Malang vs Moson (2000) property rights of Muslim spouses

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof.
Morales)
Malang vs Moson (2000)
-
Hadji Abdula Malang married Aida (Kenanday) Limba, 3 sons 1

daughter
Hadji engaged in tilling land that was Aida's dowry (mahr/majar)
Hadji bought a parcel of land in Sousa Cotobato
nd
st
Hadji married for the second time Jubaida Kado (2 to 1 ) when he
nd
had 2 children with Aida, no children from 2 marriage
Aida was pregnant with fourth child when Hadji divorced her.
rd
nd
1965 Hadji married Nayo H. Omar (3 to 2 ), childless
th
rd
Soon after Hadji married Hadji Mabai (Mabay) H. Adziz (4 to 3 ),
daughter Fatima
Engaged in buying and selling agricultural products
Hadji married 3 other women but soon divorced them
th
1972 Hadji married petitioner Neng Kagui Kadiguia Malang (4 wife
after divorces), childless
Hadji bought lots of land and had accounts in various banks
12/18/1993 Hadji died without a will while living with Neng Malang
01/24/1994, Malang filed with Shari'a court for issuance of letters of
administration to niece, Tarhata Lauban
Accdg to Neng Malang, Hadji Abdula's legal heirs were (3): Teng
Abdula (Hadji Mohammad), Keto Abdula (Hadji Ismael) and Kueng
Malang (Fatima Malang)
Hadji had 7 parcels of land (5 of which were titled under Hadji Abdula
married to Neng Malang) and a pick up jeepney
After publication of petition, Hadji Mohammad filed opposition to
petition (03/16/1994), add'l two children (Datulna Malang and
Lawanbai Malang), 3 wives, also that as he and his brother helped
their father in the business, they should be the administrators of his
estate
04/07/1994 Shari'a decided: Hadji Mohammad administrator of
properties outside Cotobato City, Petitioner Neng Malang and Hadji
Ismael administrator for properties in Cotobato City. They all paid the
required bonds (100T).
Petitioner asked for bank balances of Hadji Abdula's deposit
accounts, granted (UCPB ~1.5M, MB ~380T, PCIB 850.00) 1994
05/5/1994 Neng Malang suffered congestive heart failure that
required expensive medical treatment, asked for advance of her
share of the estate, Court granted her 250T
Inventory of all properties.
Neng Malang alleged that properties in Cotobato City were conjugal
properties (lots, bank deposits, jeepney) Art 160 Civil Code, Art
116 FC
Lilian Dy
-
Oppositors all properties exclusive properties, not conjugal due to

violation of Civil Code re monogamy, other wives contributed to the
acquisition of properties while Neng did not, not titled in the name of
Neng Malang.
Article 38 PD1083. Regime of property relations. The property
relations between the spouses, in the absence of any stipulation to
the contrary in the marriage settlements or any other contract, shall
be governed by the regime of complete separation of property in
accordance with this Code and, in a suppletory manner, by the
general principles of Islamic law and the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Court decided that properties were exclusive because there was no
stipulation to the contrary
Final division of estate after taxes and fees: 2/64 each to the 4 wives,
14/64 each to the three sons, 7/64 each to the 2 daughters
Neng Malang's advance of 250T to be deducted from her share or if
share is smaller than 250T, excess to be returned
PD 1083 (effective 1977). Civil Code (1950), Family Code (1988),
RA 394 Muslim divorces (1949-1969)
Marriages and divorces all before the PD 1083
Death of Hadji Abdula after PD 1083 and Family Code enacted
Are Muslim marriages and divorces before PD 1083 valid? What law
governs property relationships of Muslim multiple marriages before
PD 1083
Art 78 of Civil Code recognizes Muslim marriages accdg to their rites
and customs (no need to solemnize then, but have to 30 yrs later.
PD 1083 made this provision nugatory (no force)
Co-ownership not applicable because both parties incapacitated to
marry, only applies to "free" live-in couples
Laws to be applied are the laws that were in effect during the event
(ex marriages, birth of child, property acquisition, etc)
Return to lower courts for fact-finding, who is the legit wife, legit
children, etc?
Bondagjy vs Artadi (2008)

-
Parties married under Islamic Law 02/04/1988

rd
1996 Artadi filed for divorce in Shari'a court 3 district Basilan, citing
petitioner's neglect and failure to give support since 1994 petition
denied due to evidence that B supported A in Saudi Arabia, Decision
final and executory
1998 Artadi filed again with Muntinlupa RTC dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and res judicata
E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

-
nd
June 2005 Artadi filed again with 2 district Shari'a court Marawi City
dismissed again for res judicata and forum-shopping
th
Oct 2005 Artadi filed with 4 Disc Shari's court new evidence,
identity of causes not present
nd
Try the case again in 2 Shari'a Court former case refers to
neglect pre-1994, new case neglect since 1996-2005.
Lilian Dy
Tenebro vs CA (2004)
-
Garrido vs Garrido (2010)

-
Maelotisea Garrido filed disbarment against her husband Atty

Garrido and Atty Romana Valencia for gross immorality
M Garrido married Atty Garrido in 1962, 6 children,
1991 children confided in M that in previous years (1987, 1990)
they saw persons claiming to be Atty Garrido's children
M discovered Cert. of Live Birth stating Atty AG and Atty RV were
married in HK in 1978
1993 Atty AG left conjugal home, moved in with Atty RV and has
failed to give financial support since.
Atty AG Marriage to MG void since he was married to Constancia
(died 1977) MG knew about his "playboy image" and existing
marriage. All marriages and children born before he became a
lawyer in 1979
IBP disbars Atty AG in 2004, Atty RV not disbarred
On appeal both Atty AG and Atty RV disbarred, doesn't matter that
they did immoral acts before they became lawyers.
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs CA and Marilou Gonzales (1993)

-
Breach of Promise
1987 GSB (Iranian) promised to marry Marilou Gonzales (22yrs)
Gonzales a virgin before living in (forced) with GSB, GSB changed,
maltreated her and withdrew his offer of marriage already married to
someone from Bacolod (not true single pa talaga)
RTC : Gonzales won 20T moral damages, 3T attorney's fees, 2T
expenses
GSB deceitful cause of deflowering
Gonzales and parents already announced her imminent marriage
and started preparations
GSB did not propose marriage (daw)
Art 21 moral wrongs
Supreme Court upholds decision
Veronica Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas (Aug 1990) by Judge

Alfredo Perez of Lapu-Lapu City
1991 Tenebro showed Ancajas photocopy of marriage contract
(1986) to Hilda Villareyes, left Ancajas allegedly to live with
Villareyes
Jan 1993, Tenebro married again Nilda Villegas by Judge German
Lee
Upon finding out, Ancajas filed a case of bigamy against Tenebro
Tenebro's defense: Wasn't really married to Villereyes, no marriage
ceremony, marriage contract only for purposes of getting seaman's
allotment. No record in civil registrar
1997 Tenebro found guilty of bigamy by RTC, sentenced to 4 8
years, CA no reconsideration
SC upheld CA's ruling. Marriage contract (married by Judge Torres
in Manila), public document, best evidence
Absence of documents/record not the same as absence of marriage
ceremony
nd
nd
Re: 2 marriage null due to psychological incapacity: 2 marriage
st
already bigamy due to subsistence of 1 marriage. In addition, even
nd
if 2 marriage void, there are still legal consequences/effects
applicable (children, bigamy, etc) Safeguard against deliberately
putting defects in marriage contract in order to escape responsibility
Accdg to Vitug, No need for judicial declaration of nullity for marriage
to be void. (except if due to psychological incapacity)
Voidable marriage co-validated by cohabitation and prescription
If second marriage is void (not all essential & formal requisites met)
except for the existence of valid first marriage, no bigamy has been
committed.
Silverio vs RP (2007)
-
11/26/2002 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed petition to change

name and sex in Birth Cert. in RTC Manila. (respondent: civil
registrar)
Silverio born 1962, male. However, he is a transsexual. Underwent
psychological examination, hormone treatment (US), sex-change
operation in Thailand. Issued a medical certificate of having
undergone the procedure by Dr. Reysio-Cruz.
Lived as a female, engaged to American Richard Edel
June 2003 - RTC found in favor of Silverio, ordered Civil Registrar to
change name and sex in Birth Cert. (due to equity and justice)

-
CA overturned decision
SC Change of name a privilege and not a right (RA 9048 Change
of first name, jurisdiction under civil registrar, administrative officers)
SC petitioner failed to show or allege that he may suffer from using
his real name
Sex cannot be a clerical or typographical error
Status of person cannot in law includes all his personal qualities and
relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily
terminable at his own will
No special law governing sex re-assignment
SC Re: RTC's reasons of equity and justice assume no harm to
anyone, but accdg to SC, decision affects many laws, especially
Marriage and Family relations, penal, labor laws that affect women,
etc.
Court cannot make or enact laws, only interpret them.
Lilian Dy
-
People vs Santiago (1927)

-
RP vs Cagandahan
-
2003, Jennifer Cagandahan filed Petition for Correction to Entries in

Birth Certificate (Change name to Jeff, sex from female to male)
Due to medical condition (Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia CAH),
Clitoral Hyperthropy. At age 13, stopped developing female
characteristics, for all purposes and appearance, had become male.
Had medical certificate by doctor regarding condition
RTC of Laguna granted petition, change of name and sex in Birth
Certificate as well as all other records, school, baptismal, etc.
OSG - Must comply with reqm. Of Rule 103 and 108, implead civil
registrar
Cagandahan furnished a copy to civil registrar
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected
without a judicial order.
RA 9048 supersedes Rule 108
Respondent did not take unnatural steps to achieve his/her sex, In
cases of intersex, it is up to the person upon majority to decide
his/her sex
2005, RTC Laguna decision affirmed. Change of first name and sex
approved.
05/22/1988 parties married in Manila Cathedral

05/22/1988 03/15/1989, no sexual intercourse
Examined by doctor, husband given medication, but condition
confidential. Wife still a virgin
Wife claims husband impotent and closet homosexual, married her
to maintain residency status and keep up appearances
Accdg to husband, wife won't have sex with him.
Dr. Sergio Atienza, husband capable of sexual intercourse with a
woman
RTC marriage is void
SC upheld RTC's ruling, husband not believable, did not ask his
wife what was wrong, etc.
Felipe Santiago, guilty of rape, sentenced to 14 years in prison, pay

P500 to Felicita Masilang and provide P15 monthly for offspring from
rape
11/23/1926, Santiago raped Masilang (aged 18yrs, niece by
marriage)
Afterwards, brought to Agaton Santiago's house, where a Protestant
minister performed a marriage ceremony, girl paid a few pesos and
sent home.
Masilang told her father and rape case began
Marriage is void due to duress/no consent. Santiago had the
marriage performed to escape criminal liability, had no intention of
honouring it based on his actions after the ceremony.
Buccat vs Buccat (1941)

PONENTE: Horrilleno
DATE: April 25, 1941
NATURE: Marriage consent freely given; Appeal
FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA & Gina Lao-Tsoi (1997)
Characters:
o Godofredo Buccat: husband, plaintiff-appelant
o Luida Mangonon de Buccat: wife; respondent-appealee

Godofredo met Luida in March 1938. They broke up in September
1938. But they eventually got back together and got married in
November 26 of the same year.
After 89 days of being married, Luida gave birth to a child (full 9
months)
Godofredo left Luida
Godofredo filed for an annulment due to fraud
CFI of Baguio favored the respondent
ISSUE:
Lilian Dy
-
Jordan keeps on avoiding answering charges, hiding, etc (3 years),

suspended until files his answer
Jordan married Dorothy in 1977, thought she was single, but found
out she was married to Merlito A Bercenilla, carried MB's child
Dorothy Jason not MB's child, just forced to get help from MB
because Jordan had abandoned her.
Dorothy Jordan was aware of her first marriage but he still courted
her and told her that her first marriage was void bec she and MB
were first cousins. They got married until Jordan disappeared in
1981. She found out he married Helina Malicdem.
SC Jordan acted in bad faith, marriage with Dorothy still subsisting,
need judicial declaration of nullity, disbarred.
Whether the marriage is annullable even if consent was given through fraud
Domingo vs CA (1993)
HELD/DECISION:
Yes. Decision affirmed

RATIO:
There was no fraud to speak off. The child was born after a full term.
It was impossible for Godofredo not to notice that Luida was pregnant.
Marriage is the most sacred institution. It is the foundation in which society
rests. To annul it, clear and reliable tests are necessary. In this matter such
tests do not exist
Wiegel v Sempio-Diy (19 August 1986)
Karl Heinz Weigel asks for declaration of Nullity of marriage with Lilia
Weigel (1978) due to Lilia's previous marriage to Eduardo Maxion in
1972
Lilia says marriage to Eduardo was void due to lack of consent, also
first husband already married to someone else in 1972 before he
married her.
Force or duress of first marriage only makes it voidable and not void,
needs judicial declaration of such fact. Marriage to Karl Weigal VOID.
Terre vs Terre (1992)

-
Dorothy Terre charged Jordan Terre with gross immoral conduct for
contracting a second marriage while still married to her.
29 May 1991 Delia Soledad A Domingo filed petition for

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property against
Roberto Domingo
They were married 29 Nov 1976 at YMCA Youth Center, but Delia
found out in 1983 that Roberto was already marriage (first wife filed
bigamy against him)
1979 to present, Delia had been working in Saudi Arabia and
supporting Roberto. She also bought properties
In 1989, Delia discovered Roberto had been cohabiting with another
woman and selling her property
Delia wants to have control of her properties back, and have her
brother administer them for her.
Petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage necessary? Should
it only be filed for purposes of remarriage?
Special Proceedings 1989-J proper remedy for recovering property?
Delia and Roberto's marriage void ab initio due to subsistence of
previous marriage.
Family Code a declaration of nullity of a marriage is required either
as a cause of action or a ground for defense.
Judicial declaration of nullity of marriage does not only apply for
purposes of re-marriage.
Court has jurisdiction to separate properties together with declaring
marriage null and void. Art. 43 and Art 44 of Family Code.
So v Valera (2009)

