Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MERALCO
CITATION: GR No. 142943, April 3, 2002
FACTS:
The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are the owners of a
house located at #94 Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City. Around 9AM on
March 3, 1995, defendants inspectors headed by Emmanuel C. Orlino were
assigned to conduct a routine on the spot inspection of all single phase
meters at the house and observed as standard operating procedure to ask
permission and was granted by the plaintiffs secretary. After the inspection,
it was found that the meter had been tampered with. The result was relayed
to the secretary who conveyed the information to the owners of the house.
The inspectors advised that the meter be brought in their laboratory for
further verifications. In the event that the meter was indeed tampered,
defendant had to temporarily disconnect the electric services of the couple.
After an hour, inspectors returned and informed the findings of the laboratory
and asked the couple that unless they pay the amount of P178,875.01
representing the differential bill their electric supply will be disconnected. The
plaintiff filed complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction despite the immediate reconnection.
HELD:
Supreme Court partly granted the petition and ordered plaintiff to pay
respondent the billing differential of P193,332.96 while latter is ordered to pay
petitioners moral and exemplary damages including attorneys fees. Moral
damages may be recovered when rights of individuals including right against
the deprivation of property without due process of law are violated.
Exemplary damages on the other hand are imposed by way of example or
correction for public. SC recognized the effort of MERALCO in preventing
illegal use of electricity. However, any action must be done in strict
observance of the rights of the people. Under the law, the Manila Electric
Company (Meralco) may immediately disconnect electric service on the
ground of alleged meter tampering, but only if the discovery of the cause is
personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or by a duly
authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board. During the
inspection, no government official or ERB representative was present.
Petitioners claim for actual damages was not granted for failure to supply
proof and was premised only upon Lornas testimony. These are
compensation for an injury that will put the injure position where it was before
it was injured.
_____________________________________________________________
GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH, petitioner vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and MARILOU T. GONZALES, respondents. 219 SCRA 115
FACTS: Private respondent Marilou Gonzales filed a complaint for damages
against Gasheem Shookat, an Iranian Citizen, of breach of promise to marry.
She said that both of them agreed to marry after the end of the school
semester and the petitioner asked the approval of her parents. She stated
that the petitioner forced to live with him in his apartments. Respondent was
a virgin before she was forced to live with the Iranian (petitioner). A week
before she filed her complaint, petitioner maltreated, assaulted and asked not
to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already married to someone
living in Bacolod City.
On the petitioners counterclaim, he said that he never proposed
marriage with the private respondent; he neither forced her to live with him
and he did not maltreat her but only told her to stop from coming into his
apartment because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his
money and passport. He insisted that he must be awarded for damages for
he suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched reputation due to the complaint
of the private respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is to be held liable for damages for
breach of promise to marry.
HELD: A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. This
court held that where a mans promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause
of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that
promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself in a
sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and
that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could
justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such
promise to marry but because of fraud and deceit and the willful injury to her
honor and reputation which followed thereafter. Such act done by the
petitioner is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the
country. The court ordered that the petition be denied with costs against the
petitioner.
____________________________________________________
The court awarded Tobias the following: Php 80, 000 as actual damages,
Php 200, 000 as moral damages, Php 20, 0000 as exemplary damages; Php
30, 000 as attorneys fees; and, costs. Petition was denied and the decision
of CA is AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, petitioner vs. ROMEO A. JADER, respondent.
FACTS: Romeo Jader took his law proper at UE from 1984-88. During the
first semester of his last year in law school, he failed to take the examination
for Practice Court I in which he obtained an incomplete grade. He filed an
application for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega
on February 1, 1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after
the payment of required fees. He took the exam on March 28 and on May
30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.
His name was still on the tentative list of candidates for graduation.
Likewise, his named appeared in the invitation for the commencement
exercises which was held on April 16, 1988. When he learnt of his deficiency,
he dropped from his Bar Review classes thereby made him ineligible to take
the bar exam.
He filed a civil suit against UE for damages because he suffered
moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, and sleepless nights due to UEs negligence. The
petitioner denied liability arguing that it never led respondent to believe that
he completed the requirements for an LlB degree when his name was
included in the tentative list of graduating students. The court ruled in favor
of the respondent.
ISSUE: Whether or not UE be held liable for damages to the respondent.
