WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA SALONGA, !

resi"in# J$"#e o% M&'&ti R(C, )r&n*+ ,-., respon"ents. G.R. No. ,-/0/1 J$ne /1, /112 Facts: Petitioner Wolfgang, a German citizen and resident of Germany, married private respondent Carmen, a Filipina, on 11 December 198 in !amb"rg, Gemany# $arly 1981, t%e marriage &as ratified in 'ayasan, (egros )riental# '%ey %ad t&o da"g%ters, Carolyne and *le+andria ,ristine# Private respondent filed a petition for t%e declaration of n"llity of marriage before t%e -egional 'rial Co"rt of .a/ati on 08 *"g"st 1991# Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss b"t &as denied by trial co"rt# * motion for reconsideration &as filed by private respondent b"t &as again denied by t%e trial co"rt# 2n 1993, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from t%e Co"rt of First 2nstance of !amb"rg4 5lan/enese and granting t%e c"stody of t%e c%ildren to t%e fat%er# 2t &as 6"ne 17, 1999 &%en p"blic respondent iss"ed an order granting t%e petitioner8s motion to dismiss, b"t &as partially set aside on 9eptember 1999 for t%e p"rpose of tac/ling iss"es regarding property relations of t%e spo"ses as &ell as s"pport and c"stody of t%eir c%ildren# Petitioner assailed for t%e trial co"rt8s lac/ of :"risdiction, and grave ab"se of discretion on t%e part of t%e respondent :"dge# 2ss"e: W%et%er or not t%e P%ilippine co"rts can determine t%e legal effects of a decree of divorce from a foreign co"ntry# !eld: ;es# )"r co"rts can determine t%e legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign co"ntry s"c% as t%ose concerning &it% s"pport and c"stody of t%e c%ildren# 2n t%is case, t%e decree did not to"c% as to &%o t%e offending spo"se &as# '%e trial co"rt &as correct in setting t%e iss"e for %earing to determine t%e iss"e of parental c"stody, care, s"pport and ed"cation of t%e best interests of t%e c%ildren# *fter all, t%e c%ild8s &elfare is al&ays t%e paramo"nt consideration in all <"estions concerning %is care and c"stody# W!$-$F)-$, t%e orders of t%e -egional 'rial Co"rt of .a/ati, 5ranc% 179, iss"ed on 9eptember = , 1999 and .arc% =1, 0 are *FF2-.$D &it% .)D2F2C*'2)(# We %ereby declare t%at t%e trial co"rt %as :"risdiction over t%e iss"e bet&een t%e parties as to &%o %as parental c"stody, incl"ding t%e care, s"pport and ed"cation of t%e c%ildren, namely Carolyne and *le+andra ,ristine -oe%r# >et t%e records of t%is case be remanded promptly to t%e trial co"rt for contin"ation of appropriate proceedings# (o prono"ncement as to costs#

5?CC*' @9 5?CC*' FAC(S3 Petitioner met defendant in 19=8 and married %er t%e same year# $ig%ty nine days into t%e marriage, defendant gave birt% to a c%ild# 2t is for t%is reason t%at petitioner is see/ing t%e ann"lment of t%eir marriage# !e said s%e claimed to be a virgin entering into t%e marriage# '%e co"rt decided in favor of t%e defendant despite t%e fact t%at s%e did not appear# '%e co"rt fo"nd it "ntenable t%at petitioner did not notice t%at defendant &as pregnant at t%e time of marriage beca"se s%e &as abo"t 1 mont%s pregnant t%en# ?pon appeal, said decision &as affirmed# ISSUE W%et%er or not t%e marriage can be declared ann"lled based on t%e evidence add"ced RULING '%e co"rt affirmed t%e decision of t%e lo&er co"rt# '%is is d"e to t%e fact t%at it &as impossible for a person &%ose intelligence cannot be <"estioned, being a first year la& st"dent, to not %ave noticed t%e severe stage and advanced stage t%at t%e person %e &as marrying &as in at t%at time# !is claim of developed abdomens being normal is not somet%ing t%e co"rt can accept beca"se it &as not :"st a normal developed abdomen b"t one in an advanced and severe stage of pregnancy# '%e co"rt cannot accept t%at t%ere is fra"d#

