ARROYO VS.

VASQUEZ
Arroyo and Vasquez are married
Vasquez left their conjugal home alleging that he was maltreated by her husband
Vasquez filed a complaint in Court for a decree of separation, liquidation of conjugal
partnership and alimony
Arroyo on the other hand asked for restitution of conjugal rights and an order to
compel his wife to return to their conjugal abode
Court cannot compel the wife to return and cohabit with husband
Court only issued a judicial declaration that the wife absenteed herself from their
conjugal home and it is the duty of the wife to return
Court are admonished to give alimony to one spouse outside of their conjugal home
as it indirectly recognizes the de facto separation
LEONARDO S. BITON, Petitioner, vs. ANDRES MOMONGAN, Respondent.
An administrative case wherein the lawyer notarized a document entitled Legal
Separation signed by parties-spouses Biton and Quijano, where they agreed to live
separately and authorized each other to remarry
The contract acknowledged by the respondent is indubitably illegal and immoral. Its
covenants are contrary to laws, morals, and good customs, and tend to subvert the
vital foundation of the legitimate family. The ratification of a contract of this type,
executed by a notary public who is a practicing attorney at the same time, constitutes
malpractice, and as a disciplinary measure, this court may impose even disbarment.
BROWN VS. YAMBAO
Brown and Yambao are spouses
Brown was detained during the Japanese occupation and alleged that after he was
released, he discovered that his wife lived with another man and begot children
Spouses decided to live separately and liquidate their conjugal partnership
The complaint prayed for confirmation of the liquidation agreement; for custody of
the children issued of the marriage; that the defendant be declared disqualified to
succeed the plaintiff; and for their remedy as might be just and equitable.
Wife was unable to answer and was declared in default
Court ordered the City Fiscal to determine whether collusion exist
City Fiscal found out that Brown also had extra-marital relations with another
woman
With this finding, Court dismissed the complaint for legal separation considering that
both parties are at fault

VDA. DE JACOB VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Tomasa Vda. De Jacob claimed to be the wife of Dr. Alfredo Jacob
Pedro Pilapil claimed that he was a legally adopted son of Dr. Jacob
During the settlement of the estate, Pedro Pilapil intervened claiming his share of the
estate and questioning the validity of the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo as
there was no marriage license and no ceremony took place
Tomasa alleged that they were married, however, the same was not registered. In
1978, she was able to secure a reconstructed marriage certificate
Tomasa presented a sworn affidavit signed by her and Alfredo that he have lived
together for 5 years prior to their alleged marriage
In the absence of a marriage certificate, secondary evidence may be admitted to
prove that spouses have lived together and deported themselves to the public as
husband and wife i.e. Photographs taken during the ceremony, testimonies of
witnesses to the marriage
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio -- Always presume marriage (disputable
presumption)
FERNANDEZ VS. PUATU
Fernandez alleged in Court that she was the legal wife of deceased Guillermo Puatu
That they have cohabited in Spain and in the Philippines for 21 years until Fernandez
went back to Spain
The evidence however consist only Fernandez deposition taken in Spain and also the
statements of her witnesses, also taken in that State;
No marriage certificate was presented
Documents in the Spanish Consulate showed that Fernandez was single
Documents executed during the lifetime of Guillermo showed that he was single as
well as in his Death Certificate
Presumption over marriage has been sufficiently offset
GOITIA VS. CAMPOS RUEDA
Goitia and Campos Rueda are married
A month after their marriage, Husband is forcing his wife to do lascivious and
obscene acts on his genitalia. When the wife refuses, husband maltreats his wife by
word and deed
Wife leaves conjugal home and demands that she be given support by the husband
Husband contends that he cannot be obliged to give support to his wife outside their
conjugal home unless there is a divorce or separation decree from the Court
The law provides that the husband has the option to give his wife a fixed monthly
pension or to maintain her in his home