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
The court ruled that the petitioners liability arose from its failure to promptly
inform the result of the examination and in misleading respondent into
believing that the latter had satisfied all the requirements for graduation.
However, while petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to
respondent for the latters actual damages, we hold that respondent should
not have been awarded moral damages. As a senior law student respondent
should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs,
specifically those pertaining to his academic achievement, are in order.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of CA is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ordered to pay the sum of Php 35, 470 with
legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing of the
complaint until fully paid; the amount of Php 5000 as attorneys fees and the
cost of the suit. The award of moral damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
CECILIO PE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants vs. ALFONSO PE, defendantappellee.
FACTS: The defendant was regarded as a family member so he was allowed
to visit the plaintiffs house and to ask Lolita to teach him to pray the rosary.
Defendant, a married man, had a clandestine love affair with Lolita, the 24
year old unmarried woman. When the family learnt about their secret affair,
defendant was forbidden to visit their house and to see Lolita. However, their
affair still continued. On April 1957, Lolita disappeared from her brothers
house in Quezon City. A note written by the defendant was seen on the
aparador of Lolita. The family filed an action for damages in pursuant with
Article 21 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the injury caused to the family of Lolita by the
defendant is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
HELD: The court held that there can be no other conclusion that can be
drawn from this chain of events that the defendant succeeded in winning the
heart of Lolita through clever strategies. Knowing that he is a married man,
the wrong that he had done to her and to the family is immeasurable. Verily,
he has committed and injury to Lolitas family in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs and public policy as contemplated in Article 21 of the New Civil
Code.
____________________________
TITLE: Tenchavez vs. Escano
CITATION: 15 SCRA 355
FACTS:
27 years old Vicenta Escano who belong to a prominent Filipino Family of
Spanish ancestry got married on Feburary 24, 1948 with Pastor Tenchavez,
32 years old engineer, and ex-army officer before Catholic chaplain Lt.
Moises Lavares. The marriage was a culmination of the love affair of the
couple and was duly registered in the local civil registry. A certain Pacita
Noel came to be their match-maker and go-between who had an amorous
relationship with Tenchavez as written by a San Carlos college student where
she and Vicenta are studying. Vicenta and Pastor are supposed to renew
their vows/ marriage in a church as suggested by Vicentas parents.
However after translating the said letter to Vicentas dad , he disagreed for a
new marriage. Vicenta continued leaving with her parents in Cebu while
Pastor went back to work in Manila.
FACTS:
Petitioners Vicente Yu and Demetria Lee-Yu mortgaged their title, interest,
and participation over several parcels of land located in Dagupan City and
Quezon City, in favor of the Philippine Commercial International Bank,
respondent and highest bidder, as security for the payment of a loan.
As petitioners failed to pay the loan and the interest and penalties due
thereon, respondent filed petition for extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate
mortgage on the Dagupan City properties on July 21, 1998. City Sheriff
issued notice of extra-judicial sale on August 3, 1998 scheduling the auction
sale on September 10, 1998.
Vicenta applied for a passport indicating that she was single and when it was
approved she left for the United States and filed a complaint for divorce
against Pastor which was later on approved and issued by the Second
Judicial Court of the State of Nevada. She then sought for the annulment of
her marriage to the Archbishop of Cebu. Vicenta married Russell Leo Moran,
an American, in Nevada and has begotten children. She acquired citizenship
on August 8, 1958. Petitioner filed a complaint against Vicenta and her
parents whom he alleged to have dissuaded Vicenta from joining her
husband.
ISSUE: Whether the divorce sought by Vicenta Escano is valid and binding
upon courts of the Philippines.
HELD:
Civil Code of the Philippines does not admit divorce. Philippine courts cannot
give recognition on foreign decrees of absolute divorce between Filipino
citizens because it would be a violation of the Civil Code. Such grant would
arise to discrimination in favor of rich citizens who can afford divorce in
foreign countries. The adulterous relationship of Escano with her American
husband is enough grounds for the legal separation prayed by Tenchavez. In
the eyes of Philippine laws, Tenchavez and Escano are still married. A
foreign divorce between Filipinos sought and decreed is not entitled to
recognition neither is the marriage of the divorcee entitled to validity in the
Philippines. Thus, the desertion and securing of an invalid divorce decree by
one spouse entitled the other for damages.