-
Renato So (17) met Lorna Valera (21) in 1973. 19-year common-law

relationship, married in Caloocan on 10 Dec 1991. Had 3 children
1996 Renato filed for declaration of nullity of marriage
Renato lack of essential and formal requisites, Lorna
psychologically incapacitated
Renato: eloped 2 months after meeting at a party. He was asked to
sign a black marriage application form and marriage contract in 1986.
Renato Lorna did not work and caused failed transactions in his
business, embarrassment. Etc (locked out of the house)
Pyschological Report Lorna Valera had Adjustment Disorder and
Compulsive Behavior (smoking pot, gambling, etc) prior to her
marriage to Renato) It is irreversible. (from Renato's point of view)
RTC nullified the marriage in 1999 due to psychological incapacity of
Lorna (Art 36 FC) Award custody of children to Renato.
CA repealed decision of RTC psychological incapacity not proven
and did not meet guidelines in the case of Molina
SC marriage of Renato and Lorna not null and void. No case of
lack of essential and formal requisites of marriage has been proven
SC RTC did not rule on absence of essential and formal requisites.
Renato himself presented a copy of marriage contract, a public
document
Pychological incapacity Its gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability must be established (incapacity not refusal)
Lilian Dy
-
Atienza v Brillantes (A.M. - 1995)

-
Ty v CA (2000)
24 July 1996 CA declared marriage of Edgardo M Reyes and

Ofelia Ty null and void, ordered private respondent to pay 15K
support monthly for children (first marriage must first be voided)
29 Mar 1977, Edgardo married Anna Maria Regina Villanueva in civil
ceremony, (27 Aug 1977 church ceremony)
4 Aug 1980, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared
this marriage void ab initio for lack of valid marriage license, church
wedding lack of consent
4 Apr 1979, Edgardo married Ofelia Ty in Pasay. Church wedding on
st
4 Apr 1982 in Makati (before 1 marriage declared void)
Edgardo alleges marriage to Ofelia null and void due to lack of
marriage license (disproved) and subsistence of prior marriage.
Whether the decree of nullity of first marriage required before
subsequent marriage can be entered into validly?
SC Edgardo and Ofelia's marriage valid (no need of judicial decree)
bec of it was before Wiegel?
Lupo Atienza filed a case for gross immorality of Judge Francisco

Brillantes, Jr. MTC Branch 20, Manila
Dec 1991 discovered Judge cohabiting with Lupo's wife in his
house (De Castro) accdg to houseboy. Left the house and left
instructions for the care of his children
Judge married to Zenaida Ongkiko with 5 children
Judge prevented Lupo from seeing his children, alienated affection
Judge marriage to Ongkiko in 1965 void for lack of marriage
license, married De Castro in LA in 1991, believed himself to be
single, first marriage under Civil Code, Art 40 does not apply
SC Judge already a lawyer, should have known about marriage
license, Art 40 applies bec Judge did not show vested interests to be
impaired. Judge dismissed from service
Santos cs CA, Bedia-Santos (1995)

-
Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of

vested rights.
No award of damages.
st
Leouel Santos (1 Lt in Army) seeks to have his marriage with Julia

Rosario Bedia-Santos declared a nullity
20 Sep 1986 Leouel and Julia married in MTC Iloilo City, followed
by a church wedding. Lived with Julia's parents, had a son in 1987.
They began to quarrel frequently
18 May 1988 Julia left for US to work as a nurse. Only called him in
Jan 1989, never came home. Leouel went to the US in 1990, couldn't
find Julia.
Leouel filed a complaint for "Voiding Marriage under Art 36 of the
FC" Summon printed in newspaper.
1991, Julia through counsel claimed it was Leouel who was
irresponsible and incompetent, but she never appeared or submitted
evidence in court.
RTC and CA dismissed Leouel's petition for lack of merit. (also lack
of cert of non-forum shopping)
Leouel Julia psychologically incapacitated because of failure to
communicate with him for 5 years, no love, no affection.
SC no psychological incapacity (gravity, juridical antecedent,
incurability)

-
Dissenting Opinion ( J Padilla) failure to communicate and cohabit

with husband a sign of incapacity to fulfil essential obligation of
marriage. Leouel deserves his freedom.
Lilian Dy
-
Rep vs Molina (1997)

-
already discussed before

Roridel and Reynaldo's marriage is still valid and subsisting, No
psychological incapacity
Hernandez vs CA, Mario Hernandez (1999)

-
review of decision by CA in 30 Jan 1996, dismissing petition for

annulment of marriage filed by Lucita Hernandez
1 Jan 1981 Lucita and Mario married in Silang, Cavite, Had 3
children
10 July 1992 Lucita filed petition seeking annulment of marriage on
ground of psychological incapacity of Mario he failed to manage
and support family, drinking sprees, womanizer and illegitimate child
(1989), etc). Due to promiscuity, Mario infected Lucita with an STD.
Lucita asked for monthly support of 9K, custody of children, sole
owner of land (w/c she bought in 1979 and paid for in full in 1987)
and jeep.
Mario had affairs but Lucita took him back to save their marriage
Mario left for good on 12 June 1992.
When Lucita confronted Mario about his relationship with Tess and
illegitimate child, Mario beat her up and she had to be confined in
hospital for cerebral concussion (July4-5 1990)
Mario also hit their eldest child who was then barely a year old. Not
close to any of their children.
Ester Alfaro introduced Mario to Lucita, but tried to dissuade Lucita
from marrying him bec she knew of his drunken/bad habits.
Confirmed Lucita's testimony
RTC only have grounds for legal separation, not annulment. STD
not present during marriage ceremony, only 5 years after.
CA affirmed RTC's ruling. No psychological incapacity
SC affirmed RTC and CA's ruling, no psychological incapacity.
Engrace Ninal (as guardian of Babyline, Ingrid, Archie & Pepito Ninal Jr)
v Norma Bayadog (Mar 14 2000)
May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration
of nullity of his marriage after his death?
26 Sep 1974 Pepito Ninal married Teodulfa Bellones
24 Aprl 1985 Pepito shot to death Teodulfa
11 Dec 1986 Pepito and Norma Badayog got married w/o marriage
license, executed affidavit that they had lived together for 5 years as
husband and wife
19 Feb 1997 Pepito died in a car accident
Heirs then filed petition to declare second marriage void for lack of
marriage license. Norma filed to dismiss bec heirs not among
persons who can file an action for annulment of marriage
RTC dismissed case. Should have filed before Pepito's death.
SC marriage of Pepito and Norma void ab initio due to Pepito's
subsisting marriage during claimed period of cohabitation
SC any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.
SC Second marriage was void ab initio
Barcelona vs CA (2003)
-
Mar 1995 Tadeo Bengzon file a petition for annulment of marriage to

Diana Barcelona, withdrew his petition, but filed again in July 1995.
Diana : no cause of action, should have declared that Tadeo had
filed a previous petition
CA Previous petition withdrawn
A cause of action is an act or omission of the defendant in violation
of the legal right of the plaintiff
A complaint states a cause of action when it contains three essential
elements:
o (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and
under whatever law it arises;
o (2) an obligation of the defendant to respect such right; and
o (3) the act or omission of the defendant violates the right of
the plaintiff
Accdg to Tadeo, after their marriage and 5 children, they Diana and
he argued frequently until Diana insisted that he move out of their
conjugal home.
Tadeo and Diana legally separated?
SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages
x x x.
(d) What to allege. A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code
shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both
parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the
essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration

of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any,
as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the
celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.
(Emphasis supplied)
SC Affirmed RTC and CA's ruling. There was cause of action.
Lilian Dy
-
10 Oct 2000 RTC found Merope and Orlando's marriage void ab

intio, payment of damages to petitioner, etc
CA reversed decision no legal personality (divorced)
SC if divorce was valid and absolute, Felicitas has no personality
to file bigamy suit. If divorce was limited or not valid Felicitas has
personality. Case remanded to trial court for fact verification
Zamora vs CA (2007)
Antonio vs Reyes (2006)
-
RTC marriage void, CA reversed RTC's ruling, SC affirms RTC's

ruling. Marriage void
Aug 1989 Leonilo Antonio (26) met Marie Ivonne Reyes (36)
Dec 1990 They married, had a child in Apr 1991 but he died 5
months later
8 Mar 1993 Leonilo filed petition for annulment to Marie citing Art
36, psychological incapacity. Ivonne was a habitual liar. (had an
illegitimate son, educational attainment, employement, invented
friends, incidents etc)
Leonilo left for good in Nov 1991
Opposing expert opinions, RTC ruled marriage void due to
Roman Catholic Church also annulled marriage
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically
or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently
proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision
SC Reyes psychologically incapacitated (even before her marriage)
Marriage is annulled
Amor-Catalan vs CA (2003)
-
RTC marriage void on ground of bigamy, CA reversed decision

4 June 1950 Felicitas Amor-Catalan married Orlando in Mabini,
Pangasinan
Migrated to the US, became naturalized and divorced on April 1988
16 June 1988, Orlandp married Merope Braganza in Pangasinan.
Second marriage bigamous because Merope had a prior subsisting
marriage with Eusebio Bristol
Orlanda & Merope Felicitas not a party-in-interest, but trial
proceeded anyway
RTC and CA dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of

marriage of Bernardino and Norma
4 Jun 1970 married in Cebu City. No Children
1972, Norma left for US to work as nurse, periodic visits only. 1989
became US citizen.
Bernardino Norma horrified at having children, did not see him.
Norma husband unfaithful and has illegitimate children, she likes
children
No psychological incapacity by Norma Bernardino agreed to her
working in the US. Lack of communication due to B's affairs.
SC no evidence of psychological incapacity.
Lilian Dy
-
Armida Ferraris v Brix Ferraris (2006)

-
20 Feb 2001 RTC denied petition for declaration of nullity of Armida

and Brixs marriage
Epilepsy not psychological incapacity, Not enough proof of infidelity.
CA affirmed RTC's ruling
SC no psychological incapacity, no mixed personality disorder
Nilda Navales vs Reynaldo Navales (2008)

-
Jocelyn Suazo vs Angelito Suazo (2010)

-
RTC annulled marriage, CA reversed ruling

1985 Jocelyn and Angelito 16 yrs old, gone for 3 days, parents
found them
3 Mar 1986 married by mayor of Binan
Jobless, quarreled, etc
Jul 1987 Jocelyn left Angelito, Angelito found another woman
8 Oct 1997 (10 yrs after) Jocelyn filed for declaration of nullity
Angelito beat her, etc, Angelito did not appear, was not examined by
doctor.
Psychologist evaluated Angelito with Anti-Social Disorder
Angelito only beat her after marriage
SC affirmed CA's ruling. Petitioner failed to show Angelito had
Lester Halili v Chona Halili and RP (2008)

-
4 July 1994 Lester (21) and Chona (19) when they married in City
Hall of Manila
After wedding, continued to live with parents and never lived together
though maintained relationship
1 year after, couple bickered constantly, Lester dated other women,
received prank calls
Lester filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage due to his
psychological incapacity to fufil essential marital obligations. He
thought wedding was a joke and marriage certificate a fake, never
lived together or consummated their marriage
RTC granted petition
CA reversed RTCs ruling due to failure of Lester to establish his
Dr. Dayan, Lester suffered from mixed personality disorder from selfdefeating personality to dependent personality disorder due to
dysfunctional family background.
SC upholds CA's ruling. No psychological incapacity.
Petition for review of RTC and CA's ruling in 2005 declaring marriage
null on grounds of psychological incapacity of Nilda
29 Dec 1988 Nilda and Reynaldo married despite Reynaldo
knowing the fact that Nilda had penpals (asking for money) and an
illegitimate son by unknown man.
18 Jun 1992 Reynaldo left Nilda for good because of her behavior
(flirty, introduced herself as single, refused to have a child with him
as it would ruin her figure, etc)
30 Aug 1999 Reynaldo filed a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage and damages. Citing Art 36 (promiscuity, etc)
Accdg to Clinical Psychologist and Social Worker Leticia Vatanagul,
Nilda a nymphomaniac, borderline personality, social deviant,
alcoholic, anti-social personality disorder, among others, Incurable.
Nilda Reynaldo is the one at fault womanizer, doesn't share his
earnings. He knew about her child. She uses the name Navales, only
teaches women.
SC Nilda and Reynaldo's marriage not void. Nilda not
psychologically incapacitated. No root cause of psychological
incapacity, no corroboration of facts asserted by Reynaldo.
Edward Te vs Rowena Yu-Te (2009)

-
1996 Edward and Rowena first met in college

March 1996 3 months after meeting, they eloped on suggestion of
Rowena, mutual angst towards family
Ran out of money, returned home. Edward stayed with Rowena at
uncle's house due to threats of suicide
23 Apr 1996 Edward (25) and Rowena (20) got married.
Edward held prisoner at uncle's house, after a month, escaped and
stayed with his parents.
June 1996, Edward spoke with Rowena, they decided to live
separate lives
18 Jan 2000, Edward filed petition for annulment based on Rowena's
psychological incapacity.
Could not determine collusion, trial can commence on merits

-
Clinical psychologist found both parties psychologically incapacitated

RTC ruled marriage null due to both parties being psychologically
incapacitated
CA reversed decision
Case-to-Case basis in deciding. However, strict standards of Molina
have rendered this ineffectual.
Molina (1) Burden of proof on plaintiff, (2) Root Cause of
psychological incapacity must be shown (3) incapacity existing at
time of celebration of marriage (4) Permanent and incurable (5)
Gravity (6) State essential marital obligations not complied with in
Articles of FC (7) Give respect to Nat'l Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
of the Catholic Church (8) OSG should appear and issue a
certification
SC both psychologically incapacitated Edward (dependent
personality disorder) Rowena (Narcissistic and antisocial personality
disorder)
Lilian Dy
-
RP vs Cabantug- Baguio (2008)

