E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Causapin vs. CA
Doctrine: Action for annulment of a contract entered into by minors
or other incapacitated persons shall be brought within four years
from the time the guardianship ceases
Keywords: land, minority
Nature: Petition for review of the CA decision
Date: July 4, 1994
Ponente: Bellosillo, J
Facts:
473 sqm land in Laguna- (Erlinda & Alberto) heirs of Agapito
Causapin (died Oct 1954)
June 25 1963-petitioned the land and tax declarations issued in
their names
Erlinda resided and left in 1963- land was in the care of cousin
Lorenza Manalo
1986- Erlinda returned and learned that the land was already titled
in the name of Dominador de Guzman and Anastacia Batas
July 17, 1986- RTC Laguna- recission of deeds of sale
Dominador de Guzman & Anastacia, Eusebio Calugay, Renato &
Lorenza Manalo and Benjamin Nadurate
Erlinda sale to Eusebio Calugay for PhP1500 (forged accdng. to E)
Calugay to Manalo for PhP2000 Bilihan ng Lupa na Walang Titulo
Manalo to de Guzman for Php3000 Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan
Aug 17 1967 Alberto to de Guzman PhP2500
Alberto: intimidated by Renato and Lorenza Manalo and
Dominador & Anastacia de Guzman to sign an already prepared
deed on the pretense that he would receive a consideration, which
he didnt
1980 loan from Leonila Calugay: Php2500, then later redeemed
the land
RTC decision: No valid transfer of the property of Erlinda to
respondents
a. Minority (principle of equity, couple was in bad faith)
b. Sale to Calugay, signature forged
c. If the document was for mortgage, PhP1500 insufficient
consideration because loan was PhP2500
d. Etc etc
RTC decision: Albertos sale valid because he failed to persuade
the court there was no consideration paid

Kirby Hipolito
Remedies:
a. de Guzaman to pay sum equivalent value of the property
b. de Guzman claim damages against Manalo
c. Manalo pay Erlinda PhP10000 moral damages and the same
sum as compensatory damages
d. Defendants pay Erlinda PhP5000 attorneys fees plus costs
e. Relieving Calugay from civil liability
CA decision: Sept 30 1992: REVERSED
a. deed of sale cannot be brushed aside
b. no conclusive evidence that de Guzman was in bad faith
Issues:
Is the sale Erlinda valid?
Held:
Yes
Ratio:
1. A comparison of Erlinda's signature in the "Bilihang Tuluyan" with
her signatures on the other documents reveals that the slight
differences in strokes are overshadowed by the significant
similarities. These similarities suffice to convince us that the
signature of petitioner Erlinda on the deed of sale between her and
respondent Eusebio is genuine; a fortiori, the deed of sale between
them is valid.
2.As regards the second ground, Art. 1391 of the Civil Code is specific
that the action for annulment of a contract entered into by minors
or other incapacitated persons shall be brought within four years
from the time the guardianship ceases. Conformably with this
provision, Erlinda should have filed a complaint for annulment
within four (4) years from 1966 when she turned 21. Her claim of
minority has undoubtedly prescribed when the complaint was filed
in 1986.
Disposition:
Petition for review denied. CA decision affirmed

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Kirby Hipolito

People vs. Egan

Doctrine: A minor is incapacitated to marry
Keywords: forcible abduction, rape
Nature: Appeal for the decision of the RTC
Date: May 28, 2002
Ponente: Bellosillo, J
Facts:
January 6, 1197 2PM Lenie Camad, 12 years old was abducted by
Lito Egan, 36 years old.
Cousin Jessica Silona was able to escape and at 5PM reportes to
Palmones Camad-father
January 6- they stayed in Sitio Camad
January 7- Sitio Sayawan, alleged rape
Father searched for 4 months with the help of datus
Customary settlement: Egan to give two horses as dowry, but
defaulted and forcibly relocated Lenie to Bukidnon
May 15, 1997- Lenie was rescued
Aug 12, 1997-filed forcible abduction with rape, he was arrested
and pled not guilty
DEFENSE: dowry: Sept 2, 1996: 1 horse, 2 pigs, 10 sacks of palay
and PhP2000. Palmores still demanded 1 wild horse so they had to
depart (Lenie voluntarily) on Jan 1, 1997 to capture one.
EVIDENCE: Exhibit 2- letter by Berting Bayaan to Apo Boyilon
detailing the delivery of the two horses.
RTC: forcible abduction with rape, reclusion perpetua, PhP30,000
moral damages, PhP20,000 exemplary damages
Issues:
1. Was there forcible abduction?
2. Was there rape?
3. Is Egans defense of engagement to marry tenable?
Held:
1. Yes
2. No
3. No