WHEREFORE, the decision under appeal is hereby modified as follows;
(1) Adjudging plaintiff-appellant Pastor Tenchavez entitled to a decree of
legal separation from defendant Vicenta F. Escao;
(2) Sentencing defendant-appellee Vicenta Escao to pay plaintiff-appellant
Tenchavez the amount of P25,000 for damages and attorneys' fees;
(3) Sentencing appellant Pastor Tenchavez to pay the appellee, Mamerto
Escao and the estate of his wife, the deceased Mena Escao, P5,000 by
way of damages and attorneys' fees.
_________________
TITLE: St. Louis Realty Corp. vs. CA
CITATION: 133 SCRA 179
FACTS:
Dr. Conrado Aramil, a neuropsychiatrist and member of the faculty of UE
Ramon Magsaysay Medical Center, seek to recover damage for a wrongful
advertisement in the Sunday Times where St Louis Realty Corp.
misrepresented his house with Mr. Arcadio.
St. Louis published an ad on December 15, 1968 with the heading where the
heart is. This was republished on January 5, 1969. In the advertisement,
the house featured was Dr Aramils house and not Mr. Arcadio with whom the
company asked permission and the intended house to be published. After Dr
Aramil noticed the mistake, he wrote a letter to St. Louis demanding an
explanation 1 week after such receipt. No rectification or apology was
published despite that it was received by Ernesto Magtoto, the officer in
charge of the advertisement. This prompted Dr. Aramils counsel to demand
actual, moral and exemplary damages. On March 18, 1969, St Louis
published an ad now with Mr. Arcadios real house but nothing on the
apology or explanation of the error. Dr Aramil filed a complaint for damages
on March 29. During the April 15 ad, the notice of rectification was published.
Supreme Court held that no prejudicial question can arise from the existence
of a civil case for annulment of a certificate of sale and a petition for the
issuance of a writ of possession in a special proceeding since the two cases
are both civil in nature which can proceed separately and take their own
direction independently of each other.
A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. It generally comes into play in a situation where
a civil action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the
former an issue that must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action
may proceed because issue raised in civil action would be determinative de
jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case.
___________________
TITLE: Donato vs. Luna
CITATION: GR No. 53642, April 15, 1988
FACTS:
An information for bigamy against petitioner Leonilo Donato was filed on
January 23, 1979 with the lower court in Manila. This was based on the
complaint of private respondent Paz Abayan. Before the petitioners
arraignment on September 28, 1979, Paz filed with Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of Manila, a civil action for declaration of nullity of her
marriage with petitioner contracted on September 26, 1978. Said civil case
was based on the ground that Paz consented to entering into the marriage
which was Donatos second since she had no previous knowledge that
Donato was already married to a certain Rosalinda Maluping on June 30,
1978. Donato defensed that his second marriage was void since it was
solemnized without a marriage license and that force, violence, intimidation
and undue influence were employed by private respondent to obtain
petitioner's consent to the marriage. Prior to the solemnization of the second
marriage, Paz and Donato had lived together as husband and wife without
the benefit of wedlock for 5 years proven by a joint affidavit executed by them
on September 26, 1978 for which reason, the requisite marriage license was
dispensed with pursuant to Article 76 of the Civil Code. Donato continued to
live with Paz until November 1978 where Paz left their home upon learning
that Donato already previously married.
ISSUE: Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy pending before the lower
court be suspended in view of a civil case for annulment of marriage pending
before the juvenile and domestic relations court on the ground that latter
constitutes a prejudicial question.
HELD:
HELD:
Petitioner Leonilo Donato cant apply rule on prejudicial question since a case
for annulment of marriage can only be considered as a prejudicial question to
the bigamy case against the accused if it was proved that petitioners consent
to such marriage and was obtained by means of duress violence and
intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary
and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy.
HELD:
The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for the
death of a person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not
endowed with personality which trial court and Court of Appeals predicated.
Both trial court and CA wasnt able to find any basis for an award of moral
damages evidently because Oscars indifference to the previous abortions of
Nita clearly indicates he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental
affections. Instead of filing an administrative or criminal case against Geluz,
he turned his wifes indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil action for
damages of which not only he but, including his wife would be the
beneficiaries. It shows that hes after obtaining a large money payment since
he sued Geluz for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorneys fees that serves
as indemnity claim, which under the circumstances was clearly exaggerated.