-
RTC and CA ruled Lynnette and Martini's marriage

12 Aug 1997 Lunnette and Martini (seaman) married
12 Oct 2000 Lynnette filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage due to psychological incapacity of Martini to oblige with
essential marital duties.
Martini mama's boy, refused to have her stay at his parents',
allotment shared between wife and parents
1999 stopped receiving allotment, did not communicate, Martini
declared himself single in his employment records
Psychiatrist Martini Immature personality disorder,
dependencypatterns, self-centered motives
CA - Psychological incapacity not abandonment but being a mama's
boy.
SC marriage is valid. Failed to prove psychological incapacity.
Juan de dios Carlos vs Sandoval (2008)

-
Only a spouse can initiate an action to sever the marital bond for
marriages solemnized during the effectivity of the FC, except in
cases commenced prior to March 15, 2003.
Felix Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate, left 6 parcels of land to
Teofilo Carlos and Juan de Dios Carlos
Felix transferred land to Teofilo to avoid inheritance taxes. Teofilo

agreed to turnover share of Juan de Dios Carlos. 3 parcels of land
successfully transferred to Teofilo's name. 1 parcel of land to Juan
de dios Carlos
13 May 1992 Teofilo died before completing transfer of land to Juan
de Dios. Remaining Land 5 and 6 registered in the names of
Teofilo's widow Felicidad and Teofilo II.
Some agreements regarding land
1995 Juan filed petition to declare null and void Teofilo's marriage to
Felicidad for lack of marriage license.
RTC ruled Teofilo and Felicidad's marriage null and void ab initio.
Teofilo II not natural, illegitimate or adopted son of Teofilo
CA reversed RTCs ruling. Teofilo and Felicidad lived as husband
and wife for 30years. Number of marriage license not placed in
marriage contract only an irregularity
SC because marriage occurred during Civil Code, only spouse can
initiate action for declaration of nullity.
SC must prove if Teofilo II is legitimate, illegitimate or adopted to
show Juan as party-in interest.
Manuel Almelor v RTC (2008)

-
29 Jan 1989 Manual and Leonida married in Manila Cathedral, had

3 children. Doctors
Leonida filed petition for nullity due to Manuel's psychological
incapacity
Manuel was king and gentle when they met and in public eye, but
after they married, proved to be harsh and easily angered, etc.
Mama's boy also. Manuel homosexual. Saw Manuel kiss another
man. Manuel denied it.
Leonida took the children and left conjugal abode. Manuel stopped
giving support
Clinical psychologist examined Leonida, Manuel and eldest child.
Determined that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated, existed
before marriage and incurable.
Manuel denied all Leonida's claims. His brother also corroborated his
defense.
RTC granted petition for annulment, forfeiture of defendant's share to
children, monthly support, visitation rights. Nullified on grounds of Art
45 of FC (Homosexuality)
SC concealment of homosexuality and not homosexuality (legal
separation only) ground for annulment. Should have dismissed
petition bec Leonida failed to prove Art 36.

-
SC married valid
Alcazar vs Alcazar (13 October 2009)
RTC & CA dismissed complaint of annulment of Veronica

Cabacungan Alcazar vs Rey C Alcazar. (Case for Annulment filed in
22 Aug 2002)
Veronica and Rey married on 11 Oct 2000, lived for 5 days with
Rey's parents, went back to Manila, but did not live together in Tondo
23 Oct 2000 (after 12 days of marriage) Rey left for Riyadh to work
as furniture upholsterer.
No communication from Rey, despite Veronica calling 5 times.
After 1-1/2 years in Riyadh, Veronica learned second-hand that Rey
was coming home to the RP. (Why didnt he tell her himself?)
Veronica went to Mindoro to find Rey, found out he had had been
living there since his arrival in March 2002. Rey never contacted
Veronica since his arrival in RP
Veronica filed annulment case citing inability to consummate
marriage. (Art 45, par 5)
Rey never participated in any of the proceedings.
20 May 2003 Trial Date
o Veronica came with her mother Lolita and clinical
psychologist Nedy Tayag
o Nedy Tayag Rey had Narcissistic Personality Disorder
caused by dysfunctional family history and incurable
(psychological incapacity(?), Veronica normal.
9 June 2004 RTC denies petition, psychological incapacity or
defects not shown to be existing during the celebration of marriage
or incurable.
SC petition cites Art 45 (5), Veronica did not present evidence to
prove incapacity to consummate, in fact, admitted to having sexual
intercourse before Rey left for Saudi. So rightfully dismissed.
SC should have cited Art 36, Veronica blamed her lawyer (gross
ignorance)
SC even if cited Art 36, evidence (testimony of Veronica, her
mother and Tayag) did not prove psychological incapacity in
accordance with Rep vs CA (Molina)
Even sexual infidelity not ground for annulment or psychological
incapacity (Veronica found out Rey was living with "Sally")
SC affirmed RTC and CA's ruling, annulment denied.
Lilian Dy
Arts 1338-1344 CC
Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of
one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract
which, without them, he would not have agreed to. (1269)
Art. 1339. Failure to disclose facts, when there is a duty to reveal them, as
when the parties are bound by confidential relations, constitutes fraud. (n)
Art. 1340. The usual exaggerations in trade, when the other party had an
opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent. (n)
Art. 1341. A mere expression of an opinion does not signify fraud, unless
made by an expert and the other party has relied on the former's special
knowledge. (n)
Art. 1342. Misrepresentation by a third person does not vitiate consent,
unless such misrepresentation has created substantial mistake and the same
is mutual. (n)
Art. 1343. Misrepresentation made in good faith is not fraudulent but may
constitute error. (n)
Art. 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be
serious and should not have been employed by both contracting parties.
Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damages. (1270)
Buccat vs Buccat
-
already discussed (obviously pregnant on day of marriage)
Aquino vs Delizo (27 June 1960)

-
RTC and CA dismissed complaint for annulment (filed 6 Sep 1955

based on fraud)
27 Dec 1954 Fernando Aquino and Conchita married
Fernando did not know Conchita was pregnant, Conchita gave birth
4 months later on April 1955.
Conchita child conceived out of wedlock with Fernando

-
RTC and CA dismissed case for lack of documentary evidence,

concealment of pregnancy does not constitute fraud.
17 March 1959 Fernando requested for a new trial/reconsideration,
submitting documents:
(Annex A) Cesar (Fernando's brother) stated that he was the father
of Conchita's firstborn and that they concealed this from Fernando
during his marriage. Cesar and Conchita had been living in, and they
have 2 more children together.
(Annex B) Conchita admitting that her pregnancy by Cesar at the
time of her marriage to Fernando and of her concealing the fact.
(Annex C) Albert Powell stating that he knew that Cesar and
Conchita had been living as husband and wife since before
Fernando and Conchita's marriage in 27 Dec 1954.
Birth Certificate of firstborn showing date of birth
(Annex D & E) Birth Certificates of Cesar and Conchita's 2 other
children showing Cesar as the father
Pictures of Conchita from 1952 to late 1954, showing Conchita's
natural plumpness, could not tell from photos that Conchita was
about 4 months pregnant.
SC case remanded for new trial. Pregnancy not apparent, cited
th
medical texts, abdomen above umbilicus usually during 6 month.
SC CC Art 85, par (4) and Art 86 par (3) => FC Art 45 par (3) and
Art 46 par (2)
Lilian Dy
Villanueva vs CA (27 Oct 2006)

-
Anaya vs Palaroan (26 Nov 1970)

-
4 Dec 1953, Aurora Anaya and Fernando married.

7 Jan 1954, Fernando filed for annulment bec his consent was
obtained through force and intimidation.
23 Sep 1959 RTC dismissed case and awarded Aurora's
counterclaim
While counterclaim was being settled, Fernando told Aurora that he
had had sex with a close relative of his before they married.
Aurora filed for annulment and moral damages on grounds of Fraud.
Non-disclosure of pre-marital affair affected her consent.
Fernando : denied having affair with close relative, escaped day after
the wedding from Aurora and her relatives. Aurora in estoppel since
she prayed for the validity of the marriage in his earlier complaint.
However, he did not ask for the dismissal of the case, only the moral
damages.
Aurora Fernando courted and married her to avoid pressure of
marrying the close relative he had seduced. He had no intention of
carrying out his marital obligations to her. He further cohabited with a

third girl and has since had several children by her.
SC non-disclosure of pre-marital relationship with another person
is not a ground for annulment.
SC Second fraud charge Fernando had no intention of fulfilling
his marital obligations when he courted Aurora, action for annulment
should have been filed soon after discovery, or within 4 years, not 13
years after, (only alleged in 1966). Annulment denied.s
Art. 1334. Mutual error as to the legal effect of an agreement when

the real purpose of the parties is frustrated, may vitiate consent. (n)
Art. 1335. There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious
or irresistible force is employed.
There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is
compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent
and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or
property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent.
To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition
of the person shall be borne in mind.
A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. (1267a)
Art. 1336. Violence or intimidation shall annul the obligation,
although it may have been employed by a third person who did not
take part in the contract. (1268)
Art. 1337. There is undue influence when a person takes improper
advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of
a reasonable freedom of choice. The following circumstances shall
be considered: the confidential, family, spiritual and other relations
between the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have been
unduly influenced was suffering from mental weakness, or was
ignorant or in financial distress. (n)
13 Apr 1988, Orlando and Lila married in Puerto Princesa.
17 Nov 1992 Orlando filed petition for annulment, alleging threats of
violence and duress (Lilia already pregnant, but he did not get her
pregnant, never cohabited with her after the marriage, child died
during pre-mature delivery 29 Aug 1988)
Lilia no force, cohabited with her for a month after their marriage,
sent her letters from Manila, Lilia visited him in Manila, Orlando knew
about the progress of pregnancy. Asked for damages

-
RTC dismissed Orlando's suit and ordered him to pay damages to

Lilia (total 170T) CA affirmed RTC only lowered damages to 75T
SC Orlando freely consented to marriage, only filed case in 1992, 4
years after marriage, to avoid being found guilty in bigamy case
against him.
SC Orlando's claim of being harassed by NPA supporters of Lilia,
etc, making him return to Palawan to marry Lilia not believable. Even
if true, he was a security guard and knew self-defense and did not
report to authorities.
SC re Orlando's claim that fraud re the pregnancy was committed,
not believable. His counsel conceded that Orlando and Lilia had
intercourse in a hotel with defendant on top in Jan 1988
SC re Orlando's denial of love letters (cited intimidation again). Not
believable, since he admitted first to 7, denied 6, then denied all 13
due to intimidation.
SC confirmed CA's ruling, annulment denied, but no damages bec
Lilia did not plead or prove her suffering.
Jimenez vs Canizares (31 Aug 1960)
7 Jun 1955 Joel Jimenez filed for annulment of his marriage to

Remedios Canizares
3 Aug 1950 Joel and Remedios married.
Joel: Remedios' orifice too small for his genitals left 2 nights and 1
day of marriage.
Although ordered by the court, Remedios never submitted to medical
examination or appeared in court.
11 Aprl 1957, RTC granted annulment
25 April 1957, city atty filed motion for reconsideration bec
Remedios' impotency not proven.
SC Case remanded to lower court for further proceedings to prove
impotency of Remedios (but Remedios not in contempt considering
our culture of women being coy and bashful)
Lilian Dy
DATE: May 31, 1940
NATURE: annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency
FACTS:
June 3, 1936: Felix Sarao and Pilar Guevarra were married
Felix wanted to have carnal knowledge of Pilar but she was reluctant
and said that they should wait till the evening
Felix found the orifice of Pilars vagina sufficiently large for his organ
but she complained of pains in her private part and he noticed oozing
therefrom some purulent matter offensive to the smell
Coitus was not a success
Every attempt on Felixs part to have a carnal act with hid wife
proved a failure because she complained of pains in her genitalia
Pilar had a medical check up and found out that her uterus and
ovaries were affected with tumor; the organs were surgically
removed with the consent of Felix
The surgery rendered Pilar incapable of procreation but did not
incapacitate her of copulation
Felix after the operation lost all desire to have access with his wife
and has not tried to do it since
RTC: dismissed complaint
ISSUES:
Whether the marriage may be annulled on the ground of impotency
HELD/DECISION:
No. Dismissed complaint
RATIO:
Sarao vs Guevarra
-
in Tolentino Book
PONENTE: Reyes, A.
Sec. 30 Act No. 3613: Marriage may be annulled if either party was,
at the time of marriage, physically incapable of entering into the
married state, and such incapacity continues, and appears to be
incurable

Test of impotency: not the ability to procreate but the ability to
copulate; the defect must be one of copulation, not of reproduction.
Barrenness will not invalidate the marriage; a temporary or
occasional incapacity for copulation is not a ground for decree of
nullity. The defect must be permanent and lasting
Pilar was not impotent at the time she married Felix. The tumor did
not render her incapable of copulation or even procreation. The
removal of the body parts rendered her sterile but it by no made her
unfit for sexual intercourse
Lilian Dy
-
Manuel vs People (29 Nov 2005)
Armas vs Calisterio (6 Apr 2000)