 Option not absolute; Husband cannot escape his obligation given that he was the
cause why her wife left their conjugal home
JOCSON VS. ROBLES
Jocson and Robles were married
Jocson filed in Court a Petition to declare their marriage null and void claiming that
prior to their marriage, Robles was married to another person, who had filed bigamy
charges against him
Robles in his Answer also assailed the validity of his marriage with Jocson alleging
that he was forced by the parents of Jocson to marry
Robles moved for summary judgment claiming that there was no genuine issue
Court noted that collusion between the parties exist;
Civil Code expressly prohibit the rendition of a decree of annulment of a marriage
upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.
PACETE VS. CARRIAGA
Alanis and Pacete are married
Alanis then filed a Petition to nullify their marriage having discovered that Pacete
contracted subsequent marriage with de la Concepcion
Pacete and de la Concepcion were sent summons to file Answer however despite
granting their Motion for Extension of Time to file Answer, both were unable to
submit their Answers on the date set. They were declared in default.
Alanis were allowed to present evidence and subsequently granted with the reliefs
sought for
It is provided for by law that in case Defendant was unable to file his Answer, the
court shall order the prosecuting attorney to determine whether collusion exists
between the parties.
If there is no collusion, the prosecuting attorney shall intervene for the State in order
to take care that the evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated.
PANGANIBAN VS. BORROMEO
Pabro and Mappala are married
Spouses executed a Contract notarized before Borromeo which mutually allowed
each other to have extra-marital relations
PEOPLE VS. OPENA
Opena was accused of raping his stepdaughter
On appeal, Opena assailed the finding of abuse of parental authority, claiming that he
and Maura were not married
However, this allegation was belied by his testimony wherein he referred to a stepson

and also referred to Maura as his wife

Presumption of marriage will not be overcome by mere denial
PEOPLE VS. SAMSON
Jose and Josefina were married
Josefina was charged and convicted with parricide for the murder of her husband
On appeal, Josefina assailed the judgment alleging that there was no competent
evidence presented to prove that Josefina and Jose were married
Josefinas allegation was belied by his testimony that she and Jose were married in
civil rites and in church; that they begot children and the testimony of the uncle of
the deceased that Josefina came to him to ask forgiveness for killing his husband
because the latter had a mistress
PERIDO VS. PERIDO
With respect to the civil status of Lucio Perido as stated in the certificates of title
issued to him in 1923, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the statement was not
conclusive to show that he was not actually married to Marcelina Baliguat.
Furthermore, it is weak and insufficient to rebut the presumption that persons living
together husband and wife are married to each other. This presumption, especially
where legitimacy of the issue is involved, as in this case, may be overcome only by
cogent proof on the part of those who allege the illegitimacy. In the case of Adong vs.
Cheong Seng Gee 1 this Court explained the rationale behind this presumption, thus:
"The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage.
Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an
institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently,
every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling
together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that
such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold
themselves out as being, they would he living in the constant violation of decency
and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is "that a man
and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage." (Sec. 334, No. 28)Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio
Always presume marriage."
While the alleged marriage ceremony in 1925, if true, might tend to rebut the
presumption of marriage arising from previous cohabitation, it is to be noted that
both the trial court and the appellate court did not even pass upon the uncorroborated
testimony of petitioner Leonora Perido on the matter. The reason is obvious. Said
witness, when asked why she knew that Marcelina Baliguat was married to Lucio
Perido only in 1925, merely replied that she knew it because "during the celebration
of the marriage by the Aglipayan priest (they) got flowers from (their) garden and
placed in the altar." Evidently she was not even an eyewitness to the ceremony.
In view of the foregoing the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that the five
children of Lucio Perido and Marcelina Baliguat were born during their marriage

and, therefore, legitimate.