________________________
TITLE: De Jesus v Syquia
CITATION: 58 Phil 866
FACTS:
FACTS:
Judgement for Civil Case T-662 was rendered on February 28, 1962 ordering
defendants Soliven, Pedro Oria, Laurencio, Sumalbag and Darang to pay
solidarity Quality Plastics the sum of P3,667.03 plus legal rate of interest from
November 1958 before its decision became final or else Quality Plastics is
hereby authorized to foreclose the bond. Defendants failed to pay the
amount before the limit given. Oria's land, which was covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 28732 and has an area of nine and six-tenths
hectares, was levied upon and sold by the sheriff at public auction on
September 24, 1962 which he has given as security under the bond.
Apparently, Oria died on April 23, 1959 or long before June 13, 1960. Quality
Plastics was not aware on Orias death. The summons and copies of
complaint was personally served on June 24, 1960 by a deputy sheriff to
Soliven which the latter acknowledged and signed in his own behalf and his
co-defendants.
Dionisio, Fausta, Amado and Benjamin, all surnamed Dumlao and all
testamentary heirs in Oria's duly probated will, sued Quality Plastic Products,
Inc on March 1, 1963 for the annulment of the judgment against Oria and the
execution against his land (T-873). Dionisio also sued in his capacity as
administrator of Orias testate estate.
ISSUE: Whether judgment against Oria and execution against his land be
annulled on the ground of lack in juridical capacity.
PARTIES:
Complainant: DOROTHY B. TERRE
Respondent: ATTY. JORDAN TERRE
HELD:
FACTS:
On December 24, 1981, complainant Dorothy B. Terre charged respondent
Jordan Terre, a member of the Philippine Bar with grossly immoral conduct,
consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman
other than complainant, while his prior marriage with complainant remained
subsisting No judicial action having been initiated or any judicial declaration
obtained as to the nullity of such prior marriage of respondent with
complainant.
Quality Plastics upon receiving the summons on T-873 just learned that Oria
was already dead prior case T-662 was filed. The Dumalaos agreed in their
stipulation that indeed Quality Plastics was unaware of Orias death and that
they acted in good faith in joining Oria as a co-defendant.
However, no jurisdiction was acquired over Oria, thus, the judgment against
him is a patent nullity. Lower courts judgment against Oria in T-662 is void
for lack of jurisdiction over his person as far as Oria was concerned. He had
no more civil personality and his juridical capacity which is the fitness to be
the subject of legal relations was lost through death.
The fact that Dumlao had to sue Quality Plastics in order to annul the
judgment against Oria does not follow that they are entitiled to claim
attorneys fees against the corporation.
WHEREFORE, the lower court's decision is reversed and set aside. Its
judgment in Civil Case No. T-662 against Pedro Oria is declared void for lack
of jurisdiction. The execution sale of Oria's land covered by OCT No. 28732
is also void.
__________________
FRIVALDO VS COMELEC
Posted by kaye lee on 10:58 PM
G.R. No. 87193, 23 June 1989 [Naturalization; Reacquisition]
FACTS:
Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and
assumed office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed with the
COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was
not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States.
Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded the special and affirmative
defenses that he was naturalized as American citizen only to protect himself
against President Marcos during the Martial Law era.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen.
RULING:
No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter
must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an
indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the
Constitution.
He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of valid
repatriation. He claims that by actively participating in the local elections, he
automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United
States of America. The Court stated that that the alleged forfeiture was
between him and the US. If he really wanted to drop his American citizenship,
he could do so in accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473
and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy
143 SCRA 449
FACTS:
Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia was married with
a certain Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then filed a petition in the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Lilia on the ground of latters former marriage. Having been allegedly
force to enter into a marital union, she contents that the first marriage is null
and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was married to another woman
before their marriage.
ISSUE: Whether Karls marriage with Lilia is void.
HELD:
It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with
force because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such marriage is valid
until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when
she married Karl, she is still validly married to her first husband.
Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there is no need of
introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then such marriage
HELD:
The action was instituted upon the complaint of the second wife whose
marriage with Rosima was not renewed after the death of the first wife and
before the third marriage was entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a
valid one and prosecution against Rosima for contracting marriage cannot
prosper.
