H & W agreed to settle. Recto now wants to collect fees for services, but as defense, Harden spouses argues that the contract's object was unlawful (Divorce not allowed in RP) so it is invalid, thus, Recto cannot enforce it against them. Court ruled for Recto Facts: Mrs. Harden, US Citizen, engaged services of Claro M. Recto, for suit to secure an increase in the amount of support she was receinging to preserve her rights in the properties of the conjugal partnership in contemplation of a divorce suit she's going to file in the US. Compensation for RECTO: 20% of value of her share of conjugal partnership after liquidation TC: for Mrs. Harden CA: Harden Sps. Mutually released and forever discharged each other from all actions, debts, duties, and claims to the conjugal partnership -Recto filed motion contesting agreement -defense: contract of services invalid: to secure a divorce decree in violation of our laws WON RECTO COULD ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT? YES *CONTRACT OF SERVICES IS NOT CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, PUBLIC ORDER, OR PUBLIC POLICY The contract has a lawful object: it is to protect the interests of Mrs. Harden in the conjugal partnership during the pendency of a divorce suit -NOT to secure divorce to facilitate or promote procurement of divorce Divorce can be granted to the Sps Harden, they being nationals of country whose laws allow divorce (following the nationality principle in determining the status and dissolution of the marriage)