You are on page 1of 15

Ninal vs.

G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely
Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on
April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later,
Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating
that they had lived together for at least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died
in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage


Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?


The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They cannot be exempted
even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the
time of Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20
months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and
Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their
five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to
Norma is still void.

Armas vs. Calisterio
GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000


Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the respondent, died intestate in April 1992 leaving
several parcel of land estimated value of P604,750.00. He was the second husband of Marietta who was
previously married with William Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared without a trace in
February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance of Bounds, Marietta and Teodorico were married in
May 1958 without Marietta securing a court declaration of Bounds presumptive death.

Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be the sole surviving
heir of the latter and that marriage between Marietta and his brother being allegedly bigamous is thereby
null and void. She prayed that her son Sinfroniano be appointed as administrator, without bond, of the
estate of the deceased and inheritance be adjudicated to her after all the obligations of the estate would
have been settled.

ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodoricos marriage was void due to the absence of the declaration of
presumptive death.



The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was solemnized in May 1958 where the law in
force at that time was the Civil Code and not the Family Code which only took effect in August 1988.
Article 256 of the Family Code itself limit its retroactive governance only to cases where it thereby would
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Since
Civil Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not essential before contracting marriage
where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to remarry then Marrietas marriage
with Teodorico is valid and therefore she has a right can claim portion of the estate.

People v Santiago
G.R. No. L-27972 , October 31, 1927

The deceased wife of the appellant was the aunt of Felicita Masilang, aged 18, who was the
injured girl in this case. She is therefore appellant's niece by marriage, and she calls him uncle.
Both are residents of the municipality of Gapan, in the Province of Nueva Ecija. On November
23, 1926, the appellant asked Felicita, who was them about 18 years of age, to accompany him
across the river on some errand. The girl agreed and they went over the river together into the
municipality of San Leonardo. After crossing the river, the appellant conducted the girl to a place
about twenty paces from the highway where tall grass and other growth hid them public view. In
this spot the appellant manifested a desire to have sexual intercourse with the girl, but she
refused to give her consent, and he finally notwithstanding her resistance, accomplished his
purpose by force and against her will. After the deed had been done the appellant conducted
the girl to the house of his uncle, Agaton Santiago, who lived not far away. They arrived here
about 11 a. m., and remained for several hours. In the course of the afternoon Agaton Santiago
brought in a protestant minister who went through the ceremony of marrying the couple. After
this was over the appellant gave the girl a few pesos and sent her home. Her father happened
to be away that night, but upon his return the next day, she told him what had happened, a this
prosecution for rape was started.
Issue: Whether or not the marriage is void
Held: yes
Ratio: The court found that the offense of rape had been committed, as above stated, and the
marriage ceremony was a mere ruse by which the appellant hoped to escape from the criminal
consequences of his act. We concur in this view of the case. The manner in which the appellant
death with the girl after the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona
fide intention of making her his wife, and the ceremony cannot be considered binding on her
because of duress. The marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent, and it
supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the wrongdoer.

In re: atty. Rufillo bucena
A.M. No. 1637 July 6, 1976
On April 21, 1976, respondent . submitted his explanation, admitting that he notarized the afore-
mentioned document and that the Agreement is "immoral and against public policy", but in
mitigation he asserted that the document in question was Prepared by his clerk, Lucia D.
Doctolero without his previous knowledge; that when said document was presented to him for
signature after it was signed by the parties, he vehemently refused to sign it and informed the
parties that the document was immoral; that he placed the said document on his table among
his files and more than a week later, he asked his clerk where the document was for the
purpose of destroying it, but to his surprise he found that the same was notarized by him as per
his file copies in the office; that he dispatched his clerk to get the copy from the parties, but the
afore-mentioned parties could not be found in their respective residences; that he must have
inadvertently notarized the same in view of the numerous documents on his table and at that
time he was emotionally disturbed as his father (now deceased) was then seriously ill. The
foregoing contentions of respondent were corroborated substantially by the separate sworn
statements of his clerk, Lucia D. Doctolero and Angela Drilon Baltazar, both dated April 20,
Issue: Whether or not the contract is valid
Held: No
Ratio: There is no question that the afore-mentioned Agreement is contrary to law, morals and
good customs. Marriage is an inviolable social institution, in the maintenance of which in its
purity the public is deeply interested for it is the foundation of the family and of society without
which there could be neither civilization nor progress.

The contract, in substance, purports to formulate an agreement between the husband and the
wife to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relations with another
man, without opposition from either one, and what is more, it induces each party to commit
This is not only immoral but in effect abets the commission of a crime. A notary public,
by virtue of the nature of his office, is required to exercise his duties with due care and with due
regard to the provisions of existing law.