_______________
Mercado vs. Tan
337 SCRA 122
FACTS:
Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before
he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims
she did not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the
latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The
decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and
void.
ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration
of nullity of the former marriage.
HELD:
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a
subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a
subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty
of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by
statute as void.
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had
already been consummated. He contracted second marriage without the
judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from
the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge.
___________________
G.R. NO. 94053 March 17, 1993
Republic of the Philippines vs. Nolasco
FACTS:
Nolasco, a seaman, first met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. After
that, she lived with him on his ship for 6 months. After his seaman's contract
has expired, he brought her to his hometown in San Jose, Antique. They got
married in January 1982.
After the marriage celebration, he got another employment contract and left
the province. In January 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother that
15 days after Janet gave birth to their son, she left. He cut short his contract
to find Janet. He returned home in November 1983.
He did so by securing another contract which England is one of its port calls.
He wrote several letters to the bar where he and Janet first met, but all were
returned to him. He claimed that he inquired from his friends but they too had
no news about Janet. In 1988, Nolasco filed before the RTC of Antique a
petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet.
RTC granted the petition. The Republic through the Solicitor-General,
appealed to the CA, contending that the trial court erred in declaring Janet
presumptively dead because Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a
well-founded belief for such declaration. CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already
dead.
RULING:
No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third requirement
under the Article 41 of the Family Code, the existence of a "well-founded
belief" that Janet is already dead.
___________________________
Lukban vs Republic
L-8492, February 29, 1956
FACTS:
Lourdes Lukban and Francisco Chuidian got married in 1933 and after a
violent quarrel he left Lukban and has not been heard of since then. She
diligently looked for him asking the parents and friends but no one knew his
whereabouts. She believes that husband is already dead since he was
absent for more than 20 years and because she intends to marry again, she
desires to have her civil status put in order to be relieved on any liability
under the law.
ISSUE: Whether Lukban needs to secure declaration of presumptive death
before she can remarry.
HELD:
The court ruled that Lukban does not need to secure declaration of
presumptive death of her husband because Civil Code prevails during their
marriage in 1933. It provides that for the purposes of the civil marriage law,
it is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared an absentee.
The declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions of the
Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the necessary
precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the
celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former
spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the
second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former
spouse to be living, that each former spouse is generally reputed to be dead
and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
_____________________________
Armas vs. Calisterio
GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000
FACTS:
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.
HELD:
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.
______________________________
Republic vs. CA
GR No. 159614, December 9, 2005
FACTS:
Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been
shortened to 4 years; however, there is a need for judicial declaration of
presumptive death to enable the spouse present to marry. However, Article
41 imposes a stricter standard before declaring presumptive death of one
spouse. It requires a "well-founded belief" that the absentee is already dead
before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted.
In the case at bar, the Court found Nolasco's alleged attempt to ascertain
about Janet's whereabouts too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or
well-founded belief that she was already dead.
Nolasco, after returning from his employment, instead of seeking help of local
authorities or of the British Embassy, secured another contract to London.
Janet's alleged refusal to give any information about her was too convenient
an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. He did not explain why he took
him 9 months to finally reached San Jose after he asked leave from his
captain. He refused to identify his friends whom he inquired from. When the
Court asked Nolasco about the returned letters, he said he had lost them.
Moreover, while he was in London, he did not even dare to solicit help of
authorities to find his wife.
The circumstances of Janet's departure and Nolasco's subsequent behavior
make it very difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet was dead a wellfounded one.
Alan Alegro, the petitioner, was married with Lea in January 1995. Lea
arrived home late in February 1995 and Alan told her that if she enjoys life of
a single person, it will be better for her to go back to her parents. Lea left
after that fight. Allan checked if she went to her parents house but was not
there and even inquired to her friends. He went back to the parents-in-laws
house and learned that Lea had been to their house but left without notice.
He then sought help from the Barangay Captain. For sometime, Alan decided
to work as part-time taxi driver and during his free time he would look for Lea
in the malls. In June 2001, Alan reported Leas disappearance to the local
police station and an alarm notice was issued. He also reported the
disappearance in NBI on July 2001. Alan filed a petition in March 2001 for the
declaration of presumptive death of his wife.
ISSUE: Whether Alan has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.