-
24 Aprl 1992 Teodorico Calisterio died intestate with lands valued

at P604,750.00, survived by wife Marietta Calisterio (respondent)
Marietta previously married to James William Bounds on 13 Jan
1946.
James disappeared on 11 Feb 1947.
8 May 1958 (11 yrs later) Teodorico and Marietta merried, w/o
Marietta securing a court declaration that James was presumptively
dead.
9 Oct 1992, Antonia Armas, sister of Teodorico filed with RTC to
designate her as sole surviving heir of Teodorico as Marietta's
marriage to him was bigamous and void. Wanted her son
Sinfroniano to be appointed administrator.
5 Feb 1993, RTC appointed both Sinfroniano and Marietta
administrators of Teoderico's estate.
17 Jan 1996, RTC ruled in favor of Antonia as sole heir of Teoderico.
Marietta appealed citing that the Family Code should not have
been applied since they were married under the Civil Code.
31 Aug 1998 CA reversed RTC's decision. Marietta compulsory
heir (1/2), Antonia and her children (1/2)
SC - Art 83 of Civil Code, second marriage valid if spouse absent for
7 years. No need for judicial declaration. Only the Family Code
requires declaration of presumptive death before subsequent
marriage. (Art 41)
SC affirmed CA's ruling, except of estate to Antonia only.
already discussed (rape by the river by step-uncle of niece, married

to escape rape charge.
RTC and CA convicted Eduardo Manuel of Bigamy (should have

gotten judicial declaration of presumptive death of previous spouse)
22 April 1996, Eduardo married Tina in Baguio despite being legally
married to Rubylus Gaa (28 Jul 1975) without Tina's knowledge of
previous marriage.
7 Nov 2001 Eduardo charged with bigamy.
Eduardo (39) and Tina (21 Comp Sec student looking for a friend)
met in Dagupan City in Jan 1996 (Family Code)
Eduardo followed Tina to Baguio and despite her resistance, had his
way with her, proposed several times and even brought his parents
to Baguio to assure Tina's family that he was single.
First 3 years happy, but in 1999, Eduardo only went home twice or
thrice a year. Tina jobless, would get slapped when she asked for
money from Eduardo.
2001, Eduardo left and stopped giving financial support.
Aug 2001, Tina found out from NSO that Eduardo had previous
marriage.
Eduardo: Tina GRO, knew about his first marriage but married him
anyway, abandoned her because he thought her unfaithful (love bite),
didn't know he had to seek nullification of first marriage.
Eduardo : re first wife. Forced to marry her bec she threatened to
commit suicide. She was convicted of estafa in 1975. He visited her
in jail after 3 months and never saw her again. Hadn't heard from
Rubylus in 20 years
Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.
"Men ready believe what they wish to be true"
SC Upheld RTC and CA's ruling. (Eduardo guilty of bigamy and
award 200T moral damages to Tina) Tina can claim moral damages
based on Civil Code Art 19-21.
People vs Santiago
Rene Puse vs Ligaya Puse (15 March 2010)
10 Jan 1992 Rene (teacher) and Ligaya (midwife) married in

Camarines Norte, had 2 children
Ligaya found out that Rene was already married to Cristina Pablo
Puse in Dec 1986. also has 2 children with first wife.
2 Aug 2005 Ligaya filed complaint to PRC to help her get support
from her husband whom she had filed bigamy and abandonment
case against.
Rene denied Ligaya's charges re support. Ligaya knew about his
first marriage, he thought his first marriage was "dead"
16 Feb 2007 - PRC revoked his license due to gross immorality
Rene PRC not the proper forum to decide his case, no due
process
SC PRC can hear case, Administrative Case not so strict with rules
of procedure, but it has been shown that Rene given due process
from the documents he submitted
Cristina Puse since 1993 had regularly sent financial support from
HK to Rene and her children and visited once a year, so Rene
couldn't have thought that she was dead
SC PRC and CA's ruling upheld. License revoked.
Grace Garcia- Recio v Rederick Recio (2 Oct 2001)

1 Mar 1987 Rederick married Editha Samson, an Australian, lived
in Australia until divorced in 19 May 1989.
- 26 Jun 1992, Rederick became Australian citizen.
- 12 Jan 1994 Rederick married Grace in Cabanautan City. Rederick
declared himself single and Filipino in marriage application
- 22 Oct 1995 lived separately, 16 May 1996, divided conjugal
assets (all this while in Australia)
- 3 March 1998 Grace filed for nullity on grounds of bigamy. She only
discovered Rederick's previous marriage in 1997.
- 7 July 1998 Rederick able to secure divorce decree in Australia for
marriage with Grace.
- RTC marriage dissolved due to Australian divorce decree.
- SC case remanded to lower courts to find out Rederick's legal
capacity to marry (show documents of his Australian divorce decrees)
Presentation of the divorce decree is insufficient. The party pleading
must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it.
ART. 11 FC: where a marriage license is required, each of the
contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such
-
Lilian Dy
license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the
following: (5) if previously married, how, when and where the
previous marriage was dissolved or annulled;
ART. 13 FC: in case either of the contracting parties has been
previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, instead
of the birth or baptismal certificate required in the last preceding
article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial
decree of absolute divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or
declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage.
ART. 52 FC: the judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the
marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the
spouses, and the delivery of the childrens presumptive legitimes
shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of
property; otherwise the same shall not affect their persons
Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value,
the document must first be presented and admitted in evidence. A
divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself.
Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The
decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official
body or tribunal of a foreign country.
SEC. 24 and 25 of Rule 132: a document may be proven as a public
or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official
publication, or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and (b)
authenticated by the seal of his office.
2 types of divorce: absolute (terminates marriage) and limited
divorce (suspends it and leaves the bond in full force)
Recio presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree: a
conditional or provisional judgment of divorce.
A party to a marriage who married again before this decree becomes
absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy.divorce obtained has been restricted and does not establish legal capacity to
m
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs Miguela Dailo (2005)
-
8 Aug 1967 : Miguela and Marcelino married.

Purchased a house and lot in Brgy San Francisco, San Pablo City
from Sandra Dalida. Deed of sale executed only in favor of Marcelino
Dailo Jr., vendee to the exclusion of his wife.

-
Marcelino SPA in favor of Lilibeth Gesmundo, authorizing her to

obtain a loan from Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank, and use the
H&L in San Pablo City as security, Gemundo got 300K loan. All this
took place w/o consent of Miguela
Loan was unpaid and property was foreclosed. Bank consolidated
ownership in 1996
Marcelino Dailo Jr died in 20 Dec 1995. Upon visiting properties,
Miguela learned that bank already employed a person to clean
premises and that her car, a Ford sedan was razed because
caretaker allowed a boy to play with fire in the premises.
Miguela claimed no knowledge of mortgage of subject property
(conjugal In nature) and filed for nullity of real estate mortgage and
cert. of sale
RTC 18 Oct 1997, found in favor of Miguela and nullified mortgage
and other deeds by the bank. Ordered bank to return property to
Miguela
CA affirmed RTCs ruling
SC the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null
and void, including the portion of conjugal property pertaining to the
husband who contracted the sale (Art 124 In the absence of such
authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void)
Is the CPG liable for the payment of the loan? It must be proven by
the bank that the family or conjugal partnership may have benefited
from the loan (Art 121 (3))
SC burden of proof that CPG benefited from loan on the bank. No
proof. Petition denied, affirmed RTC and CAs ruling.
Luis Lim vs Isabel Garcia (widow of Hilario Lim) (1907)

-
1903 Hilario Lim died intestate leaving behind a widow, 9 children

and estate valued at 50T
Entire estate conjugal property except for a H&L in Zamboanga and
10T and 700 brought by Hilario Lim to the marriage.
Luis Lim entire intestate estate Hilarios separate property (2x the
intestate) widow brought nothing to the marriage
Evidence Property not conveyed to Isabel by husband Hilario, but
conveyed in ecvhange for certain properties inherited by her from her
fathers estate. These are her separate property.
Lilian Dy
-
RTC presumption established thata all the estate of the married

couple will be considered as conjugal partnership property unless
and until it is proven that it is a part of the separate estate of the
husband and wife.
The buildings erected during the coverture on land belonging to 1 of
the married couple will be considered conjugal property, after
allowing the owner of the land the value thereof.
SC affirmed RTCs ruling everything conjugal property
Matea E Rodigruez vs Susana dela Cruz, et al (children of Hilarion dela

Cruz) (1907)
21 Aug 1905, Matea filed a complaint in CFI to recover from
defendants some property which she allegedly acquired furing her
first marriage from her deceased father. She was in possession of
the lands and their fruits from 1882 to 1905 when her second
husband, Hilarion de la Cruz, who had no rights to the property was
ordered to partition the land in favor of Susana de la Cruz.
RTC found the lands in question to have been acquired by Hilarion
de la Cruz during his first marriage to Andrea de Leon and not
inherited by Rodriguez as she stated
SC from fact, ruled that Matea Rodriguez did inherit properties
from father and only had her husband, Hilarion de la Cruz administer
them. Reveresed RTCs ruling.
Concordia Laluan et al vs Apolinario Malpaya (1975)
Petitioners (3 families) claim parcels of land by inheritance from
Marciana Laluan (wife of Apolinario) as these were her paraphernal
st
nd
property (1 prop). They claimed that 2 prop was conjugal property.
Therefore, Apolinario had no right to sell properties to Tambot.
Marciana died intestate and senile without any children.
RTC Apolinarios deeds of sale null and void. Ordered Tambot to
return properties and pay petitioners 750 for lost harvests. On
second property, of property to petitioners, Apolinario only entitled
to half the property
Tambot and Jasmin Motion for Reconsideration without merit
Deed of Donation propter nuptias (which parcels of land)
SC remand to lower courts to determine which land was donated
and which lands were acquired in conjugal partnership and which
were paraphernal.
Zenaida Castillo vs Horacio Castillo (1980)

15 Oct 1947 Ysidro Castillo died, leaving behind widow Enriqueta
Katigbak and 9 children, Horacio, etc.
Enriquieta administratrix of Ysidros estate. Inventory of estate, 38
parcels of land brought by Ysidro to the marriage, 19 parcels of land
conjugal property. 38 parcels of land and 4 conjugal properties to be
divided among the children. 9 parcels of conjugal properties to the
widow and 7 as usufruct to the widow.
st
1 property 260T ha widow-paraphernal, children-conjugal
nd
2 property purchased by Enriquieta after death of Ysidro. Did not
use childrens assets to purchase property. Childrens property not
profitable for 10 years SC these properties from fruits of childrens
inheritance. From conjugal property. Discrepancy in Enriquetas
purchases and income, etc.
Zenaida seeks partition of inheritance.
PNB vs CA, & Victoria Ignacio Desiderio (1988)
To recover Php 3855.60
10 Jan 1963 Desiderios applied for retailers loan from PNB. Loan
secured with chattel stocks. Goods and merchandise were insured in
the amount of P4000, PNB as beneficiary.
1 Aug 1964, Desiderios repaid loan Php 1, 089.60, their building and
stocks totally destroyed by fire.
PNB sent letters to insurance company to recover proceeds of
insurance but to no avail. Insurance company closed in 1966. PNB
tried to collect from Desiderios 7 years after mortgaged chattels
burned.
Are the Desiderios liable for the remainder of the loan?
SC no CA correct. PNB should have collected from insurance
company. PNB negilegent in their collection efforts, cannot run after
Desiderios small time sari-sari store owners.
Moises Jocson vs CA Agustina Jocson (1989)
Moises and Agustina brother and sister. Mother died intestate
without estate being settled. Father Emilio died intestate in 1972.
Validity of 3 documents executed by Emilio in his lifetime.
These documents are about the sale of Emilio of all his properties as
well as his 1/3 share from wifes estate to Agustina.
Lilian Dy
-
Emilio cannot validly sell unliquidated conjugal properties.

Registration not proof that property was bought during marriage (late
registration)
SC - Titles shows that property paraphernal exclusive to Emilio.
(burden of proof on petitioner(?) Petition dismissed.
Villanueva vs CHiong (2008)

RTC and CA annulled sale made by Florentino Chiong to petitioners
Walter and Aurora Villanueva of a portion of a parcel of land which
Chiongs acquired during their marriage.
1960 Florentino and Elisera Chiong married, separated in fact since
1975. Couple bought lot in question
Florentino sold of western portion of land to Villanuevas for 8000T ,
payable in installments.
Villanuevas paid last installment in 1986, demanded deed of sale.
Elisera refused to sign deed of sale
1991 Elisera filed Quieting of title and damages, petitioners filed
another case
1992 Florentino executed questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in favor
of petitioners
2000 RTC ordered Villanuevas to vacate property, remove all
improvements and Chiong to return payment with interest to
Villanuevas.CA affirmed RTCs ruling
No formal liquidation between Florentino and ELisera. Separation in
fact does not affect conjugal partnership of Florentino and Elisera.
SC affirmed RTCs and CAs ruling.
Rafael Zulueta vs PanAm (1973)
Damages (700K) awarded to Zulueta from PanAM due to leaving
him behind in Wake Island. (Bomb/ refusal to have baggage
inspected/attitude problem/racism/etc) Mrs and Miss Zulueta
allowed to board flight to Honolulu.
Mrs. Zulueta awarded 50K in damages (humiliation). Can she move
for dismissal of case as far as she is concerned? the wife cannot
bind the conjugal partnership w/o the husbands consent except in
cases provided by law
Is compromise agreement with Mrs Zulueta ineffective?
50K awarded to Mrs Zulueta to be deducted from the aggregate
award in favor of plaintiffs. Upon liquidation of conjugal partnership,
said amount would have to be reckoned with, wither as part of her

share in the partnership, or as part of support.
Cannot have compromise agreement with only one of the spouses.
Money for trip came from conjugal funds.
Marcelo Castillo Jr. et al vs Macaria Pasco (1964)

Is the fishpond (P6000) located in Bulacan the paraphernal property
nd
of Macaria Pasco (2 wife)?
Plaintiffs are the descendants of Marcelo Castillo Sr. by previous
marriage.
Macaria Pasco already had 2 previous marriage before marrying
th
Castillo in 1931. Now on her 4 husband, married in 1934. Macaria
rich, Marcelo poor, P80 salary a month. When he died his property
not enough to cover his debts.
Fishpond purchased P1000 with Macaria Pascos paraphernal funds.
However, P5000 was purchased with conjugal funds through
mortgage on Macarias paraphernal property, but loan was to
spouses, so P5000 conjugal property.
Partition of property : 1/6 paraphernal property of Macaria, 5/6
conjugal property. Payment of mortgage from Macarias personal
funds must be reimbursed to her. 5/6 of the conjugal property to be
divided accordingly.
CALIMLIM-CANULLAS v. FORTUN 129 SCRA 675 (1984)