Embrado vs Ca


Lot 564 was sold to Lucia Embrado, as can be proven in a Venta Definitiva by spouses Carpitanos. The
deed was prepared and signed on July 2, 1946, although it was effective since 1941.1943: Petitioners got
married to each other. Feb 13, 1948: The sale was registered and Transfer Certificate No. T-99 was
issued in her name alone. Originally, her status on the Title was single, but it was changed to married
to Oreste Torregiani by the CFI of Zamboanga del Norte. The couple established their home on the lot
and in1958, constructed a residential/commercial building.1971: Lucia sold for P1000 Lot 564 to her
adopted daughter, Eda Jimenez. Jimenez proceeded to selling parts of the lot to Cimafranca and
Salimbagat. Petitioners instituted an action for declaration of nullity of contract, annulment of sales,
reconveyance and damages against private respondents. Alleging that the initial sale of Lucia to Eda was
void because of lack of consideration and Oreste did not consent to the sale of the conjugal property.
Lucia was misled into signing the deed of sale. She thought that the lot was only intended as a security
for a loan of the Jimenez spouses. They also believe that Cimafranca and Salimbagat are buyers in bad


Whether or not the lot was paraphernal property of Lucia or a conjugal property

Held: No

Art. 158, the land becomes conjugal upon 2 conditions: Construction of building was at the expense of
the partnership Land is owned by one of the spouses. The land being conjugal needed the consent of
Oreste hence, the sale is void.

191 SCRA 764 (1990)


School owner and directress, Felicidad Barian Tan after 8 years, filed a complaint seeking disbarment
of Atty. Galileo Trocio for immorality and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in succeeding of having carnal
knowledge to her. And as a result, she begot a son whom she named Jewel Tan. The said complaint was
instituted 8 years after the incident because of the threats made by Trocio. She alleged that Trocio
supported Jewel but subsequently lost interest and stopped from doing so. The lower Court and the
Solicitor General completed the required pleadings and thus forwarded the case to the SC


WON he had sexually assaulted the Complainant who bore a child as a result and thus, ground for
disbarment and that jewel was child of Trocio

Held: No


The complaint was dismissed, Jewel Tan was born during the wedlock of Complainant and her husband
and the presumption should be in favor of legitimacy unless physical access between the couple was
impossible. From the evidence on hand, the presumption has not been overcome by adequate and
convincing proof. Even after the alleged incident, she continued having dealings with the respondent
Trocio as if nothing happened. The fact that she kept her peace for so many years can even be construed
as condonation. In fact, Jewel was registered in his birth certificate as the legitimate child of the
Felicidad and her husband, Tan Le Pok.

SCRA 282


Petitioner Elaine Moore (American citizen) is married with Joseph Velarde (also American) had a son out
of wedlock William Michael Velarde (now 14 yrs old) born also at US. Said marriage however was
dissolved through a decree of divorce from SC of California on 5/31/49. Elaine had 2
marriage with
Don Moore on 9/29/56 at LA, CA. William (minor) lived with them. Elaine filed @ CFI Rizal a motion to
have her childs surname be changed into Moore instead of Velarde. TC denied such petition therefore
this appeal.


WON law permits minor to adopt surname of the 2
husband of his mother

Held: No


RP said that through NCC 364 legitimate child should use the surname of his father. NCC 369 more over
cites that in case of annulment, child conceived before such decree shall use the surname of his/ her
father. Likewise, same concept rules over decree of divorce; therefore law does NOT sanction such
change of name. SC upheld such position, saying that confusion may arise with respect to paternity and
that said change may even redound to the prejudice of the child. Moreover, the child is still a minor and
therefore aforesaid action is premature. Said child may in his mature age decide for himself to instigate
such change of name.

Macadangdang vs. CA


Elizabeth Mejias is married to Crispin Anahaw. Sometime in March 1967 she allegedly had intercourse
with Antonio Macadangdang. Elizabeth alleges that due to the affair, she and her husband separated in

October 30, 1967 (7 months or 210 days after the illicit encounter) she gave birth to a baby boy who
was named Rolando Macadangdang in baptismal rites held on December 24, 1967.

April 25, 1972 Elizabeth filed a complaint for recognition and support against Antonio.

February 27, 1973 lower court dismissed the complaint.

Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. They ruled that minor Rolando to be an
illegitimate son of Antonio Macadangdang. A motion for reconsideration was filed but it was denied.

WON the child Rolando is conclusively presumed the legitimate child of the spouses Elizabeth Mejias
and Crispin Anahaw.