HELD:
The court ruled that Alan failed to prove that he has a well-founded belief,
before he filed his petition with RTC, that his spouse was dead. He failed to
present a witness other than the Barangay Captain. He even failed to present
those friends of Lea which he inquired to corroborate his testimony. He also
failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding Leas whereabouts
before filing his petition in the RTC. It could have enhanced his credibility had
he made inquiries from his parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts
considering that Lea's father was the owner of Radio DYMS. He did report
and seek help of the local police authorities and NBI to locate Lea but he did
so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in RTC.
_______________________
Valdez vs. Republic
GR No. 180863, September 8, 2009
FACTS:
Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She gave birth to a
baby girl named Nancy. They argued constantly because Sofio was
unemployed and did not bring home any money. In March 1972, the latter
left their house. Angelita and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided
to go back to her parents home. 3 years have passed without any word from
Sofio until in October 1975 when he showed up and they agreed to separate
and executed a document to that effect. It was the last time they saw each
other and had never heard of ever since. Believing that Sofio was already
dead, petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilios application for
naturalization in US was denied because petitioners marriage with Sofio was
subsisting. Hence, in March 2007, petitioner filed a petition seeking
declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners marriage with Virgilio is valid despite lack
of declaration of presumptive death of Sofio.
HELD:
The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of Sofios death is
necessary because Civil Code governs during 1971 and not Family Code
where at least 7 consecutive years of absence is only needed. Thus,
petitioner was capacitated to marry Virgilio and their marriage is legal and
valid.
____________________________
Anaya vs. Palaroan
36 SCRA 97
FACTS:
Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. Palaroan filed
an action for annulment of the marriage in 1954 on the ground that his
consent was obtained through force and intimidation. The complaint was
dismissed and upheld the validity of the marriage and granting Auroras
counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated,
Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their marriage, he had
pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the nondivulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining
her consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on
such ground.
ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her husband of his premarital relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of
marriage.
HELD:
The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman
was not one of those enumerated that would constitute fraud as ground for
annulment and it is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no
other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground for an
action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does not constitute fraud
and therefore would not warrant an annulment of marriage.
______________________________
Buccat v. Mangonon de Buccat
April 25, 1941
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio.
___________________________________
Aquino vs. Delizo
109 Phil 21
FACTS:
Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the ground of fraud
against Conchita Delizo that at the date of her marriage with the former on
December 1954, concealed the fact that she was pregnant by another man
and sometime in April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth
to a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco represent the state in
the proceedings to prevent collusion. Only Aquino testified and the only
documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the
parties. Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence.
CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioners complaint for annulment of marriage, which
was affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions.
ISSUE: Whether or not concealment of pregnancy as alleged by Aquino does
not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage.
HELD:
The concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she
was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a
ground for annulment of marriage. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than
four months pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is hard to
say that her pregnancy was readily apparent especially since she was
naturally plump or fat. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the
enlargement of the womans abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus,
making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent.
In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case for new trial and
decision complained is set aside.
____________________________
Jimenez vs. Canizares
L-12790, August 31, 1960
FACTS:
Joel Jimenez, the petitioner, filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage
with Remedios Canizares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or
vagina was too small to allow the penetration of a male organ for copulation.
It has existed at the time of the marriage and continues to exist that led him
to leave the conjugal home two nights and one day after the marriage. The
court summoned and gave a copy to the wife but the latter did not file any
answer. The wife was ordered to submit herself to physical examination and
to file a medical certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days to
comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part and therefore
rendering judgment in favor of the petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only the testimony
of the husband.
HELD:
The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did not avail of the
opportunity to defend herself and as such, claim cannot be convincingly be
concluded. It is a well-known fact that women in this country are shy and
bashful and would not readily and unhesitatingly submit to a physical
examination unless compelled by competent authority. Such physical
examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not charged with any
offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness against herself.
Impotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The case
was remanded to trial court.
____________________________
Sin vs. Sin
GR No. 137590, March 26, 2001
FACTS:
Facts:
Godofredo Buccat and Luida Mangonon de Buccat met in March 1938,
became engaged in September, and got married in Nov 26.
On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after getting married) Luida, who was 9 months
pregnant, gave birth to a son. After knowing this, Godofredo left Luida and
never returned to married life with her.
