Valino vs.

Adriano
G.R. no. 182894 April 24, 2014
Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner is Fe Valino who is the common law wife of Atty. Adriano. Atty. Adriano
was originally married to Rosario Adriano with whom he had children. However their
relationship turned sour and became separated. Years later Atty Adriano courted
one of his clients, Fe Valino which resulted in a relationship and the two lived in as
husband and wife, while Atty Adriano still giving financial support to his original
family. In 1992 Atty Adriano died of acute emphysema at the time when Rosario was
spending Christmas with her kids in the US. Valino took it upon herself to shoulder
the funeral and burial and did not allow the Adriano family to even see his remains.
She also buried him in the Valino mausoleum. The Adrianos claim actual, moral, and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees against Valino for depriving them a chance
to see Atty Adrianos remains, and also for burying him at the Manila Memorial Park
which was contrary to his wishes and thus to transfer him to their family plot at the
Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches QC. Valino claims that:
Rosario and Adriano had been separated for more than 20 years before she
and Adriano got together and that she was introduced by Adriano as his wife
to his friends and associates.
She took care of Adriano and paid for his medical fees when he got ill, unlike
Rosario who left for the US even with the knowledge that Adriano was in a
coma and dying
It is Adrianos last wish that his remains be interred with the Valino Family
She claims also to have suffered damages due to the suit, and thus prays to
be awared moral and exemplary charges and attorneys fees too
the RTC ruled that:
The Adrianos requests lacked merit since Valino knew very well the wish of
Atty to be buried at the Manila Memorial Park
Since Rosario left for the US, she must not have loved him while Valino took
care of him
Transferring Atty would not serve any purpose
Valinos claims of damages were not sufficiently proven however
The CA reversed this ruling on appeal on grounds:
Rosario being the legal wife had rights to the remains and the rights to the
arrangements for the funeral of the husband (Art 305 of the New Civil Code
in relation to Art 199 of the Family Code)
No damages to Valino as she showed good intentions
Valino to transport the remains of Atty at the expense of the Adrianos

Issue:
Whether or not CA decision was right to reject the RTC Branch 77, Quezon City which granted Fe
Valino entitlement to the remains of a dead lover, who is still legally married to another. Who should
the Attys body belong to?
Ruling:
The decision of the Supreme Court favors the Adrianos and denied the Petition of Valino to reverse
the CAs decision.
Art 305 of the Civil Code in relation to Art 199 of the Family Code
-the right to make arrangements belongs to the relatives in this order: 1) spouse, 2)
descendants in the nearest degree (oldest preferred) 3) ascendants in the nearest degree 4)
brothers and sisters (oldest preferred)
Art 308 of the Civil Code
-no remains shall be interred of exhumed without the consent of the people above
- Sec 1103 duty of burial: the duty shall be on the surviving spouse is he/she has the means to
pay. This excludes common law partners.
-Eugenio Sr vs Velez: the court does not acknowledge common law marriages.
-Santero vs. CFI Cavite: spouse must be the legitimate spouse (art 188 of the Civil Code)
- common law relation of spouse only applies in criminal liability which the two caused
mutually (art 223 of RPC)
Duty is still with legal wife regardless whether she was away or not. Her right is not waived
unless there is clear and satisfactory proof of intent to renounce. She also showed interest in
seeing Attys remains but were just rejected.
No other evidence to corroborate Valinos claim that Atty wanted to be interred at MMP
other than her statement, which is equally contended by the Adrianos. In this case the court
favors the legal family.
Art 307 of the Civil Code
-funeral shall be accdg to the wishes of the deceased. In the absence of this, it shall be
decided upon by the person obliged to make the arrangements (stated in Art 305)
-Dr. Tolentino comments that wishes of the deceased must be expressly provided, not lightly
inferred. Furthermore they must not be contrary to law.
-even if the wish is expressly stated, still the law grants the rights to the remains to the wife.
The law does not consider the fact that they separated.
Burial of the body other than the Adriano family plot runs counter to the wishes of the family,
it violates their rights and disrespects their family.
The dead person becomes a quasi-property to the purpose of a decent burial, for exclusion of
the intrusion of third persons. People are authorized to take possession of a dead body for
burial or even transfer it where they may be given respect.
The court recognizes the findings of the RTC that Valino had good intentions, therefore
damages on her would be unkind. Furthermore there is no evidence of injury to grant it.
Attorneys fees is not given every time a party wins a suit, it needs factual, legal, and
equitable justification. There is also no evidence to grant this.