Nature: Petition for certiorari to review decision of CFI, Pangasinan
Facts:
Mercedes Calimlim-Canullas and Fernando were
married. They
have 5 children. They lived in as small house and residential lot.
Fernando
inherited the land during 1965 when his father died.
Fernando abandoned his family and lived with Corazon
Daguines. They
were convicted of concubinage on Oct. 27, 81.
Daguines for the sum
of P2,000. Daguines was not able to take the possession of the
property and she
Lilian Dy
filed a complaint for quieting of title and damages.
Issues:
1. WON the construction of a conjugal house on the exclusive
property of the husband ipso facto gave the land the character of
conjugal property.
t. 158 of the CC provides: Improvements, whether for utility
or adornment, made on the separate property of the spouses
through advancements from the partnership or through the industry
of either the husband or the wife, belong to the conjugal partnership.
Buildings constructed, at the expense of the partnership, during the
marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses, also pertain to the
partnership, but the value of the land shall be reimbursed to the
spouse who owns the same. (1404a)
but the
conjugal partnership is indebted to the husband for the value of the
land.
conversion from paraphernal to conjugal
assets should deemed to retroact to the time the conjugal assets
were constructed thereon. Cannot be considered to become conjugal
property only at the time their values were paid to the estate because
by that time the conjugal partnership no longer existed and it could
not acquire the ownership of the properties
Mercedes had
not given her consent to the sale.
2. WON the sale of the lot together with the house and
improvements
thereon was valid under the circumstances surrounding the
transaction
Contract of sale is null and void for being contrary to morals
and public policy. Sale was made by the husband in favour of a
concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal
home where his wife and children lived and from whence they
derived their support. Sale was subversive of the stability of the
family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and
protects.
Lilian Dy
-
contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void and
inexistent
from the very beginning.
cause,
produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary
to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
each other.
The prohibition also applies to a couple living as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage, otherwise the condiion of those who
incurred guilt would
Metrobank vs Pascual (2008)
19 Jan 1985 Nicholson Pascual and FLorencia Nevalga married
During marriage bought 250sqm lot with 3 door apartment in Makati,
title registered as Florencia, married to Nelson Pascual aka
Nicholson Pascual
1994 Marriage declared null and void on ground of psychological
incapacity
Court ordered liquidation of CPG. However, they went their separate
ways w/o liquidating their conjugal partnership
30 Apr 1997. Florencia obtained a loan of 58M with spouses Oliveros
from Metrobank
Florencia submitted marriage-nullifying decision, waiver of Nicholson
(1995) of conjugal properties of ex-spouses, but this did not included
lot in question
Metrobank foreclosed on mortgages because of failure of Florencia
and Oliveros to repay loan.
Nicholson filed complaint 2000 because subject property mortgaged
w/o his consent. Nicholson also claimed waiver was a forgery.
Executed 3 mos before declaration of nullity.
RTC found for Nicholson property conjugal (Art 116). Mortgage
null and void.
CA affirmed RTCs ruling
SC Found for Nicholson. Disputed property is conjugal. No proof

required that conjugal funds were used in acquiring property.
SC Florencia only has the right to sell or mortgage of the
conjugal property without Nicholsons consent. Metrobank only
entitled to of the property.
Dimayuga-Laurena vs CA (2008)
Darlene and Jesse married in 1983
Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage denied (filed in 1993)
What constitutes the conjugal property?
SC - Duplex House in Makati City only Deed of Absolute Sale from
Felix Husband received a series of promotions so that they could
purchase the house in Makati, proof of conjugal property and not
property of parents
Other properties not part of CPG bec it was shown that they were
parents properties despite SPAs to husband and properties acquired
through income from parents businesses.
Villanueva vs IAC (1990)
Lot of Modesto mortgaged to Jesus Bernas (18K)by his 2 illegitimate
children, Dorothea Aranas Ado and Teodoro Aranas (Lot 13-C) 30
Oct 1975. Witness Raymundo Aranas
Dorothea and Teodoro failed to pay the loan. Bernas had the old title
cancelled and a new one issued in his name TCT T-15121 (1978)
24 Nov 1978 Consolacion Villanueva and Raymundo Aranas filed
a complaint against Jesus and Remedios Bermas. Discovery of 2
wills. Victoria (Modestos wife) willed her share of the CPG to
Consolacion Villanueva and Raymundo, Dorothea and Teodoro,
while Modesto willed his share to Dorothea and Teodoro
RTC found for the Bermas and found mortgage and transfer valid.
Lot 13-C not part of conjugal property of Victoria and Modesto as
Modesto inherited this from his parents exclusive property of
Modesto.
Victoria died before Modesto and so could not have inherited any
part of Lot 13-C
However, there are improvements on the property. Improvements
not conjugal in character as no proof was presented that the source
of funds for the improvements were conjugal.
Claims of Consolacion and Raymundo denied.
Lilian Dy
-
Cleodia Francisco et al (minor children) vs Jorge Gonzales (2008)

Parents marriage declared nulls and void in 2000
Parents gave title and ownership of conjugal property in Taal St.
Ayala Alabang to children to be transferred by deed of donation
when children reach 18 and 19 yrs respectively
In a case of Unlawful Detainer with Preliminary attachment filed by
Jorge and Purificacion Gonzales against George Matrai and Michele,
the trial court ordered them to vacate the premises in Lanka Drive
Ayala Alabang. Also ordered to pay back rentals, bills, etc.
Grandmother found out about decision and notice of sale of TCT
167907 in the name of parents.
SC RTC committed grave error. It can only execute judgements
extending only to properties unquestionably belonging to the
judgment debtor alone. One mans goods shall not be sold for
another mans debts.
Title under Cleodualdo M Francisco, married to Michele U Francisco.
(C and M married 1986, prior to Family Code)
CA Micheles debt not personal, but conjugal in nature and
redounded to benefit of the family.
SC does not agree with CA. A wife may bind the conjugal
partnership only when she purchases things necessary for the
support of the family or when she borrows money for the purpose
upon her husbands failure to deliver needed sum, when
administration is transferred to wife, when wife gives moderate
donations. Failure to establish any of these circumstances means
that the conjugal asset may not be bound to answer for wifes
personal obligation.
House in Lanka drive not for the benefit of the family. Rented by
Michele and Matrai.
Parents waived rights to property. Property transferred to children
and cannot be levied and sold at execution sale for lack of legal
basis.
Felipe vs Heirs of Maximo Aldon (1983)
MAximo Aldon and Gimena married 1936, acquired 3 properties
during the marriage. Gimena sold 3 lots to Eduardo Felipe and
Hermogena Felipe. Sale made without the consent of Maximo.
1976, heirs of Maximo file a case against the Felipes regarding the
properties. They claimed it was mortgaged to the Felipes but that the
Felipes refused to have the properties redeemed.
RTC found for the Felipes. CA found for Gimena and heirs. Sale was
invalid as it was done without Maximos consent
Gimenas sale : voidable contract. Gimena had no capacity to give
consent to contract of sale. Only husband could have asked for
annulment of the contract of sale
When Maximo died, children inherited 2/3 of his share and could
question the sale
SC return property to children. Sale not valid. Petitioners in bad
faith.
Teofista Tinitigan and children vs Severino Tinitigan Sr. (1980)

1975 Teofista leased to Pentel Mdsg a residential lot 1500 in Pasay
City. With option to buy for 350K
1975 Teofista and children also leased to United Electronics Corp. a
factory bldg and land located in Paranaque, Rizal.
In both transactions, consent of husband Severino Sr. not secured.
Consequently, Severino Sr filed complaint annulment of ownership
and contract of lease with pre-injuction
Later, TInitigan said that the property in Pasay City must be sold to
pay for conjugal obligations of over 250K. So court granted authority
to Tinitigan to sell house for 300K to Quintin Lim (Pentel)
Teofista and children protested the sale as they think it would fetch a
higher price
2 days later, Teofista filed against Severino Sr complaint for legal
separation and dissolution of conjugal partnership.
Severino Sr. finally sold property in Pasay not to QUintin Lim but to
Chiu Chin Siong. For 315K
Court approved sale to Chiu. CA affirmed RTCs approval of sale to
Chiu
QUintin Lim also filed case against Chiu
1977 during pendency of case, Pasay court dissolved conjugal
partnership between Severino Sr and Teofista. The Loring property
adjudicated in favor of wife.

-
Severino Sr had the right and authority to sell the Loring property
the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership Art 165
CC)
Though Teofista was the administratrix of the property, this was only
after the Rizal Court had already given Severino Sr. the authority to
sell the property. No public instrument proving Teofista administratrix
of conjugal properties before this.
Contract of Lease b/w Pentel and Teofista, void
Lilian Dy
Issue. Is the husbands consent required as the parent of a child born of
consensual AID?
In re Adoption of Anonymous
Citation. 345 N.Y.S.2d 430 (Surr. Ct. 1973)
Held. A child born of consensual AID during a valid marriage is a legitimate

child, therefore the father of such child is the parent whose consent is
required to the adoption of such child.
The leading case addressing this issue is a criminal case for failure to
support a minor child. The court there held that the defendant was the lawful
father of a dependent child born of consensual AID, with the determinative
factor being whether the legal relationship of father and child exists. The
court there reasoned that a child conceived through AID does not have a
natural father, but does have a lawful father. Enforcement of welfare
therefore was supported by the principle of equitable estoppel.
Brief Fact Summary. A child was born by artificial insemination during a

marriage. Wife and husband separated and the wifes new husband
attempted to adopt the child, claiming that the previous husbands consent
was unnecessary because he was not the parent of the child.
In response to claims that AID constitutes adultery of the mother, the court
found that in the absence of legislation prohibiting artificial insemination, the
child was lawfully begotten and not the product of an illicit or adulterous
relationship.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A child born of consensual AID during a valid

marriage is a legitimate child entitled to the rights and privileges of a naturally
conceived child of the same marriage. The husband in such a relationship is
therefore the parent, and his consent is required to the adoption of such child
be another.
Facts. Two types of artificial insemination exist: Homologous insemination,
whereby the wife is artificially impregnated with the semen of her husband
(AIH); and heterologous insemination, the artificial insemination of the wife by
the semen of a third-party donor (AID). AID procedures have increased due
to the unavailability of adoptive children. In the present case, a child was
born of consensual AID during the marriage. The husband was listed as the
father on the birth certificate. The couple later separated, followed by a
divorce. The separation agreement and divorce decree declare the child to
be the daughter and child of the couple. The wife was granted support and
the husband visitation rights. Husband faithfully visited and performed all
support conditions. The wife later remarried and her husband petitioned to
adopt the child. The first husband refused to consent, and petitioner
suggested that the first husbands consent was not required because he is
not the parent
of the child.
A New York case finding that AID children are illegitimate is the only such
published decision and is unpersuasive. The historical concept and statutory
definition of a child born out of wedlock were enacted long before the advent
of artificial insemination. AN AID is not begotten by a father who is not the
husband. Since there is consent by the husband, there is no marital infidelity.
The problem is one of policy. New York has a strong policy in favor of
legitimacy, so it is absurd to hold illegitimate a child born during a valid
marriage, of parents desiring but unable to conceive a child, and both
consenting and agreeing to the impregnation of the mother by a medically
selected anonymous donor. This policy is for the protection of the child, not
the parents.
Cecilio Mendoza vs CA, Luisa dela Rosa Mendoza (1967)
-
2 Sep 1953 Cecilio and Luisa married. Lived together as husband

and wife until 14 July 1954
Cecilio departed to study and work In US, abandoned Luisa, no
support to wife, who was allegedly pregnant, sickly and had no
source of income.
Cecilio earning $200 a month and part-owner of a lot in Nueva Ecija
worth 32,330 in 1950
Cecilio assailed validity of his marriage
Lilian Dy
Cecilio Invoked Art 222 No suit shall be filed or maintained b/w

members of the same family unless it should appear that earnest
efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same has
failed, subject to limitation of Art 2035.
SC this case involves a claim for future support that under Art 2035
is not subject to valid compromise. (outside of Art 222)
Art 2035 - No compromise upon the ff questions shall be valid
o (2) the validity of a marriage or a legal separation
o (4) Future support
SC issues in present case not subject to compromise.
SC case not dismissed, proceed to trial.
Zoila Mendez, Rafael Mendez and Matilde Bionson vs Maximo, Eugenia

et al Bionson (1977)
Review of decision granted in CFI Cebu, where a portion of land was
Zoila etal were occupying was granted to Maxino Bionson etal and
they were ordered to vacate.
8 Oct 1968, Zoila and Matilde +10 people filed for partition of 2
parcels of land located in Oslob Cebu that they were occupying. (1/3
Zoila etal , 1/3 Matilde etal, 1/3 to Cecilia, Maximo etal)
RTC found for Cecilia, Maximo etal, no evidence of ownership of 2
parcels of land) collect 190.80 from Zoila, etal
Dec 1969, Maximo etal filed for recovery or possession/ownership of
1 of the pieces of land in the previous case.
Issue Court erred in not dismissing complain for lack of earnest
efforts to arrive at amicable settlement, parties being members of the
same family(?)
From previous case R-10846, plaintiffs had asserted that they had
exerted diligent efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement w/ the help
of municipal officials. So no error or failure of trial court. Also not
members of the same family as provided for in Art 217
Art 217 (1) b/w husband and wife (2) b/w parent and child (3) among
ascendants and descendants (4) among brothers and sisters
SC - Parties are collateral relatives who are not brothers and sisters.
No error in RTC decision.
Spouses Augusto & Maria Hontiveros vs RTC and Spouses Gregorio

Hontivers & Teodora Ayson (1999)
3 Dec 1990 - Spouses A Hontiveros filed against Spouse G