Ratio: in our jurisprudence, this Court has been more definite in its pronouncements on the value of
baptismal certificates. It thus ruled that while baptismal and marriage certificates may be considered
public documents, they are evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates
therein specified but not the veracity of the states or declarations made therein with respect to his
kinsfolk and/or citizenship (Paa vs. Chan, L-25945, Oct. 31, 1967). Again, in the case of Fortus vs. Novero
(L-22378, 23 SCRA 1331 [1968]), this Court held that a baptismal administered, in conformity with the
rites of the Catholic Church by the priest who baptized the child, but it does not prove the veracity of
the declarations and statements contained in the certificate that concern the relationship of the person
baptized. Such declarations and statements, in order that their truth may be admitted, must
indispensably be shown by proof recognized by law.

Mendoza vs. IAC
July 30, 1987


Buenaventura, Nicolasa and Teresa, all surnamed Gabuya, are the legitimate children of the spouses
Evaristo Gabuya and Susana Sabandija, who both died intestate leaving 2 lots. Both Nicolasa and Teresa
died. Modesta Gabuya is the illegitimate daughter of Nicolasa. Modesta accompanied by Atty. Elias S.
Mendoza went to the house of Buenaventura Gabuya to see the titles of the properties, they then took
the titles along with Buenaventura to signed a document and acknowledged before Atty. Salvador B.
Mendoza who turn to be the document is an Extra-judicial settlement of the Estate of Evaristo whereby
Buenaventura and Modesta appeared to have divided and partitioned between. Prior to the execution
of said document, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by Modesta in favor of the spouses Atty. and
Mrs. Elias S. Mendoza covering her alleged one-half [1/2] undivided share in one Lot and that Atty. Elias
S. Mendoza and Modesta had respectively asked from Buenaventura the partition of the lots but
Buenaventura refused to do so claiming that Modesta is not entitled to inherit from the estate of his late
father Evaristo.


Whether or not a natural child without any judicial decree or deed of acknowledgment by his parent
may succeed said parent



Acknowledged natural children were given limited successional rights in that they were entitled to
inherit only from the acknowledging parent while illegitimate children who did not possess the status of
natural children had no successional rights whatsoever. Modesta, not having been acknowledged in the
manner provided by law by her mother, Nicolasa, was not entitled to succeed the latter. The
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Evaristo Gabuya is, therefore, null and void.

Baas v. Baas
134 SCRA 260


Plaintiffs, the Heirs of Raymundo, alleged that Raymundo was the acknowledged natural son of late
BIBIANO Banas therefore they are entitled to decedents share. Defendants, heirs of Bibiano, Raymundo
was not the natural son of late Bibiano, nor was he acknowledged by the latter and that he was the son
of Pedro, Bibianos brother, that is why he is using the surname Banas. Raymundo was the child of
Dolores Castillo and of unknown father. It was Bibiano who shouldered Raymundos expenses until he
became teacher and that Bibiano was stated as his father on his marriage certificate while Pedro
appeared to be sponsor. However, before Bibiano died, he executed sworn statement stating that
Raymundo is Pedros son. Raymundo also died. The heirs of Bibiano settled his estate by means of extra
judicial settlement. The heirs and wife of Raymundo discovered documents which will prove Bibianos
filiation to him sunch as Handwritten note to padre, report card, matriculation and etc.. hence they filed
a complaint for partition and recovery.



The documents and the note with padre is unreliable, it is a mere indication of paternal solicitude and all
doesnt constitute a proof of a valid recognition. Formalities of voluntary recognition under Article 278
of the New Civil Code is that recognition shall be express and made either in the record of birth, in a will,
in a statement in a court of record, or in any authentic writing

Quiao v. Quiao, G.R. No. 183622, July 4, 2012
FACTS: Brigido Quiao (petitioner) and Rita Quiao (respondent) contracted marriage in 1977.
They had no separate properties prior to their marriage. During the course of said marriage,
they produced four children. In 2000, Rita filed a complaint against Brigido for legal separation
for cohabiting with another woman. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a decision in 2005
declaring the legal separation of the parties pursuant to Article 55. Save for one child (already of
legal age), the three minor children remains in the custody of Rita, who is the innocent
spouse.The properties accrued by the spouses shall be divided equally between them subject to
the respective legitimes of their children; however, Brigidos share of the net profits earned by
the conjugal partnership shall be forfeited in favor of their children in accordance to par. 9 of
Article 129 of the FC.A few months thereafter, Rita filed a motion for execution, which was
granted by the trial court. By 2006, Brigido paid Rita with regards to the earlier decision; the writ
was partially executed.After more than 9 months later, Brigido filed a motion for clarification
asking the RTC to define Nets Profits Earned. In answer, the court held that the phrase
denotes the remainder of the properties of the parties after deducting the separate properties of
each of the spouses and debts.

Upon a motion for reconsideration, it initially set aside its previous decision stating that NET
PROFIT EARNED shall be computed in accordance with par. 4 of Article 102 of the FC.
However, it later reverted to its original Order, setting aside the last ruling.