.allilin vs Castillo Mallilin vs. Castillo GR No. 136803, June 16, 2000 FAC(S3 $"sta<"io .allilin 6r# and .a# $lvira Castillo &ere alleged to be bot% married and &it% c%ildren b"t separated from t%eir respective spo"ses and co%abited in 1939 &%ile respective marriages still s"bsist# '%ey establis%ed 9"perfreig%t C"stoms 5ro/erage Corporation d"ring t%eir "nion of &%ic% petitioner &as t%e President and C%airman and respondent as @ice President and 'reas"rer# '%ey li/e&ise ac<"ired real and personal properties &%ic% &ere registered solely in respondent8s name# D"e to irreconcilable conflict, t%e co"ple separated in 1990# Petitioner t%en demanded %is s%are from respondent in t%e s"b:ect properties b"t t%e latter ref"sed alleging t%at said properties %ad been registered solely in %er name# F"rt%ermore, respondent denied t%at s%e and petitioner lived as %"sband and &ife beca"se t%ey &ere still legally married at t%e time of co%abitation# Petitioner filed complaint for partition of co4o&ners%ip s%ares &%ile respondent filed a motion for s"mmary :"dgment# 'rial co"rt dismissed t%e former and granted t%e latter# ISSUE3 W)( petitioner can validly claim %is s%are in t%e ac<"ired properties registered "nder t%e name of t%e respondent considering t%ey bot% %ave s"bsisting relations%ip &%en t%ey started living toget%er# HELD3 '%e Co"rt r"led t%at trial co"rt erred t%at parties &%o are not capacitated to marry eac% ot%er and &ere living toget%er co"ld not %ave o&ned properties in common# ?nder *rticle 178, if t%e parties are incapacitated to marry eac% ot%er, properties ac<"ired by t%em t%ro"g% t%eir :oint contrib"tion, property or ind"stry, s%all be o&ned by t%em in common in proportion to t%eir contrib"tions &%ic%, in t%e absence of proof to t%e contrary, is pres"med to be e<"al# !ence, t%ere is co4o&ners%ip even t%o"g% t%e co"ples in "nion are not capacitated to marry eac% ot%er# F"rt%ermore, &%en C* dismissed petitioner8s complaint for partition on gro"nds of d"e process and e<"ity, %is rig%t to prove o&ners%ip over t%e claimed properties &as denied# 9"c% dismissal is "n:"stified since bot% ends may be served by simply e+cl"ding from t%e action for partition t%e properties registered in t%e name of 9teel%o"se -ealty and $loisa Castillo, not parties in t%e case# '%e case &as remanded to lo&er co"rt for f"rt%er proceedings#

Concepcion vs C* Concepcion vs. CA GR No. 123450, August 31, 2005 FAC(S3 Gerardo Concepcion, t%e petitioner, and .a# '%eresa *lmonte, private respondent, &ere married in December 1989, and begotten a c%ild named 6ose Gerardo in December 199 # '%e %"sband filed on December 1991, a petition to %ave %is marriage ann"lled on t%e gro"nd of bigamy since t%e &ife married a certain .ario Gopiao sometime in December 198 , &%om according to t%e %"sband &as still alive and living in >oyola !eig%ts, AC# 'rial co"rt r"led t%at t%e son &as an illegitimate c%ild and t%e c"stody &as a&arded to t%e &ife &%ile Gerardo &as granted visitation rig%ts# '%eresa arg"ed t%at t%ere &as not%ing in t%e la& granting Bvisitation rig%ts in favor of t%e p"tative fat%er of an illegitimate c%ildC# 9%e f"rt%er &anted to %ave t%e s"rname of t%e son c%anged from BConcepcion to *lmonteC, %er maiden name, since an illegitimate c%ild s%o"ld "se %is mot%er8s s"rname# *fter t%e re<"ested oral arg"ment, trial co"rt reversed its r"ling and %eld t%e son to be not t%e son of Gerardo b"t of .ario# !ence, t%e c%ild &as a legitimate c%ild of '%eresa and .ario# HELD3 Considering t%at '%eresa8s marriage &it% Gerardo &as void ab initio, t%e latter never became t%e former8s %"sband and never ac<"ired any rig%t to imp"gn t%e legitimacy of t%e c%ild# '%eresa8s contention &as to %ave %is son be declared as not t%e legitimate c%ild of %er and .ario b"t %er illegitimate c%ild &it% Gerardo# 2n t%is case, t%e mot%er %as no rig%t to disavo& a c%ild beca"se maternity is never "ncertain# !ence, s%e is not permitted by la& to <"estion t%e son8s legitimacy# ?nder *rticle 113 of t%e Family Code, Bt%e c%ild s%all be considered legitimate alt%o"g% t%e mot%er may %ave declared against its legitimacy or may %ave been sentenced as an ad"lteressC# !aving t%e best interest of t%e c%ild in mind, t%e pres"mption of %is legitimacy &as "p%eld by t%e Co"rt# *s a legitimate c%ild, t%e son s%all %ave t%e rig%t to bear t%e s"rnames of .ario and '%eresa, in conformity &it% t%e provisions of Civil Code on s"rnames# Gerardo cannot t%en impose %is s"rname to be "sed by t%e c%ild, since in t%e eyes of t%e la&, t%e c%ild is not related to %im in any &ay#

C)(D$ v *5*;* F&*ts3 '%e case is an appeal by respondent -oman *baya, administrator of %is brot%er Casiano8s estate, assailing t%e decision of t%e CF2, giving t%e plaintiff4appellee Pa"la Conde sole %ereditary rig%ts to t%e in%eritance of %is brot%er as s"ccessor and mot%er to Casiano8s nat"ral c%ildren# Iss$e3W)( t%e mot%er of a pres"med nat"ral c%ild, after t%e latter8s deat% and as %eir to t%e latter, may bring an action to enforce t%e ac/no&ledgement of %er deceased c%ild "nder t%e Civil Code# He4"3 (o# t%e rig%t of action &%ic% devolves "pon t%e c%ild to claim %is legitimacy "nder article 118, may be transmitted to %is %eirs only in certain cases mentioned# 2f %e dies d"ring minority or in a state of insanity# .oreover, t%e rig%t of action for t%e ac/no&ledgement of nat"ral c%ildren "nder article 1=3 can never be transmitted for t%e reason t%at t%e code ma/es no mention of it in any case, not even as a e+ception# 2ncl"sio "ni"s est e+cl"sion alteri"s# 6"dgment reversed#