Hontiveros for damages for being deprived of income from a parcel
of land in Capiz they allegedly owned (OCT 0-2124 12 Apr 1984)
due a land registration case filed by Gregorio in 1975. Deprived of
rental from tenants amounting to 66T/yr (1968-1987) and 595T/yr
every year thereafter.
Gregorio and Teodora denied that they were married. Gregorio a
widower and Ayson single. Augusto and Maria already in possession
of the land since 1985 due to writ of possession.
Gregorio : Augusto and Gregorio are brothers, but no earnest efforts
were made to reach a compromise. IAC decision awarding land to
Augusto null and void, Claim for damages barred by prescription.
16 May 1991 Augusto : earnest effort for compromise made but
unsuccessful.
23 Nov 1995 - case dismissed. Court did not believe earnest effort
to reach compromise made. (Art 151)
SC lack of facts, Teodoras participation, duration of possession
and amount of rentals, etc, RTC correct in denying motion for
judgement
SC - RTC erred in dismissing case for not believing that earnest
effort to reach a compromise were made. Absence of verification
only a formal requirement. RTC should have ordered parties to
submit proof if it doubted that parties tried to compromise.
SC petitioners cite that the case is not exclusively among family
members as provided for in the code, so Art 151 does not apply. SC
agrees. (sister-in-law not included)
SC case remanded to trial court for further proceedings.
Florante Manacop vs CA, FF Cruz (1992)

Manacop against writ of prelim attachment against his corporation to
be implemented on his family home (ordinarily exempt from mesne
process)
1989 Manacop failed to pay sub-contract cost to FF Cruz so FF
Cruz filed case of sum of money against Manacop, which triggered
the attachment of a parcel of land in QC owned by Manacop
Construction Pres Florante Manacop.
Manacop : Art 153 Family home deemed constituted at time it is
occupied as family residence. (since 1972)

-
Art 155: exceptions to Art 153 (1) for non payment of taxes (2) debts
incurred prior to constitution of family home (3) mortgage on family
home (4) debts due to laborers, architects, builders, materialmen and
other who have rendered service or furnished materials for the
construction of the bldg.
SC - Became constituted as family home in 1988 and not 1972
because Family Code only effective since August 3, 1988. No
retroactive effect.
SC family home exempt? No, because the debt or liability which
was the basis of the judgement incurred in 1987, (before effectivity of
Family Code and constitution of family home) Also does not fall
under exemptions under Art 155.
SC petition dismissed.
Jose Modequillo vs Judge Breva etc (1990)

29 Jan 1988 CA : Jose Modequillo and Benito Malubay jointly and
severally liable and ordered to pay jointly and severally to Salinas
spouses 30T (for death of son Audie), 10T (loss of earning of son),
5T (burial exp) , 5T (moral damages). Also ordered to pay CulanCulan (5T hospitalization) and 5T moral damages. 7T each to
Salinas and Culan-Culan attorneys fees.
7 July 1988 sheriff levied parcel of residential land (600sqm,
market value 34,550 and assessed value of 7,750) registered in the
name of Jose Modequillo, and another parcel of agri land (4 ha with
market value of 24130 and assessed value of 9650) also under the
name of Jose Modequillo.
Jose Residential land family home since 1969 prior to
commencement of case (Art 152, 153, 155.) Agri land still punlic land
and transfer not approved yet bec orig owner was member of cultural
minority.
Family home constituted upon effectivity of Family Code on Aug 4,
1988.
SC became family home on Aug 3, 1988 (on account of leap year)
Art 162(?)
SC Family home not exempt bec debt or liability incurred on 16
Mar 1976 and money judgment arising rendered in 29 Jan 1988. Agri
land levy on whatever rights petitioner may have on land.
Lilian Dy
Union Bank vd CA, Apolonia de Jesus Grogoria etc Gonzalo Vincoy m
to Triniradad Gregorio VIncoy (2001)
2 Mar 1990 Spouse Gonzalo and Trinidad Vincoy mortgaged their
residence in favor of petitioner (UB) to secure payment for a loan to
Delco Industris in the amount of 2M. For failure to pay loan, Union
Bank foreclosed mortgage and scheduled foreclosure sale on 10 Apr
1991. Highest Bid was 3.29M. Certificate of Sale issued and noted
on TCT on 8 May 1991
Prior to redemption period (8 May 1992), respondents filed complaint
for annulment of mortgage.
Property constituted as family home in 1989. Beneficiaries are
sisters of Trinidad who did not consent to mortgage. (Art 158)
Union Bank property cannot be constituted as family home bec
value exceed max value of 300T (Art. 157)
RTC mortgage valid, not family home pay Union Bank 4.816M++
CA affirmed RTC, not family home. Redemption amount 3.29M + 1%
monthly interest April 19 1991 date of redemption.
SC - respondents at no time ask to be allowed to redeem property
during RTC, so cannot raise issue in CA. Moreover, period of
redemption not interrupted by filing a case assailing validity of
mortgage. Affirmed RTC and CAs ruling except that Respondents
have lost their right of redemption.
Vilma & Anthony Arriola vs John Arriola (2008)
John Nabor filed for judicial partition of properties of Fidel Arriola
(exclusive property)
John son of Fidel with first wife Victoria
Anthony son of Fidel with second wife Vilma
2004 RTC property to be divided equally (1/3 each) to heirs John,
Anthony and Vilma.
Parties failed to agree on how to partition land. Finally agreed on
Public Auction, but this was cancelled bec Anthony and Vilma
refused to include auction of house.
RTC petitioners justified that house or improvement should not be
included in auction sale Presence of house not alleged in original
case.
CA granted Johns petition to auction land and house. House mere
accessory to land, part of estate.
Contempt (?)

-
Anthony and Vilma want to preserve sanctity of house (lived there

more than 20 yrs) and offered to pay John either with swap of 500m
lot in Rizal or Cash of 205,700.
Issue : Should subject house be included in public auction?
SC house covered by partition (same reasons as CA - Accession)
However, not necessarily immediate and actual partition due to Art
159 of Family Code. (the family home shall continue despite the
death of one or both spouses or the unmarried head of the family for
a period of 10yrs or for as long as there is a minor beneficiary and
the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling
reasons therefor, This rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns
the property or constituted the family home.)
SC Fidel died 10 Mar 2003, so family home cannot be partitioned
until 10 Mar 2013 or while there is still a minor beneficiary living there,
unless there is a compelling reason.
SC can auction a portion of subject land, house exempted from
partition by public auction for the period provided for in Art 159 of
Family Code.
Spouses Arthur & Doris Kelley Jr. vs Planters Products & Jorge
Ragutana (2008)
Planters Products filed a case for sum of money against Arthur due
to his failure to pay for agri chemicals bought from them.
RTC found for Planters. Sheriff Ragutana sold on execution real
property located in Naga City. Certificate of Sale issued to Planters
as highest bidder.
Arthur and Doris belatedly informed of sale. Filed case in RTC in
Makati that property was their family home and exempt, but denied
for failure to comply with 3 day notice reqm
Spouses Kelley then filed for nullity of levy and sale. Dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction and cause of action. Upheld by CA.
Family Home (1) must be the house where family actually resides. (2)
must be part of ACP, CPG or exclusive property of spouse with
latters consent, (3) Actual value at time of constitution shall not
exceed 300T in urban areas and 200T in rural areas.
SC Family Code no need to constitute the family home judicially
or extrajudicially. An exemption is effective from the time of the
constitution of the damily hoe as such and lasts as long as any of its
benificiaries reside there. Debts for which the family home is made
Lilian Dy
answerable must have been incurred after Aug 3, 1988. Otherwise,

the alleged family home must be shown to have consitituted either
judicially or extrajudicially pursuant to the Civil Code.
SC Rule is not Absolute (Art 155) and Art 160 When a creditor
whose claim is not among those mentioned in Art 155 obtains a
judgment in his favor, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that
the family home is actually worth more than the max amt fixed in Art
157, he may apply to the court w/c rendered judgment for an order
directling the sale of the property under execution. The court shall so
order if it finds the actual value to exceed the max amt allowed by
law as of the tie of its constitution. If the increased actual value
exceed the max amt allowed by law under Art 157 and results fro
subsequent voluntary improvements introduced by the person or
persons constituting the family home, by etc,.the same rule and
procedure shall apply.
SC prove that this is family home.
Albino Josef vs Otelio Santos (2008)

RTC Albino Joself liable to Otelio Santos for non-payment of shoe
materials worth around 405T with 12% interest from Jan 9 1995 til
full payment.
CA Affirmed RTCs ruling
20 Aug 2003 Writ of Execution of judgement.
28 Oct 2003 public auction, property located in Marikina City sold.
Otelio Santos winning bidder and Certificate of Sale issued in his
favor.
5 Nov 2003 Josef filed case in CA alleging that property did not
belong to him but to his children, and that one property was family
home and exempt from execution.
Issue Levy and Sale of childrens property and his family home
legal?
Josef no notice of sale. Property worth 8M but sold only for around
850T
SC - Josef early on alleged that his was insolvent and had no
property to answer for judgment credit. He only had his family home
and stuff in it were his childrens. Raised the exemption from the start.
SC RTC ruling void for not taking above into account. RTC should
have determined if obligation falls under Art 155. Make an inquiry

into veracity of claim that property is family home. Conduct ocular
visit, see title, etc. more info on property
SC writ of execution by RTC of Marikina void and acts resulting
from it void. RTC directed to conduct solemn inquiry into the nature
of the property. Otelio Santos hold the property in trust.
Leonora Perido with husband Manula vs Perido etal vs Maria Perido etc
(1975)
Lucio Perido married first (Benita Talorong with 3 children Felix,
Ismael and Margarita). After Benita died, he married Marcelina
Baligual (5 children, Eusebio, Juan, Maria, Sofronia, Gonzalo)
Lucio died 1942, second wife died in 1943.
First family. Margarita still living, children of Felix survived by 6
children (Leonara one of them) also a couple of grandkids.
Deceased ismael survived by 4 children and 1 grandson.
Second family. many too.
15 Aug 1960 Children and grandchildren from both marriage
executed declaration of Heirship and extrajudicial partition where
they partitioned amongst themselves 8 lots located in Negros
Occidental.
Children of first marriage had second thoughts on partition.
st
nd
1962 children of 1 marriage filed complaint against children of 2
marriage for annulment of declaration. (induced by misrepresentation,
nd
conjugal prop of Lucio and Benita, children of 2 marriage
illegitimate)
nd
1965 RTC annulled declaration. But found children of 2 marriage
legitimate and all lots except for 1 was the exclusive property of
Lucio and 11/12 of Lot 458 was conjugal partnership of Lucio Perido
nd
and 2 wife Marcelina Baliguat. Partitioned property accordingly
CA affirmed RTC ruling
st
st
1 family all 5 children born out of wedlock, (1 3 when their
nd
mother was still alive and married to their father, last 2 before the 2
marriage) Not recognized by parents
First wife died in 1905, Lucio still a widower in 1923 as shown by
certificate of titles. Only married again in 1925.
SC CA found evidence that first wife died during Spanish regime.
Lucio Perido had no legal impediment from marrying Marcelina
before the birth of their first child in 1900.
Civil status of Lucio in cert of titles not proof or conclusive that he
was not actually married to Marcelina. Presumption that persons
Lilian Dy
living together are husband and wife especially in issues of

legitimacy. Must present proof by those attacking legitimacy
Marriage Ceremony in 1925 uncorroborated.
nd
SC CA right in finfing children of 2 marriage legitimate.
SC lands exclusive property of Lucio bec he inherited these from
his grandmother.
SC - CA ruling affirmed.
Andal and Duenas vs Macaraig (1951)

Mariano Andal, minor, assisted by mom Maria Duenas as guardian,
recovery of ownership and possession of land in Camarines Sur.
24 Sep 1942, Marianos father Emiliano died, land in question
acquired from donation propter nuptias executed by Eduvigis
Macaraig (Emilianos mother)
RTC ruled in favor of Mariano, legitimate, owner of land, order
defendant to pay cost of suit.
Issue Is Mariano legitimate?
Emiliano became sick with TB in Jan 1941, Sometime after, his
brother Felix went to live with him to help work his farm.
Es TB got worse that as of Sept 10 1942 he was so weak he could
hardly move and get up from his bed.
10 Sep 1942. Maria Duenas eloped with his brother Felix and lived
with Marias father until middle of 1943. Since May 1942, Felix and
Maria had been having sex.
1 Jan 1943. Emiliano died without presence of his wife.
17 June 1943, Maria gave birth to a baby boy, Mariano Andal.
Art 108 of Civil Code : Children born 180 days ff celebration of
marriage or w/in 300 days next ff its dissolution or separation shall
be presumed legitimate. This presumption may be rebutted by proof
that it was physically impossible for husband to have access to his
wife during the first 120 days of the 300 preceding the birth.
Since Mariano born 17 Jun 1943 and Emiliano died 1 Jan 1943,
presumed legitimate unless with proof of physical impossibility.
SC During the first 120 days of the 300 preceding the birth of child,
Emiliano still living under the same roof as Maria. Experience shows
that despite Emilianos TB (feet swollen and hoarse) does not
prevent carnal intercourse.
SC Emiliano not impotent, child born w/in 300 days following
dissolution of marriage. No other presumption can be drawn other

than child is legitimate. The fact the Maria committed adultery cannot
overcome presumption. Upheld RTCs ruling.
Lilian Dy
-
Janice Marie Jao, rep by mother and guardian Arlene S Salgado vs CA

