1) Valerio E. Kalaw v. Ma.

Elena Fernandez
14 January 2015, G.R. No. 166357
2) Rodolfo S. Aguilar v. Edna G. Siasat
28 January 2015, G.R. 200169
3) Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat v. Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat
23 March 2015, G.R. No. 202805
Rosario Banguis-Tambuyat v. Wenifreda Balcom-Tambuyat
G.R. No. 202805, 23 March 2015
Facts:
Adriano Tambuyat and respondent Wenifreda Balcom Tambuyat were
married on September 16, 1965.
During their marriage, Adriano acquired several real properties, including a
700 sq. m. parcel of land located at Brgy. Muzon, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan, which was bought on November 17, 1991. The Deed of Sale was
signed by Adriano alone as vendee.
One of the signing witnesses was petitioner Rosario Banguis Tambuyat, who
signed therein as Rosario Tambuyat. All this time petitioner Banguis
remained married to Eduardo Nolasco.
When TCT covering the subject property was issued, it was made under the
name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis.
When Adriano died intestate on June 7, 1998, Wenifreda filed a Petition for
Cancellation of the subject TCT. She alleged that she was the surviving
spouse of Adriano. That the TCT was erroneously registered and made in the
name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis. That per
annexed marriage contract, Banguis was still married to Nolasco. Wenifreda
prayed that the TCT be cancelled. That a new certificate of title be made out
in Adrianos name, with her as the spouse indicated, and that Banguis be
ordered to surrender her copy of TCT.
On her defense, Banguis claimed that she and Adriano were married on Sept.
2, 1988, and thereafter lived together as married couple; that their union
produced a son; and that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the petition
for cancellation, which is merely a summary proceeding considering that a
thorough determination will have to be made as to whether the property is
conjugal or exclusive property, and since she and Adriano have a child whose
rights will be adversely affected by any judgment in the case.
The RTC decided in favor of Wenifreda and directed the RD of Meycauayan to
cancel the TCT of Banguis and in lieu thereof to issue a new certificate of title
in the name of Adriano M. Tambuyat married to Wenifreda Winnie Balcom
Tambuyat. RTC justified its decision by using Sec. 108 of PD 1529 which
states: court authorization is required for any alteration or amendment of a
certificate of title when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering
a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any duplicate certificate, or
when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of the title.

The CA sustained the trial courts decision, noting that Banguis name was
included in the TCT by error or mistake. It held that the evidence adduced
proved that Wenifreda and not Banguis is the lawful wife of Adriano that
there is a valid and subsisting marriage between Nolasco and Banguis, and
the latter admitted to such fact during the course of the proceedings in the
trial court and that Banguiss opposition to Wenifredas petition for
cancellation of TCT is not real and genuine as to place the latters title to the
subject property in doubt.

Issue: Whether the cancellation of the TCT filed by Wenifreda be granted by the
court.
Held: YES
Under Section 108 of PD 1529, the proceeding for the erasure, alteration, or
amendment of a certificate of title may be resorted to in seven instances,
included are (1) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate and
(2) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
The present case falls under the two instances because the RD of Bulacan
committed and error in issuing the disputed TCT, in the name of Adriano M.
Tambuyat married to Rosario E. Banguis when, in truth and in fact,
respondent Wenifreda and not Banguis is Adrianos lawful spouse. As
correctly ruled by the appellate court, the preponderance of evidence points
to the fact that Wenifreda is the legitimate spouse of Adriano. Thus, it cannot
be said that Adriano and Banguis were husband and wife to each other it
cannot even be said that they have a common law relationship at all.
Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. A man and woman
not legally married who cohabit for many years as husband and wife, who
represent themselves to the public as husband and wife, and who are reputed
to be husband and wife in the community where they live may be considered
legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the Philippines. While
it is true that our laws do not just brush aside the fact that such relationships
are present in our society, and that they produce a community of properties
and interests which is governed by law, authority exists in case law to the
effect that such form of co ownership requires that the man and woman living
together must not in any way be incapacitated to contract marriage. that the
provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the contrary as in
Article 144, when referring to a spouse contemplate a lawfully wedded
spouse.
4) Leonardo A. Villalon and Erlinda Talde-Villalon v. Amelia Chan
G.R. No. 196508
Leonardo A. Villalon and Erlinda Talde-Villalon v. Amelia Chan
G.R. No. 196508, 24 September 2014
Facts:
On May 6, 1954, the respondent Amelia Chan married Leon Basilio Chua in a
civil ceremony solemnized by then Judge Cancio C. Garcia. The respondent

claimed that her husband and the present petitioner, Leonardo A. Villalon, are
one and the same person.
During the subsistence of his marriage to Amelia, Leon Basilio Chua, allegedly
contracted a second marriage with Erlinda Talde, under the name, Leonardo
A. Villalon. The marriage took place on June 2, 1993, and was solemnized by
Judge Ruth C. Santos of MTC Antipolo.
Amelia, who was then living in the United States could not personally filea
case for bigamy in the Philippines, requested Benito Yao Chua and Wilson Go
to commence the criminal proceedings for the commission of the crime of
bigamy against the petitioners.
On his defense, Leonardo filed before the RTC an omnibus motion seeking to
disqualify Amelias lawyer. He argued that Amelia could not be represented in
the bigamy case because she was not a party to the case, as she did not file
the complaint-affidavit.
The RTC granted Leonardos omnibus motion. However, the CA reversed the
decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that the crime of bigamy, being public in
nature, can be denounced by anyone, not only by the offended party, before
the prosecuting authorities without the offended party losing her right to
recover damages. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the offended party could be
deprived of the right to intervene in the criminal case only when he or she
expressly waives the action or reserve the right to institute one. No waiver
was made by Amelia in this case.

Issue: Whether the disqualification of the respondents lawyer violated the rights to
intervene and be heard in the bigamy case.
Held: YES
Sec. 16 of the Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly
allows an offended party to intervene by counsel in the prosecution o f the
offense for the recovery of civil liability where the civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense charged is instituted with the criminal
action. The civil action shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action,
except when the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately or institute the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The fact that the respondent, who was already based abroad, had secured
the services of an attorney in the Philippines reveals her willingness and
interest to participate in the prosecution of the bigamy case and to recover
civil liability from the petitioners. Thus, the RTC should have allowed, and
should not have disqualified, Atty. Atencia from intervening in the bigamy
case as the respondent, being the offended party, is afforded by law the right
to participate through counsel in the prosecution of the offense with respect
to the civil aspect of the case.
5) David A. Noveras v. Leticia T. Noveras
G.R. No. 188289
6) Soledad L. Lavadia v. Heirs of Juan Luces Luna
G.R. No. 171914