Ratio:
1. Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the
crime of forcible abduction. The elements of forcible abduction are
(a) that the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil
status, or reputation;
(b) that the abduction is against her will; and,
(c) that the abduction is with lewd designs.
2.On the other hand, Art. 335 of the same Code defines the crime of
rape and provides for its penalty. The elements of rape pertinent to
this case are:
(a) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and,
(b) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.
3.People v. Crisostomo, the intention to marry may constitute
unchaste designs not by itself but by the concurring circumstances
which may vitiate such an intention, as in the case of abduction of a
minor with the latter's consent, in which the male knows that she
cannot legally consent to the marriage and yet he elopes
with her. In the case at bar, there is no denying the fact that Lenie
was incapacitated to marry accused-appellant under Manobo or
Christian rites since she was still a minor thereby demonstrating
the existence of lewd designs.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court is MODIFIED.
Accused-appellant is instead declared guilty of Forcible
Abduction only and is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term
ranging from 6 years, 2 months and 10 days of prision mayor as
minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal
medium as maximum. Accused-appellant is further ordered to pay
moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 and exemplary
damages in the amount of P20,000.00 as fixed by the court a quo to
be paid to private complainant Lenie T. Camad. Costs against
accused-appellant.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Madali vs. RP
Doctrine: Criminal Liability of Minors: a child 15 years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability
Keywords: minors, homicide
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari on CA decision
Date: August 4, 2009
Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J
Facts:
Petitioners: Raymund and Rodel Madali
Defendants in RTC; Raymund and Rodel Madali, Bernardino
Maestro (pled not guilty)
April 13, 2009 11PM Romblon, initiation for AAA, atop which was
the reservoir just beside Romblon National High School
Present: Raymund, Rodel, Bernardino, Jovencio and AAA
Bernardino blindfolded AAA and blurted Join the rugby boys.
AAA:Thats enough
Bernardino: struck thrice with a fresh and hard coconut frond
Raymund 14 yrs: back of thighs with the same coconut frond
Rodel 16 yrs: punched head and body with brass knuckles (llave
inglesia)
AAA lost consciousness
Raymund: placed handkerchief around the neck with ends tied to a
dog chain and the three pulled the body up a tree
Jovencio every time AAA received blows: Enough
Reply:Since were all here, lets get on with it
Jovencio was threatened by the three. He kept quiet
The body was found 3 days after
AAA died due to head injuries
RTC Decision: GUILTY of homicide
Mitigating circumstance: minority
Sentence: 4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 6 years
PhP 50,000 indemnity
Aug 6, 2003- Bernardino applied for probation
Raymond and Rodel- elevated the case to CA
CA Decision: affirmed RTC findings but Raymunds case was
dismissed, Rodels conviction sustained (6 months, 1 day prision

Kirby Hipolito
correccional to 8 years, 1 day prision mayor)but imposition
suspended RA 9344, indemnity PhP50,000
Issues:
1. Is Raymund exempt from criminal liability?
2. Is Rodel exempt from criminal liability?
Held:
1. Yes, but not from civil liability
2. No
Ratio:
1. Republic Act No. 9344, SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
2.Although the crime was committed on 13 April 1999 and Republic
Act No. 9344 took effect only on 20 May 2006, the said law should
be given retroactive effect in favor of Raymund who was not shown
to be a habitual criminal. This is based on Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides:
Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal
3. SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. x x x. A child
above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment,
in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act. (mental capacity to fully
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act)
4.Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty to be
imposed upon a person under 18 but above 15 shall be the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law, but always in the proper
period.
5. Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
Disposition:

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Petition is denied. Raymund-affirmed. Rodal, court suspends
the pronouncement of his sentence and REMANDS his case to the
court. PhP50,000 (solidarily) civil indemnity, PhP50,000 moral
damages, PhP25,000 temperate damages.