ISSUE: Whether or not the regime of conjugal partnership of gains governs the couples
property relations.

HELD: Yes.

Brigido and Rita tied the knot on January 6, 1977. Since at the time of exchange of martial
vows, the operative law was the NCC and since they did not agree on a marriage settlement,
the property relations between them is the system of relative community or the conjugal
partnership of gains. Under this property relation, the husband and wife place in a common
fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work and industry. The
husband and wife also own in common all the property of the conjugal partnership of gains.

Veloso v Martinez
G.R. No. L-8715, October 24, 1914

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover of the defendant the possession of a certain parcel of land
together with the sum of P125 per month. Defendant answered and filed a counterclaim for services
rendered by the deceased to the plaintiff and recovery of certain jewelry alleged to be in the possession
in the plaintiff. The jewels in question before the possession of the same was given to the plaintiff,
belonged to the defendant personally and that she had inherited the same from her mother. Defendant
Lucia is the widow of Domingo Franco and after the death of her husband she was appointed as the
adminsitratrix. A short time before the death of Domingo he borrowed from plaintiff money and gave as
security the jewelry.
Issue: whether or not jewelry is conjugal property
Held: NO
It was contended that the jewelry was never delivered to Plaintiff. It was shown that the key to the box
where the jewelry was kept remained with the deceased. Defendant now denies that she knew that her
husband had pawned her jewels or that she promised to redeem the same by paying the amount due.
Record shows that the jewels were the sole and separate property of the wife acquired from her
mother. It is part of her paraphernal property. As such she exercised dominion over the same. She had
the exclusive control and management of the same, until and unless she had delivered it to her
husband, before a notary public, with the intent that the husband might administer it properly. (Article
1384, Civil Code.) There is no proof in the record that she had ever delivered the same to her husband,
in any manner, or for any purpose.

Joaquino vs reyes
G.R. No. 154645. July 13, 2004

:Lourdes Reyes was the widow of Rodolfo Reyes, having been married in 1947 in Manila. Rodolfo,
however, in the course of their marriage, had illicit relations with one Milagros Joaquino, to whom he
allegedly "put into custody" some of the couple's conjugal properties. Said properties specifically include
his earnings and retirement benefits from working as the Vice President and Comptroller of Warner Barns
and two cars; and that the amount herein stated was used to pay off the loan and monthly mortgage of a
house in Paranaque, registered under Joaquino's name. Lourdes then prayed that the properties be
declared conjugal, that Milagros surrenders the possession thereof, and that damages be awarded.
Milagros, on the other hand, contends that she purchased the mentioned properties in her exclusive
capacity, that she had no knowledge of the Rodolfo's first marriage, that she had was never a beneficiary
of the latter's earnings, and that her living together with Rodolfo for nineteen (19) years, along with the
fact that she had children with him, be considered by the court in rendering judgment. Lourdes, however,
died and was later represented by her children with Rodolfo. Subsequently, the trial court granted
Lourdes' complaint. Upon appeal to the CA,however, Milagros reiterated her stand and questioned the
findings of the trial court. But to no avail, the CA likewise held that the property had been paid out of the
conjugal funds of Rodolfo and Lourdes, because the funds used to pay the house off was sourced from
Rodolfo's earnings as part of the conjugal partnership.

Issue:WON the properties in question were conjugal


The property regime applicable is the CPG, having been the default propertyregime during the time of
Lourdes' marriage. Such properties include the following, as enumerated by Article 153

Opena Vs Ca
G.R. No. 96227 February 1, 1993
Spouses Julian Gotgotao and Guillerma Opena are the registered owners of Lot in Pangasinan, as evidenced by
Transfer Certificate of Title
they mortgaged it to the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc.
when spouses Gotgotao went to the Bank to check on their Certificate of Title, they got the shock of their life when
the bank employees said that Telesforo Opena, the half brother of Guillerma Opena, withdrew the said Certificate of
Title from the bank by presenting a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by the Gotgotao spouses in favor
of Telesforo Opena.
they were informed that Telesforo Opena had caused the transfer of the title in his name by presenting a Deed of
Absolute Sale allegedly executed by them.
ISSUE: WON That said courts erred in not finding that spouses Julian Gotgotao and Guillerma Opena validly
conveyed the land in question in favor of petitioner;

Ratio: But while this may be true with respect to Julian Gotgotao's thumbmark on the Deed of Sale, the fact remains
that Guillerma Gotgotao's signature on the same document was indubitably confirmed to be counterfeit and forged,
both by the testimony of Guillerma herself and by the testimony of the handwriting expert Jovito R. Gutierrez of the
P.C. Crime Laboratory who examined the same.