On March 23, 1939, he filed for an annulment of their marriage on the
grounds that when he agreed to married Luida, she assured him that she was
a virgin.
The Lower court decided in favor of Luida.
Issue:
Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be granted on the
grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage?
Held:
No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a marriage, a
sacred institution in which the State is interested and where society rests.
In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was concealment of
pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for annulment. It was unlikely that
Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything about Luidas
condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy
(highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlarged stomach ) when they
got married.
Decision:
SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiff-appellant
__________________________________
Ocampo vs. Florenciano
107 Phil 35
FACTS:
Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano were married in 1938. They
begot several children who are not living with plaintiff. In March 1951, latter
discovered on several occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by
maintaining illicit relations with Jose Arcalas. Having found out, he sent the
wife to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty culture where she stayed for one
year. Again plaintiff discovered that the wife was going out with several other
man other than Arcalas. In 1952, when the wife finished her studies, she left
plaintiff and since then they had lived separately. In June 1955, plaintiff
surprised his wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame. He
signified his intention of filing a petition for legal separation to which
defendant manifested conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in
a criminal action. Accordingly, Ocampo filed a petition for legal separation in
1955.
ISSUE: Whether the confession made by Florenciano constitutes the
confession of judgment disallowed by the Family Code.
HELD:
Florencianos admission to the investigating fiscal that she committed
adultery, in the existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession,
is not the confession of judgment disallowed by Article 48 of the Family Code.
What is prohibited is a confession of judgment, a confession done in court or
through a pleading. Where there is evidence of the adultery independent of
the defendants statement agreeing to the legal separation, the decree of
separation should be granted since it would not be based on the confession
but upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a
judgment based exclusively on defendants confession. The petition should
be granted based on the second adultery, which has not yet prescribed.
=================================
=================================
=================================
=================================
=================================
In Re Petition for Adoption of Michelle Lim and Michael Jude Lim
GR No. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
FACTS:
Monina Lim, petitioner, who was an optometrist was married with Primo Lim
but were childless. Minor children, were entrusted to them by Lucia, whose
parents were unknown as shown by a certification of DSWD. The spouses
registered the children making it appears as if they were the parents.
Unfortunately, in 1998, Primo died. She then married an American Citizen,
Angel Olario in December 2000. Petitioner decided to adopt the children by
availing of the amnesty given under RA 8552 to individuals who simulated the
birth of a child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions for adoption of Michelle
and Michael before the trial court. Michelle was then 25 years old and
already married and Michael was 18 years and seven months old. Michelle
and her husband including Michael and Olario gave their consent to the
adoption executed in an affidavit.
ISSUE: WON petitioner who has remarried can singly adopt.
HELD:
Petition was denied. The time the petitions were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. Husband and wife shall jointly adopt except in 3 instances which
was not present in the case at bar. In case spouses jointly adopts, they shall
jointly exercised parental authority. The use of the word shall signifies that
joint adoption of husband and wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with
the concept of joint parental authority since the child to be adopted is
elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require spouses
to adopt jointly. The affidavit of consent given by Olario will not suffice since
there are certain requirements that he must comply as an American Citizen.
He must meet the qualifications set forth in Sec7 of RA8552. The
requirements on residency and certification of the aliens qualification to
adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Sec 7. Parental authority is
merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. It includes caring and rearing
the children for civic consciousness and efficiency and development of their
moral mental and physical character and well-being.
____________________________
Republic vs. Cagandahan
GR. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
FACTS:
Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her Certificate of Live
Birth. During her childhood years, she suffered from clitoral hypertrophy and
was later on diagnosed that her ovarian structures had minimized. She
likewise has no breast nor menstruation. Subsequently, she was diagnosed
of having Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition where those
afflicted possess secondary male characteristics because of too much
secretion of male hormones, androgen. According to her, for all interests and
appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male
person. She filed a petition at RTC Laguna for Correction of Entries in her
Birth Certificate such that her gender or sex be changed to male and her first
name be changed to Jeff.
ISSUE: WON correction of entries in her birth certificate should be granted.
HELD:
The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various
degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright
denial. SC is of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally
intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the
individual, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of
his/her sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of himself as a male and
considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones, there is
preponderant biological support for considering him as being a male. Sexual
development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at
birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like
respondent, is fixed.