Aggabao vs. Parulan September 1, 2010 GR No.

165803
FACTS: The case concerns a sale of parcel of land with TCTs in the name of Spouses Ma. Elena Parulan
and Dionisio Parulan, who had been estranged from each other, to the Spouses Aggabao who initially did
not show interest because of the run down condition of the property. Upon the insistence of the real estate
broker and upon verifications, they paid the full amount of the property on March 18, 1991. The TCTs
were cancelled and a new one was issued in their favor. However, Ma. Elena did not turn over the
duplicate owner’s copy of the TCTs. They learned later that the duplicate owners copy was all along in
the possession of Atty. Jeremy Parulan who had an SPA to sell both properties executed by his brother,
Dionisio Parulan. Upon demand to turn over the duplicate owner’s copies, Atty. Parulan demanded P800k
from them. Hence, they filed an action before the RTC which decided in favor of Atty. Parulan. CA
affirmed ruling that Art. 124 of the Family Code applies because the husband of Ma. Elena did not
consent to the sale of the property, and that the sale SPA in favor of Ma. Elena had been a forgery.

ISSUE: W/N ART. 124, FC APPLIES TO THE SALE OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES MADE AFTER
TE EFFECTIVITY OF THE FAMILY CODE?

RULING: YES. ART. 124 par. 2, FC provides that in the event that one spouse is incapacitated or
otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse
may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do NOT include disposition or
encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the
absence of authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. Since the sale was
made on March 18, 1991 or after the effectivity of the Family Code. The proper law that applies
therefore, is Art. 124, FC, for it is settled that any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property made
during the effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Art. 124.

BARTOLOME VS. SSS NOVEMBER 12, 2014 GR NO. 192531

FACTS: John Colcol, an electrician employed by Scanmar Maritime Services, died on the course of duty.
His biological mother, as sole heir, claimed for death benefits from the employer which denied her claim
on the ground that John Colcol has been legally adopted by Cornelio Colcol, decedent’s grandfather, by
virtue of a final decree of adoption.

ISSUE: W/N biological parents of legally adopted employees are considered secondary beneficiaries
covered by the Employees Compensation program?

RULING: YES. The Court has decided in Diaz vs. IAC (G.R. No. L-66574, February 21, 1990) that the
word "relatives" should be construed in its general acceptation. Prof. Balane, in his amicus curiae opinion
stated that to interpret the term relatives in Article 992 in a more restrictive sense than it is used and
intended is not warranted by any rule of interpretation. Besides, he further states that when the law
intends to use the term in a more restrictive sense, it qualifies the term with the word collateral, as in
Articles 1003 and 1009 of the New Civil Code.

“Legitimate Parents” as used in Art. 167 (j) of the Labor Code provides that "in their absence, the
dependent parents and subject to the restrictions imposed on dependent children, the illegitimate children
and legitimate descendants who are secondary beneficiaries.” The term "parents" in the phrase "dependent
parents" in the afore-quoted Article 167 (j) of the Labor Code is used and ought to be taken in its general
sense and cannot be unduly limited to "legitimate parents”. The phrase "dependent parents" should,
therefore, include all parents, whether legitimate or illegitimate and whether by nature or by adoption.
When the law does not distinguish, one should not distinguish. Plainly, "dependent parents" are parents,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, biological or by adoption,who are in need of support or assistance.
W/N the putative father of unrecognized illegitimate children may file for a petition for recognition
with Prayer to take Parental Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname
of Minors that were left by their biological mother?
- NO. The general rule is that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her mother. The
exception provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or her filiation is expressly recognized by the father
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or when an admission in a public document
or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. In such a situation, the illegitimate child
may use the surname of the father.
- Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the surname of their father
or not. It is not the father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who is granted by law
the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children.
- RA 9255 is VOID insofar as it provides the mandatory use by illegitimate children of their father’s
surname upon the latter’s recognition of his paternity. (Grande vs. Antonio, February 18, 2014,
G.R. No. 206248)