Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
2010 CASES
LIGERALDE V. PATALINGHUG and REPUBLIC .................................................................................... 1
FUENTES V. ROCA ........................................................................................................................ 2
JARILLIO V. PEOPLE ...................................................................................................................... 5
RAMOS V. PANGILINAN et. Al ........................................................................................................ 6
RICARDO P. TORING V. TERESITA M. TORING and REPUBLIC ............................................................. 7
ISIDRO ABLAZA V. REPUBLIC ....................................................................................................... 11
CORPUZ V. TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ........................................................ 12
CAMACHO- REYES V. REYES ......................................................................................................... 13
MUNOZ V. RAMIREZ .................................................................................................................... 20
SPOUSES AGGABAO V. PARULAN, JR. AND PARULAN ....................................................................... 22
PIMENTEL V. PIMENTEL ............................................................................................................... 25
BOLOS V. BOLOS ........................................................................................................................ 27
BACCAY V. BACCAY ..................................................................................................................... 28
AGRAVIADOR V. AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR ....................................................................................... 31
ANTONE V. BERONILLA................................................................................................................ 33
DOLINA V. VALLECERA ................................................................................................................ 34
2011 CASES
MARABLE V. MARABLE ................................................................................................................. 35
DIO V. DIO ............................................................................................................................ 37
YAMBAO V. REPUBLIC AND YAMBAO .............................................................................................. 39
OCHOSA V. ALANO ..................................................................................................................... 42
LLAVE V. REPUBLIC ..................................................................................................................... 44
AGUETE V. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK ........................................................................................ 45
FLORES V. LINDO ....................................................................................................................... 46
SULTAN PANDAGARANAO A. ILUPA V. MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH ...................................................... 48
AURELIO V. AURELIO .................................................................................................................. 49
REPUBLIC V. GALANG .................................................................................................................. 51
JESSE U. LUCAS V. JESUS S. LUCAS.............................................................................................. 53
YU V. JUDGE REYES-CARPIO AND YU ............................................................................................ 55
TEVES V. PEOPLE........................................................................................................................ 57
HEIRS OF PROTACIO GO, SR. et. al. v. SERVACIO and GO ............................................................... 59
2012 CASES
CABREZA, JR V. ROBLES CABREZA ................................................................................................ 61
DE MESA V. ACERO ..................................................................................................................... 63
DELA PENA V. AVILA ................................................................................................................... 64
VDA. DE CATALAN V. CATALAN-LEE .............................................................................................. 66
PACIFIC ACE FINANCE LTD. (PAFIN) V. EIJI* YANAGISAWA .............................................................. 68
REPUBLIC V. GRANADA ............................................................................................................... 70
QUIAO V. QUIAO ........................................................................................................................ 73
2010
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA1
the
and
was
this
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA1
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA2
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA3
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA4
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA5
BLOCKD2013
(Que)
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA6
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA7
BLOCKD2013
incurability,
to
be
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA8
BLOCKD2013
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA9
BLOCKD2013
10
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
11
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
12
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
13
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
petition,
that he
respondent
denied
was psychologically
14
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
15
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
16
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
Diagnostic Impression
BLOCKD2013
17
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
Severity: 4-severe
and
Severity: 4 (severe)
BLOCKD2013
18
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
19
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
20
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
JR.
AND
DOCTRINE(S):
1. The sale was made on March 18, 1991, or after August 3, 1988, the effectivity of the Family Code. The
proper law to apply is, therefore, Article 124 of the
Family Code, for it is settled that any alienation or
encumbrance of conjugal property made during the
effectivity of the Family Code is governed by Article
124 of the Family Code.
2. According to Article 256 of the Family Code, the provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively
provided no vested rights are impaired. In Tumlos v.
Fernandez, 330 SCRA 718 (2000), the Court rejected
BLOCKD2013
21
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
22
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
23
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
24
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
25
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
26
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
Danilo, in his Comment, counters that A.M. No. 0211-10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with
Cynthia was solemnized on February 14, 1980, years before
its effectivity.
BLOCKD2013
27
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
28
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
29
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
30
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
31
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
32
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
HELD: Yes.
33
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
2011
17. MARABLE V. MARABLE (Fuster)
G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011
FACTS: On December 19, 1970, petitioner and respondent
eloped and were married in civil rites at Tanay, Rizal before
Mayor Esguerra. A church wedding followed on December
30, 1970 and their marriage was blessed with 5 children.
Their marriage turned sour. Verbal and physical
quarrels became common occurrences. Petitioner developed
a relationship with another woman. Respondent learned
about the affair, and petitioner promptly terminated it. But
despite the end of the affair, their quarrels aggravated.
Petitioner felt that he was unloved, unwanted and
unappreciated and this made him indifferent towards
respondent. Petitioner left the family home and stayed with
his sister in Antipolo City. He gave up all the properties
which he and respondent had accumulated during their
marriage in favor of respondent and their children. Later,
he converted to Islam after dating several women.
BLOCKD2013
34
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
or
not
petitioner
is
psychologically
BLOCKD2013
35
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
36
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
1.
The man and the woman must be capacitated to
marry each other;
2.
They live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife; and
3.
Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their
marriage is void.
BLOCKD2013
37
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
38
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
the needs of his family, and yielded benefits that were not
commensurate to the efforts he exerted. He had ventured
into small businesses but they failed due to various
economic crises. Respondent further claimed that he was
not, in fact, contented with living with petitioners relatives
since his every move was being watched with eagle eyes.