and Perico Jao (1987)
28 Oct 1968 filed for support with JDRC against Perico Jao. Perico
denied paternity so parties agreed to blood grouping test conducted
by NBI.
Blood test result : Janice could not have been the possible offspring
of Perico Jao and Arlene Salgado.
Trial court originally found test legally conclusive but upon plaintiffs
motion for recon, ordered trial on merits, after which Janice declared
child of Perico, thus entitling her to monthly support.
CA reversed trial courts ruling, Jao not the father.
Perico introduced to Arlene at Saddle and Sirloin, lived together as
husband and wife. April 1968, Perico accompanied Arlne to Marian
Gen Hospital for medical check up and confinement. Perico paid
rentals, salaries of maids, etc.
Janice born on 16 Aug 1968.after completing 36wks of pregnancy.
st
(conceived on or about the 1 week of December 1967)
rd
th
Arlene first met Perico sometime in 3 or 4 wk of Novemner 1967
at Saddle and Sirloin. After several dates, had sex at 30 Longville
Merville Paranaque on the evening of 30 Nov 1967 and lived
together at her house after Dec 16 1967. The date they finished their
cruise in Mindoro
Perico only met at Saddle and Sirloin on Dec 14 1967.
Remembered this bec the day after, they went on a cruise. Date 4
times in Jan 1968, first time sex on 19 Jan 1968, week of his birthday.
Only since May 1968 start to cohabit.
SC cannot sustain conclusion of trial court that NBI not in position
to determine with math. Precision the issue of parentage by blood
grouping test. Ruling of court before that NBI blood grouping test
admittable.
Blood grouping test can establish conclusively that a man is not the
father of a child. Cannot show that man is father of particular child.
SC CA found fact that ran contrary to petitioners contention that
Perico Jao recognized Janice. Jao filed a petition to remove his
name as father in Janices Birth Cert. evidencing his repudiation.
Mere acts of cohabiting, attention to pregnancy and financial

assistance cannot overcome result of blood test.
SC Jao cannot be compelled to recognized Janice based on when a
child is in continuous possession of status of a child of the alleged
father by the direct acts of the other Art 283 /289 of Civil Code
(3) When a child was conceived during the time when the mother
cohabited with the supposed father (4) when the child has in his
favor any evidence or proof that defendant is father
Janice could have been conceived from Nove 20 1967 to Dec 4 1967.
Arlene said they only started cohabiting on Dec 16 1967. Therefore,
Janice could not have been conceived during this period (according
to (3)). So no recognition will lie. Under (4) no recognition as Janice
has no other proof.
Contention also that at the critical time of conception, Arlene also
had sex with Oying Fernandez and Melvin Yabut (not rebutted by
Arlene)
Arlenes manner not reliable, movie actress. (may be acting?)
Co Tao vs CA Blood test cannot give assurance of paternity, only
possible father. The other facts in the case tends to establish that Co
Tao was the father of child Manuel.
Issue of Admissability and conclusiveness of blood grouping tests to
disprove paternity, many rulings become important legal procedure.
So blood test conclusive.
Cohabitation cannot be ground for compulsory recognition.
NBI qualified. Arlene refused another blood test when Janice was 2
even as Jao was willing show that she herself doesnt believe that
Jao is the father.
SC affirms CAs ruling. Blood test result admissible and conclusive
on non-paternity. No recognition.
Who May Adopt/Be Adopted

In re: Adoption of Edwin Villa (1967) (Luis Santos, Edipoloa V Santos
(Sister and husband)
Issue: May an elder sister adopt a younger brother?
RTC dismissed petition for adoption, cited incongruity. Relationship
brother and sister, same natural parents
1963 spouses Santos filed for adoption of Edwin (4 yrs old).
Spouses both 32yrs old, Filipino, no children legitimate or illegitimate.
Luis (lawyer -600/mo income with many business interests, textile,

etc), Edipola (nurse 300/mo income)
Edwin child of Francisco Villa and Florencia Mendoza parents of
Edipola
Edwin born sickly, natural parents entrusted care to Luis & Edipola,
so that a bond of profound love was formed. Natural parents
voluntarily gave consent to adoption and gave written consent stating
this and that they understand the legal consequences.
SC no law that prohibits adoption by blood relatives. Dual
relationship allowed (both brother and son)
RP vs CA. Zenaida Bobiles & Mariano Miranda (1992)

RTC & CA granted adoption of Jason Condat to Zenaida
2 Feb 1988, Zenaida filed for adoption of Jason who was then 6 yrs
old but who had been living with her since he was 4 mos old.
20 Mar 1988, adoption granted to Zenaida and her husband
Dioscoro Bobiles. (Legazpi City)
RP Family Code cannot be applied retroactively. Zenaida filed
alone as PD 603 allowed either spouse to file for adoption. While
case was pending, FC took effect on 8/3/1988
Article 246 of the Family Code provides for retroactive effect of
appropriate relevant provisions thereof, subject to the qualification
that such retrospective application will not prejudice or impair vested
or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.
A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent does not
depend upon events foreign to the will of the holder. The term
expresses the concept of present fixed interest which in right reason
and natural justice should be protected against arbitrary State action,
or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free society,
sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny.
Vested rights include not only legal or equitable title to the
enforcement of a demand, but also an exemption from new
obligations created after the right has vested.
A petition cannot be dismissed by reason of failure to comply with a
law which was not yet in force and effect at the time. As long as the
petition for adoption was sufficient in form and substance in
accordance with the law in governance at the time it was filed, the
court acquires jurisdiction and retains it until it fully disposes of the
case.
Lilian Dy
-
SC from husbands affidavit of consent to the adoption, he can be

named co-petitioner.
SC RTC and CA correct in granting petition for adoption.
RP vs CA & Spouses James Anthony & Lenita Hughes (1993)

James US citizen, Lenita Filipina turned naturalized US Citizen
29 Jun 1990, spouses jointly filed for adoption of Ma Cecilia, Neil &
Mario Mabunay, minor niece and nephews of Lenita. Minors and
their natural parents gave consent.
29 Nov 1990. RTC granted adoption.
RP spouses Hughes not qualified under Philippine Law to adopt.
Cited Art 184 of FC, (clearly James Anthony not qualified, none in
the enumeration describes him)
Lenita can adopt pursuant to Art 184 (3) Alien or former Filipino
citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity. BUT there is
a problem bec of Art 185 of the FC:
o Husband and Wife must jointly adopt except in the ff cases
When 1 spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate
child
When 1 spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child
of the other
SC due to the law, adoption cannot be granted. Despite the
possible benefits to the children, we must follow the law.
Recommends further study of the law and inter-country adoption by
govt agencies (to amend law?)
RP vs Judge Toledano & spouses Alvin & Evelyn Clouse (1994)
RTC granted adoption of minor Solomon Joseph Alcala adoptee
(12 yrs old), brother of Evelyn Clouse, to spouses Clouse
Alvin Clouse natural born US citizen married Evelyn on 4 June 1981
in Olongapo City.
1988 Evelyn became naturalized US citizen in Guam.
Spouses found to be physically, morally, financially capable of
adopting Solomon (legally?)
1981-1984 and Nov 1989 to present. Solomon under Clouses care.
Adoption with consent of Solomon and natural mother Nery. Social
worker found adoption favorable to Solomon. So RTC granted
adoption

-
RP Alvin & Evelyn not qualified under Philippine Law to adopt

Solomon.
SC RP/Sol-Gen correct. Clouses not qualified due to Art 184 and
Art 185
SC reqm for joint adoption by spouses for protection of the child,
joint parental authority is ideal situation, harmony b/w spouse.
SC RTC decision set aside and reversed.
Lilian Dy
Nature of Adoption Proceedings

In re: Adoption of Marcial Resaba. Luis & Ligia Santos vs RP (1954)
24 Jun 1952 Luis and Ligia filed for adoption of minor Marcial
Resaba.
Legitimate parents gave consent in a document signed 20 Mar 1950.
Since Feb 1950, Santos have reared Marcial as if he was their own
child. Spouses financially and able to bring up and educate minor.
Sol-Gen/RP spouses disqualified from adopting as they have 2
minor legitimate children (born Nov 1950 and Apr 1952).
CFI granted petition bec agreement to adopt was before 2 leg
children were born and before the New Civil Code took effect.
RP agreement to adopt no binding effect, violates Art 335 (2) of
New Civil Code (persons with leg children cannot adopt)
SC adoption on through courts. (CFI)
Renato Lazatin alias Renato Sta Clara vs Judge Campos & Nora,
Bernanrdo, Arlene De Leon & Irma Veloso (1979)
Trial Court ruled that Renato must produce documentary proof that
there had been judicial proceedings for his legal adoption. Since he
could not, Renato is not the adopted son of Dr. Mariano.
13 Jan 1974 Dr. Mariano Lazatin died intestate survived by
respondents (twin daughters Nora & Irma) and Wife Margarita de
Asis
1 month after Marianos death, 4 people (Mariano, Oscar, Virgilop &
Yvonne) claimed to be illegitimate children of Mariano. Helen Munoz
also claimed to be an illegitimate child of Mariano.
11 Apr 1974 widow Margarita de Asis died, leaving holographic will
(1970), providing for legacy to Arlene de Leon (granddaughter),
Rodolfo Gallardo (nephew), legacy of education for Ramon Sta.
Clara (son of Renato) Safety Deposity Box stock certificate,
adoption papers of twin sisters, jewelry. (opened w/o court

permission) but Nora emptied it anyway. Probate court ordered her
to return items in safety deposit box. (she only submitted the key to a
new deposit box
Renato claims to be the illegitimate son of Dr. Mariano who was later
adopted by both Dr. Mariano and Margarita de Asis.
Renato no proof of decree of adoption, only that he was supported
by Mariano & Margarita. His name became Sta Clara and not Lazatin
because alleged parents didnt approve of his marriage. Photographs
with Irma and Margarita.
SC affirmed RTCs ruling, No records of Adoption in CFI of Manila
(pre-war records) Even if burned, petitioner should have
reconstituted them provided for by law. Decree of adoption cannot be
substituted with testimonial evidence.
SC Secondary evidence admissible only when former existence of
instrument is established. (Existence, execution, loss, contents).
Paulina & Aurora Santos vs Gregoria Aranzanso & Demetria Ventura

(1966)
4 June 1949 spouses Simplicio Santos & Juliano Reyes filed pet
for adoption of Paulina (17) & Aurora (8) Santos. (spouses married
27 yrs, no children, took care of girls from babyhood)
Parents unknown, guardian Crisanto de Mesa and Paulina, being
over 14, gave consent to adoption. Adoption granted.
21 Oct 1957, Juliana died intestate. (8yrs later) Simplicio filed for
administration of estate
st
Gregoria and Demetria (1 cousins of Juliana) opposed this as they
claimed Simplicio and Julianas marriage was bigamous and void ab
initio, Adoption therefore also void ab initio.
Demetria allegedy mother of Paulina
CFI validity of adoption cannot be assailed collaterally in intestate
proceedings
CA reversed CFI, found adoption null and void ab initio due to
absence of consent of natural parents of minor children. Open to
collateral attack
st
Side issue : Pasion sisters, also 1 cousins of deceased, asking for
money too. (7000)

-
SC Consent by natural parents to adoption not an absolute

requisite. (if parents abandoned children, guardian ad litem consent
ok)
CFI evidence children abandoned
SC invalid marriage will not make any difference to the right of
respondents to intervene. Juliana Reyes would then have just filed
as a single person. Would not affect rights of adopted children to
succeed to Julianas estate.
st
SC CA ruling reversed. 1 cousins cannot intervene
Who May Not Adopt/Not Be Adopted

Spouses Ernesto & Matilde Nieto vs Judge Magat (1985)
Spouses Nieto filed to adopt Roy Nieto Sumintac, their nephew.
They reared him from 1971 to 1975 but had to leave him in the RP
since they went to Guam where Ernesto worked.
MSSD favorably recommended the adoption, natural parent
impoverished
CFI denied adoption due to non-residence of spouses in Phil. No
trial custody as req by PD 603
SC non-residents not the same as aliens. Art 35 of PD 603
authorizes court to dispense with trial custody reqm if in the best
interest of the child.
SC adoption granted.
Slobodan & Diane Bobanovic vs Juge Sylvia Montes (MSSD) (1986)
28 Nov 1984 pet to adopt Adam Christopher Sales filed by
spouses Bobanovic, Australian citizens, temp. residing in Makati
MSSD did not conduct case study or give a report for
recommendation. So only Alma Algenica the RIC staff asst. V
conducted the case study. She submitted favorable rec and study
21 Jan 1985 final decree of adoption granted. Copy given to SolGen and MSSD 5 Jan 1985
Spouses B requested travel clearance from MSSD. MSSD denied
this bec they allegedy were not furnished with a copy of the pet for
adoption and denied opportunity to conduct case study.
SC notice of pet for adoption published in newspapers for 3
consecutive weeks. Records show MSSD received the docs re
adoption case.
Lilian Dy
-
SC re travel clearance : MSSD should just have checked the

favorable report of the court social worker. MSSD stubborn in its
insistence that it is the sole authority in making report.
SC refusing to grant the travel clearance would frustrate the decree
of adoption
SC welfare of the child most important. Law should not be made to
impede the achievement of humane policy.
SC ordered MSSD to issue w/o delay travel clearance to
Bobanovics
MinisterPardo De Tavera (MSSD) vs Judge Cacdac & Spouses George

& Gail Gordon (Nov 23 1988)
1986 - RTC ruled and ordered Ministry of Social Services & Devt to
issue travel clearance of adopted minor Anthony Gandhi Gordon.
This petition seeks to annul RTCs decision re adoption of Anthony
Custodia (1yr 2 mos old) by spouses Gordon.
Anthony natural child of Adoracion Custodia. Shes giving him up for
adoption to ensure a brighter future even though shes having
second thoughts. Mr. Gordon employed as bldg superintendent of
Dubai Hilton Intl Hotel. Gordons qualified to adopt (British RP
agreement) Favorable Case Study Report given by Social Worker of
Trial Court. So RTC granted adoption
11 Aug 1986 Gordons were refused a passport/travel clearance for
Anthony bec, the Gordons did not have a Case Study from the
MSSD.
MSSD opposed the adoption/travel clearance because
o Case Study of Social Worker of Trial Court and Pastor of
Dubai Christians cant take the place of MSSD Case Study
o No 6 month trial custody as required by PD No 603
o Gordons gave 10K to mother, like shopping for a child,
undesirable quality of Gordons
o Under Muslim Law in Dubai, adopted child cannot inherit
from adopting parents
o Gordons tried to adopt a baby girl before but she died. They
then tried to pass off another baby girl as the one who died
(to save time on proceedings(?))
o Dubai does not have an agreement or guarantee with the
Philippines that adopted children wont be sold, exchanged,
abused, etc.