Kirby Hipolito

Held:
No

Remiendo vs. People

Doctrine: Criminal Liability of Minors: a child above 15 but below 18
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense may be
exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment
Keywords: minors, statutory rape
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari on CA decision
Date: October 9, 2009
Ponente: Nachura, J
Facts:
Two counts of rape were filed against Robert Remiendo.
March 1997, AAA, below 12 years old was sexually assaulted inside
their house.
May 1997, she was again sexually assaulted in Remiendos house
when she passed by on her way to her mothers workplace.
Defense: Lea Chiwayan 13 years old, witness:
-April or May 1997, brother and father molested her
-August 1997, cofided that Reynoso Cera raped her in his house.
-One Saturday afternoon, after a basketball game, AAA told her
playmates that she was raped by the accused and Lea told him.
-Remiendo confronted her and caused fumes of his borrowed
vehicle to be directed to her.
RTC Decision: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt 2 counts of
statutory rape; 8 years, 1 day prision mayor to 14 years, 1 day
reclusion temporal for each count of rape.
PhP50,000 moral damages, PhP10,000 exemplary damages

Remiendo appealed before the CA: instant appeal dismissed

Modification: PhP50,00 civil indemnity, PhP50,000 moral
damages, PhP25,000 exemplary damages

Motion for reconsideration-DENIED

Defense:
a. the real age of the plaintiff
b. he has the benefit under RA 9344
Issues:
Can Remiendo benefit from the mandate of RA 9344?

Ratio:
1. SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section
20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be likewise exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
an intervention program, unless he/she acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
2.If the child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years
of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order
execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
certain period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.30
3.Remiendo was born on January 21, 1982. The Joint Judgment was
promulgated on October 27, 2004. Thus, at the time of the
imposition of his sentence, Remiendo was already 22 years old and
could no longer be considered a child for the purposes of the
application of R.A. No. 9344.
Disposition:
The petition is DENIED, and the Decision dated November
16, 2007 and the Resolution dated October 3, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Guevarra vs. Almodovar
Doctrine: Criminal Liability of Minors: a child above 15 but below 18
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense may be
exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment
Keywords: minors, homicide thru reckless imprudence
Nature: special civil action for certiorari against the Honorable
Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the City Court of Legaspi
Date: January 26, 1989
Ponente: Paras, J
Facts:
Oct 29, 1984, Joh Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, accidentally
shot Teodoro Almine Jr with a rifle while they were playing.
Fiscal: occurrence was an accident
Oct 9, 1985-parents of Teodoro appealed to the Ministry of Justice,
homicide through reckless imprudence: accused acted with
discernment
October 25, 1985: petitioner moved to quash the info on the
following ground:
1. facts do not constitute offense
2. information contains averments which if true would constitute
a legal excuse
3. court has no jurisdiction
THIS WAS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO 1 & 3
July 26, 1986 petition for certiorari issues:
1. whether an 11-year old boy could be charged with homicide
thru reckless imprudence
2. whether the court had jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact
that it did not pass thru the Barangay Lupon
Petitioner: discernment is synonymous with intent
Issues:
1. Is discernment synonymous with intent?
2. Could an 11-year old boy be charged with homicide?
Held:
1. No
2. Yes, if he acted with discernment
Ratio:

Kirby Hipolito
1. . For him to be criminally liable, he must discern the rightness or
wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Indeed, a minor over
nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasioffense under Article 365 of the RPC. A reading of the said Article
would reveal such fact as it starts off with the phrase "Any person. .
." without any distinction or exception made.
2. Intent- determination to do certain things; discernment- mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Temporary Restraining
Order effective 17 September 1986 is LIFTED. Let this case be
REMANDED to the lower court for trial on the merits. No cost.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Kirby Hipolito

Catalan vs. Basa

Doctrine: Effect of Insanity on Contracts: The burden of proving
incapacity rests upon the person who alleges it
Keywords: insanity, schizophrenia, donation
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari on CA decision
Date: July 31, 2007
Ponente: Puno, CJ
Facts:
Oct 20, 1948 Feliciano Catalan was discharged from military
service due to schizophrenic reaction, catatonic type
Sept 28, 1949 he married Corazon Cerezo
June 16, 1951 Donated of the real property in Pangasinan to his
sister Mercedes Catalan which was registered and issued tax
declarations
Dec 11, 1953 Peoples Bank and Trust Company file special
proceedings to declaire Feliciano incompetent
Dec 22, 1953 Order fo Adjudication of Incompetency for
appointing guardian and fixing allowance
Dec 23, PBTC or BPI was appointed guardian
Nov 22, 1978 Feliciano and Corazon donated Lots 1 & 3 of their
property to their son Eulogio Catalan
March 26, 1979 Mercedes sold the property to her children Delia
and Jesus Basa.
June 24, 1983 Feliciano and Corazon donated Lot 2 to Alex,
Librada and Zenaida
Feb 14, 1983 Feliciano and Corazon donated Lot 4 to Eulogio and
Florida
April 1, 1997 BPI alleged donation to Mercedes void ab initio,
because he was not of sound mind therefore incapable of giving
valid consent.
Aug 14, 1997 Feliciano passed away, complainant was substituted
to his heirs
Dec 7, 1999- RTC no sufficient evidence to overcome that Feliciano
was sane and competent
1. complaint dismissed
2. Jesus and Delia Basa lawful owners
3. PhP10,000 attorneys fees plus costs
CA- affirmed RTC decision
Petitioners appealed that Feliciano was incompetent