PUGEDA VS. TRIAS

On the first issue, the existence of marriage, plaintiff and his witness Ricardo Ricafrente
testified that in the afternoon of January 5, 1916, on the eve of Epiphany or Three Kings,
plaintiff and the deceased Maria C. Ferrer went to the office of the Justice of the Peace,
who was then witness Ricardo Ricafrente, to ask the latter to marry them; that
accordingly Ricafrente celebrated the desired marriage in the presence of two witnesses
one of whom was Santiago Salazar and another Amado Prudente, deceased; that after the
usual ceremony Ricafrente asked the parties to sign two copies of a marriage contract,
and after the witnesses had signed the same, he delivered one copy to the contracting
parties and another to the President of the Sanitary Division, which officer was at that
time the keeper of the records of the civil register. Plaintiff and his witnesses explained
that no celebration of the marriage was held inspite of the prominence of the contracting
parties because plaintiff was then busy campaigning for the office of Member of the
Provincial Board and Maria C. Ferrer was already on the family way.
The defendants denied the existence of the marriage and introduced a photostatic copy of
the record of marriages in the municipality of Rosario, Cavite, in the month of January,
1916, which showed that no record of the alleged marriage existed therein; but this
absence was explained by the Justice of the Peace that perhaps the person who kept the
register forgot tomake an entry of the marriage in the registry.
Other witnesses were introduced to the effect that after the marriage plaintiff lived in the
house of Maria C. Ferrer, which was the house of spouses Mariano Trias and Maria C.
Ferrer. Evidence was also submitted to the effect that the first issue was baptized on
August 26, 1917 and the one who acted as sponsor was a sister-in-law of Maria C. Ferrer.
The baptismal certificate submitted states that the baptized child was the issue of the
spouses Fabian Pugeda and Maria C. Ferrer. The registry of said birth was also submitted
and it states that the father is Fabian Pugeda and the mother is Maria C. Ferrer.
It is also not denied that after the marriage, plaintiff cohabited with the deceased wife, as
husband and wife, until the death of the latter, publicly and openly as husband and wife.
Lastly, a document entitled "Project of Partition" (Exhibit 5-Trias) was signed by the
parties defendants themselves. The document contains the following significant statement
or admission: .
WHEREAS the parties hereto are the only children and forced heirs of the said deceased:
Rafael, Miguel, Soledad, Clara, Constancia, and Gabriel, all surnamed Trias y Ferrer, are
the children of her first marriage with Mariano Trias, now deceased; and Teofilo and
Virginia, both surnamed Pugeda y Ferrer,are the children of her second marriage with
Fabian Pugeda..
.... That it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto that lots Nos. 3177 and
3178 known as the Buenavista property will be administered by one of the parties to be
agreed upon and for said purpose they appoint MIGUEL F. TRIAS, and all earnings,
rentals and income or profits shall be expended for the improvement and welfare of the
said property and for the payment of all claims and accounts of our deceased mother
Maria C. Ferrer, and for the maintenance and education of Teofilo and Virginia Pugeda y

Ferrer.
The judge who heard the evidence, after a review of he testimonial and documental
evidence, arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff Fabian Pugeda was in fact married to
Maria C. Ferrer on January 5, 1916, this conclusion being borne out not only by the chain
of circumstances but also by the testimonies of the witnesses to the celebration of the
marriage, who appeared to be truthful, as well as by the fact that plaintiff and deceased
Maria C. Ferrer lived together as husband and wife for eighteen years (1916-1934) and
there is a strong presumption that they were actually married.
On the competency of the evidence submitted by plaintiff to prove the marriage we cite
the following authority: .
Art. 53. As to marriages contracted subsequently, no proof other than a certificate of
the record in the civil register shall be admitted, unless such books have never been kept,
or have disappeared, or the question arises in litigation, in which cases the marriage may
be proved by evidence of any kind. (p. 27, Civil Code) .
The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father and mother,
while the latter wasin articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to
the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in
the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not present, and the forwarding
of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of said requisites. (Madridejo v. De
Leon, 55 Phil., 1) .
Testimony by one of the parties to the marriage, or by one of the witnesses to the
marriage, has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person who
officiated at the solemnization is also competent to testify as an eyewitness to the fact of
marriage. (55 C.J.S., p. 900).
In our judgment the evidence submitted shows conclusively that plaintiff Fabian Pugeda
was in fact married to Maria C. Ferrer, said marriage subsisting from 1916 until 1934,
upon the death of the latter, and we affirm the finding of the trial court to that effect.
REPUBLIC VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASTRO
Castro and Cardenas were married
Castro filed a Petition to nullify their marriage on the ground of absence of a
marriage license
Castro presented a certification of due search and inability to find from the local civil
registrar of the subject marriage license
Lower court denied the Petition contending that the certification is not conclusive
proof that no marriage license was issued
CA reversed
SC uphold the ruling of the CA
Secret marriage; Certification issued given probative value as it was issued by the
proper officer; Cardenas was notified of the Petition but did not file answer; that the
marriage license allegedly presented to the solemnizing officer must be spurious
ROQUE VS. ENCARNACION

 Lower court rendered judgment summarily on an action to nullify a marriage

It is an avowed policy of the State not to render summary judgments to nullify a marriage
but to hold a full-blown trial
SARMIENTO VS. CA
One cannot solely rely on the legal presumption of marriage
The said presumption was overruled by the testimony that the spouses cohabited
without the benefit of marriage and a certification that there was no record of
marriage in the local civil registrar