-
RTC overruled MSSD objections

o As foreigners, can dispense with 6 month trial period
o citing Bobanovic vs Hon Montes denying travel clearance,
violating rights given by decree of adoption
SC affirmed RTCs ruling. 10K to natural mother not buying the
child but form of assistance
SC regarding changeling first baby girl was mongoloid, Gordons
handed her over to some international alliance for children
SC Gordons British citizens and not under Muslim law
SC if MSSD wanted to appeal RTCs ruling re adoption, should
have appealed to Sol-Gen. Since decree of adoption is final and
executory, cannot contest.
SC best interests of the child foremost concern: Issued a Circular
12 requiring all trial courts to:
o Notify MSSD of all adoption cases
o Strictly comply with Art 33 of PD 603 (Case Study by MSSD)
and coordinate with MSSD
o Personally HEAR all adoption cases and not delegate
receiving of evidence it to clerk of court
Consent Necessary for Adoption Art 188

Robin Duncan & Maria Christensen vs CFI (1976)
-
27 Jun 1968 CFI denied pet for adoption of Colin Berry

Christensen Duncan.
Robin British national, Maria American national, residents of the
Philippines, married and had previously adopted a child, want to
adopt another one whom they christened Colin.
RTC denied petition bec lack of consent of parents, guardian or
person in charge of person to be adopted.
Atty Velasquez, lawyer of Duncans said she knew the identity of the
mother but could not disclose it due to privileged communication
SC no client-attorney relationship b/w mother and Velasquez,
anyway, identity not concern but consent.
May 1967, a child 3 days old was given to the Duncans by Atty
Corazon Velasquez. Baby was given to Atty by unwed mother who
told her to never reveal her identity bec she wanted to be married in
Lilian Dy
the future. Instructed Velasquez to look for suitable couple to adopt

baby. Atty Velasquez gave consent as de facto guardian. CFI, upon
learning that parent was still alive wanted Atty V to reveal her identity.
Atty V refused.
Issue : Is Atty Velasquez the right person to give consent?
SC based on facts, natural mother abandoned child (no inquiries,
communication, etc)
SC since baby left with Atty V, Atty V guardian lit em who has right
to give consent
Dura Lez sed lex too harsh. In cases of adoption, law should be
softened and be compassionate and understanding. Best interest of
the child.
SC CFI ruling annulled, grant adoption.
Herbert Cang vs CA and Spouses Ronald & Maria Clara Clavano (1998)
Issue : Can minor children be legally adopted w/o the written consent
of a natural parent on the ground that the latter had abandoned them?
27 Jan 1973 Herbert Cang & Anne Marie Clavano married and had
3 children, Keith, Charmaine, and Joseph Anthony.
Because of Herberts affair with Wilma Soco, a family friend, Anne
Marie filed for legal sep, legal separation granted. Support for
children 1000, Anne Marie may be entitled to enter into contract or
agreement w/o written consent of husband, or any undertaking that
normally requires husbands consent.
Herbert left for US and got divorce decree from Anne Marie. Sole
Custody of children to Anne Marie reserving rights of visitation at
reasonable times and places.
Herbert married and divorced an American. Became naturalized
Amer. Citizen
Cang worked in the US, earning 18-20K a month, remitting portion
for support of children in childrens name in RP bank.
25 Sep 1987. Clavanos, brother and sister-in-law of Anne Marie filed
for adoption of 3 children.
14 yr old Keith gave consent. Anne Marie going to US to attend to a
family business. Cang not giving support and forfeited parental rights,
so better for children to be adopted by brother.
Upon learning of petition, Cang returned to RP and protested being
stripped of his parental authority even if his resources were meager
compared to Clavanos.

-
RTC Branch 19 give custody back to Cang

RTC Branch 14 27 Mar 1990 granted adoption to children to
Clavanos
SC Abandon to forsake or renounce utterly, give up absolutely.
SC Abandonment of child by parent conduct of parent evincing a
settled purpose to forgo all parental duties and relinquish all parental
claims on the child. Neglect or refusal to perform the natural and
legal obligations of care and support w/c parents owe their children
SC records show that Cang did not manifest conduct to abandon
children. Physical estrangement not the same as moral and financial
desertion, so no abandonment by Cang. Cang wrote by letter and
called his wife and children. Sent packages by mail to them.
SC No proof of emotional abandonment. Anne Maries reason for
adoption more for convenience than for financial reasons
SC Cang illegal alien in US, could not find gainful employment.
SC decree of legal sep allowing Anne Marie to enter into contracts
w/o husbands consent only refers to conjugal properties and not
adoption of children.
Legal separation case, Cang did not lose parental authority
SC deny adoption of 3 children by Clavanos.
Effects of Adoption Arts 189-190

Minor Ana, Isabel Johnston vs RP (1963)
CFI ruled that adopted child surname be Valdes and not Valdes
Johnston, Isabels married name at the time of filing
24 Jun 1960 Isabel filed petition for adoption of Ana Isabel, 2 yrs
10 mos from orphanage. Isabel 48yrs old, no children, Filipino,
residing in Makati, with consent of Mother Superior and husband.
CFI granted pet for adoption but ruled that the surname Valdes be
used by child.
CFI to use Valdes Johnston would mislead people into thinking
child was adopted by husband too.
SC Isabel filed for adoption singly and not as a married woman,
without concurrence of husband. Adoption created personal
relationship b/w child and Isabel (adopter) only, husband not
adopting father. Affirmed CFIs ruling. Valdes surname to be used.
Lilian Dy
Habeas Corpus of minor Angelie Anne Cervantes, (spouses Nelson &
Zenaida) vs (Gina & Conrado Fajardo) 1989
29 April 1987- Affidavit of Consent issued by Gina & Conrado re
adoption of their 2-week old child by Ginas sister and brother in-law
(Nelson & Zenaida)
20 Aug 1987 RTC granted decree of adoption to the Cervantes
Mar or April 1987 adoptive parents received a letter asking them
for 150K to proceed with the adoption, (or else they will take back
their child). Cervantes refused
11 Sep 1987 Gina went to Cervantes house and conned the yaya
into giving her the child.
Gina told the court that she did not understand the implications of
giving up her child, affidavit of consent not explained to her. But
social worker said that Gina expressed her desire to have the child
adopted
SC best interests of the child most important (not necessarily all
children under 5 should be with their natural mother
SC Gina common-law wife of Conrado. Conrado legally married to
someone else. Not a good environment for the moral upbringing of
the child. Gina also has another child by a married man who left her.
Gina jobless
SC custody and care of Angelie to Cervantes. Judicial decree of
Adoption final, Parental authority transferred to Cervantes
Republic vs CA & Maximo Wong (1992)
CA granted pet of Maximo Wong to change his name to Maximo
Alcala Jr, w/c was his name prior to his adoption by Hoong Wong
and Concepcion Ty Wong.
9 Sep 1967, Maximo and Margaret, legitimate children of Maximo
Alcala Sr and Segundina Alcala. When they were 2-1/2 yrs and 9 yrs
old, siblings were adopted by the Wongs, insurance agent and HS
teacher, childless. Showered them with love and reared them as own
children.
Maximo when he was 22 pet to change his name as it embarrassed
and isolated him from his relatives and friends, as the name suggest
Chinese ancestry when he is a Muslim Filipino residing in Muslim
Community. Hampered by name in business and social life. With
Consent of adoptive mother.
Issue : Are reasons for change of name valid.

-
SC yes, reason for change of name valid, does not affect the legal
capacity, civil status or citizenship. Affirmed CAs ruling.
Republic vs Judge Hernandez and Spouses Munson (Van & Regina)

1996
RTC granted adoption and at the same time granted change of name
of Karl Earl Bartolome Moran to Aaron Joseph (to complement new
surname of Munson y Andrade)
1994 Munsons filed petition for adoption and at the same time filed
for change of name because Aaron Joseph was baptized as such in
their home in 1993.
RP should be 2 separate proceedings (adoption and change of
name)
Munsons avoid multiplicity of suits (SC No, only if suits are
related)
Issue : W/N the RTC erred in granting the change of name together
with the adoption and if their were lawful grounds for change of name.
SC Adoption and Change of Given Name in Civil Registry should
be separate proceedings bec they are not related. Art 189 only
automatically grants change of surname to adoptive parents.
Changing of Name is a privilege and not a right.
SC RTC decision regarding change of name set aside. Munsons
have to file separate petition for change of name for their child w/c
should comply with criteria to allow change of name.
Macario Celso Aurelia Tamargo vs CA & Victor and Clara Bundoc (1992)
Adelberto Bundoc (10yrs old) shot and killed Jennifer Tamargo with
an air rifle.
Jennifer (Macario Tamargo adopting parent, Celso & Aurelia
Tamargo, natural parents)
10 Dec 1981. After Adelberto Bundoc had killed Jennifer, decree of
adoption granted to Sabas and Felisa Rapisura (Natural parents of
Adelberto Victor and Clara Bundoc)
Issue : who are indispensable parties for damages to suit?
Spouses Bundoc claim it is the adopting parents Rapisura (pet for
adoption filed before killing), but since son was still living with them,
Tamargos think its still the Bundocs
SC Adelberto still under Bundocs parental authority since he was
still living with them at the time of killing. Art 221 of FC . No
Lilian Dy
retroactive granting of parental authority. Still under Bundocs
supervision. Art 35 of PD 603. Bundocs liable.
Mauricio Sayson etal vs CA, Edmundo & Doribel Sayson (1992)
Issue Capacity of private respondents to inherit from alleged
parents and grandparents.
Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot 5 children: Mauricio, Rosario,
Remedios, Basilisa and Teodoro
10 Nov 1952 Eleno died, 15 May 1976 Rafaela died.
Teodoro and his wife Isabel died leaving their properties in
possession of alleged children Delia, Edmundo and Doribel.
25 Aprl 1983 - Siblings of Teodoro filed for accounting and partitions
of Teodoro and Isabels estate. Resisted by respondents
11 July 1983 3 respondents filed for accounting and partition of
estate of Eleno and Rafaela. Accdg to case, Delia and Edmundo
adopted children of Teodoro while Doribel legit daughter, so they
were entitled to Teodoros share in his parents estate by right of
representation.
Both cases decided in favor of respondents
CA Delia and Edmundo legally adopted through judicial decree in 9
Mar 1967, Doribel leg daughter based on birth cert.
Mauricio Adoption after Doribel had been born in 1967, so it was
illegal. Inconsistent as petitioners also allege that Doribel is not legit
daughter.
SC Too late to question adoption
Collaterally challenging adoption not allowed.
Doribels legitimacy proved by birth cert. Presumption of Legitimacy.
Can only be impugned by direct Action.
SC Only Doribel entitled to estate of grandparents as Legitimate
Child. Adopted children no relation to grandparents.

Malang vs Moson (2000) property rights of Muslim spouses

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Malang vs Moson (2000) property rights of Muslim spouses

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof.

Hadji Abdula Malang married Aida (Kenanday) Limba, 3 sons 1

Oppositors all properties exclusive properties, not conjugal due to

Bondagjy vs Artadi (2008)

Parties married under Islamic Law 02/04/1988

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Garrido vs Garrido (2010)

Maelotisea Garrido filed disbarment against her husband Atty

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs CA and Marilou Gonzales (1993)

Veronica Tenebro married Leticia Ancajas (Aug 1990) by Judge

11/26/2002 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed petition to change

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

People vs Santiago (1927)

2003, Jennifer Cagandahan filed Petition for Correction to Entries in

05/22/1988 parties married in Manila Cathedral

Felipe Santiago, guilty of rape, sentenced to 14 years in prison, pay

Buccat vs Buccat (1941)

Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA & Gina Lao-Tsoi (1997)

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Jordan keeps on avoiding answering charges, hiding, etc (3 years),

Yes. Decision affirmed

Wiegel v Sempio-Diy (19 August 1986)

Terre vs Terre (1992)

29 May 1991 Delia Soledad A Domingo filed petition for

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Renato So (17) met Lorna Valera (21) in 1973. 19-year common-law

Atienza v Brillantes (A.M. - 1995)

24 July 1996 CA declared marriage of Edgardo M Reyes and

Lupo Atienza filed a case for gross immorality of Judge Francisco

Santos cs CA, Bedia-Santos (1995)

Family Code has retroactive effect unless there be impairment of

Leouel Santos (1 Lt in Army) seeks to have his marriage with Julia

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Dissenting Opinion ( J Padilla) failure to communicate and cohabit

Rep vs Molina (1997)

already discussed before

Hernandez vs CA, Mario Hernandez (1999)

review of decision by CA in 30 Jan 1996, dismissing petition for

Mar 1995 Tadeo Bengzon file a petition for annulment of marriage to

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration

10 Oct 2000 RTC found Merope and Orlando's marriage void ab

RTC marriage void, CA reversed RTC's ruling, SC affirms RTC's

RTC marriage void on ground of bigamy, CA reversed decision

RTC and CA dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Armida Ferraris v Brix Ferraris (2006)

20 Feb 2001 RTC denied petition for declaration of nullity of Armida

Nilda Navales vs Reynaldo Navales (2008)

Jocelyn Suazo vs Angelito Suazo (2010)

RTC annulled marriage, CA reversed ruling

Lester Halili v Chona Halili and RP (2008)

Edward Te vs Rowena Yu-Te (2009)

1996 Edward and Rowena first met in college

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)

Clinical psychologist found both parties psychologically incapacitated

RP vs Cabantug- Baguio (2008)

RTC and CA ruled Lynnette and Martini's marriage

Juan de dios Carlos vs Sandoval (2008)

Felix transferred land to Teofilo to avoid inheritance taxes. Teofilo

Manuel Almelor v RTC (2008)

29 Jan 1989 Manual and Leonida married in Manila Cathedral, had

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof. Morales)