Issue:
Is the donation valid?
Held:
Yes
Ratio:
1. Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it
should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which
it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous.
The parties' intention must be clear and the attendance of a vice of
consent, like any contract, renders the donation voidable.
2. However, the burden of proving such incapacity rests upon the
person who alleges it; if no sufficient proof to this effect is
presented, capacity will be presumed.
3. A study of the nature of schizophrenia will show that Feliciano
could still be presumed capable of attending to his property rights
4.It is interesting to note that the petitioners questioned Felicianos
capacity at the time he donated the property, yet did not see fit to
question his mental competence when he entered into a contract of
marriage with Corazon Cerezo or when he executed deeds of
donation of his other properties in their favor.
Disposition:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, there being no merit in the arguments of
the petitioners, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66073 is affirmed in toto.

E2015 Persons and Family Relations (Prof Morales)

Kirby Hipolito

Jalandoni vs. CA
Doctrine: Effect of Insanity on Contracts: The burden of proving
incapacity rests upon the person who alleges it
Keywords: insanity, schizophrenia, donation
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari on CA decision
Date: September 24, 1986
Ponente: Puno, CJ
Facts:
Transaction 1: Nov 2. 1959 Rodolfo Jalandoni and Leonarda
Jurado and others (Sampaguita Crafts Center, Inc.) lease of the
ground floor and mezzanine of his building for 5 years from Nov 1,
1959
Transaction 2: Nov 14, 1963 new lease agreement 5-year from Nov
1, 1964; provided that neither the original nor the second lease
would be effected by any transfer, sale, alienation or change in
management of the building, Registry of Property
Transaction 3: December 2, 1963 sale of the land and building to
Francisco Palanca; broker Lourdes Montaer 5% commission and
overprice above PhP140,000
Palanca increased rental rates and to terminate effective April 1,
1964.
Sampaguita filed case at CFI against Palanca and Jalandoni
Jalandoni also sued by Lourdes Montaer to collect commissions
plus damages
May 20, 1965- Bernardino Jalandoni (brother and guardian) filed
suit against Montaer and Palanca hat the sale be declared legally
inexistent
Rodolfo Jalandoni insanity claimed December 3, 1963 and prior
thereto was, and ever since has been, of unsound mind and
without legal capacity to enter into a contract
For the two cases, guardian also claimed insanity
Rodolfo was hit by a bullet in the right temple
CFI Decisions:
1. Sampaguita vs. Jalandoni-dismissed (they have not taken steps
to see if the lease was registered)
2. Montaer vs. Jalandoni-contract valid and binding, money
already collected
3. Jalandoni vs. Palanca, sale valid and binding
CA: RTC decision REVERSED

"the mental incompetence of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni (had been) duly

established, contrary to the finding of the lower court."
Montaer vs. Jalandoni-reversed; null and void PhP30,000 plus
legal interests from Aug 21, 1964
Jalandoni vs. Palanca-reversed; pay the rentals after Dec 3, 1963
plus legal interest to be subtracted from PhP160,000 purchase
price
June 25, 1977, Palanca- Motion for Reconsideration
September 12, 1978 AGAIN REVERSED by a Special Division of
Five Justices of the Court of Appeals

Issues:
Does Jalandoni have mental capacity to act at the time the contract
was executed?
Held:
Yes
Ratio:
1. 9 months before he was declared incompetent, Montaer sold
the house and lot to Palanca as a real estate agent. there is
every reason to believe that at least on such a date Rodolfo G.
Jalandoni possessed the mental capacity to transact ordinary
business.
2. Having accepted the amount and having actually benefited
from it, We rule that Rodolfo G. Jalandoni or his heirs are
estopped from repudiating the sale in question, executed
through his agent Montaner in 1963
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court promulgated on
June 7, 1977 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and
another decision rendered AFFIRMING in toto the decision of the
court a quo promulgated on December 10, 1971 in Civil Case Nos.
55947, 56896 and 60978.