He also denied that he gambled. He alleged that even
without a steady source of income, he still shared in the
payment of the amortization of their house in BF Homes,
Paraaque City. He also denied that he threatened to kill
petitioner, considering that there was never any evidence
that he had ever harmed or inflicted physical injury on
petitioner to justify the latter having a nervous breakdown.
He further alleged that he never consulted any psychiatrist,
and denied that he was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
BLOCKD2013
39
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
Petitioner failed to show that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage
HELD: No.
RATIONALE: In Santos v. Court of Appeals, the Court held
that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. These
guidelines do not require that a physician examine the
person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact,
the root cause may be medically or clinically identified.
What is important is the presence of evidence that can
adequately establish the party's psychological condition.
BLOCKD2013
40
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
41
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
42
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
HELD: Yes. The civil code governs the marriage of Zorayda
and late Sen. Tamano; their marriage was never invalidated
BLOCKD2013
43
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
s subsequent marriage to
FACTS: Spouses Jose Ros and Estrella Aguete filed a
complaint for annulment against PNB before the Court of
First Instance of Rizal.
BLOCKD2013
44
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
45
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the promissory note and deed of mortgage are
void
(2) Whether there remains an available remedy for
petitioner
HELD:
(1) NO. Article 124 of the Family Code provides:
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the
conjugal partnership property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
husbands decision shall prevail, subject to recourse
to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which
must be availed of within five years from the date of
contract implementing such decision.
BLOCKD2013
46
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
47
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
48
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
49
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
In August 1999, Nestor filed with the RTC a petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Juvy, under Article
36 of the Family Code, as amended. He alleged that Juvy
was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential
obligations of marriage, as she was a kleptomaniac and a
swindler; that Juvy suffers from mental deficiency, innate
immaturity, distorted discernment and total lack of care,
love and affection [towards him and their] child. He posited
that Juvys incapacity was extremely serious and appears
to be incurable.
BLOCKD2013
50
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
51
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
52
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
53
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
54
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
55
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
Therefore, it cannot be said at all that Judge ReyesCarpio acted in a capricious and whimsical manner, much
less in a way that is patently gross and erroneous, when
she issued the assailed orders deferring the reception of
evidence on custody, support, and property relations. To
reiterate, this decision is left to the trial court's wisdom and
legal soundness. Consequently, therefore, the CA cannot
likewise be said to have committed grave abuse of
discretion in upholding the Orders of Judge Reyes-Carpio
and in ultimately finding an absence of grave abuse of
discretion on her part.
BLOCKD2013
56
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
57
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
58
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
59
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
2012
32. CABREZA, JR., BJD HOLDINGS CORP., represented
by ATTY. MANUEL DULAYV.ROBLES CABREZA (King)
G.R. No. 181962, January 16, 2012
DOCTRINE: The Ruling of the RTC regarding the sale of the
conjugal dwelling (family home) is final and cannot be
impugned.
BLOCKD2013
60
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether the complaint should be dismissed on the basis
of litis pendentia? YES.
2. Whether the decision of the RTC with regard to the sale
of the conjugal dwelling is final and cannot be impugned in
another case? YES.
RATIO:
1. The following requisites must be present for the proper
invocation of litis pendentia as a ground for dismissing an
action:
A. Identity of parties or representation in both cases;
B. Identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts and the same basis; and
BLOCKD2013
61
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
62
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
The house and lot was sold in the public auction and Acero
was the highest bidder. Acero leased the property to Juanito
Oliva, who defaulted payment for several years. Oliva
contends that the Acero spouses are not the owners of the
property.
BLOCKD2013
63
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
64
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
65
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
nullity then pending filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and petitioner. It considered the pending action to
be a prejudicial question in determining the guilt of petitioner for the crime of bigamy. The RTC also found that petitioner had never been married to Bristol.
When Orlando died intestate in the Philippines, petitioner filed with the RTC a Petition for the issuance of letters
of administration for her appointment as administratrix of
the intestate estate. While the case was pending, respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of Orlando
from his first marriage, filed a similar petition with the RTC.
The two cases were consolidated.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the acquittal of petitioner in the crim. case for
bigamy meant that the marriage with Bristol was still
valid.
2. Whether the divorce obtained abroad by Orlando may be
recognized under Philippine jurisdiction.
BLOCKD2013
1. No. The RTC in the special proceedings failed to appreciate the finding of the RTC in Crim. Case that petitioner
was never married to Eusebio Bristol. It concluded that,
66
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner to prove the validity of Orlando's divorce under the
laws of the United States and the marriage between petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand
the proceedings to the trial court for further reception of
evidence to establish the fact of divorce.
BLOCKD2013
67
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
68
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether a real property in the Philippines can be part of
the community property of a Filipina and her foreigner
spouse;
2. Whether a real property registered solely in the name of
the Filipina wife is paraphernal or conjugal;
3. Who is entitled to the real property mentioned above
when the marriage is declared void?
4. Whether the Paraaque RTC can rule on the issue of
ownership, even as the same issue was already ruled upon
by the Makati RTC and is pending appeal in the CA.
BLOCKD2013
69
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
70
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
RATIO:
1. A petition for declaration of presumptive death of an
absent spouse for the purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary
proceeding as provided for under the Family Code. Taken
together, Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code
provide that since a petition for declaration of presumptive
death is a summary proceeding, the judgment of the court
therein shall be immediately final and executory.
BLOCKD2013
71
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
The
Republics
arguments
are
well-taken.
Nevertheless, we are constrained to deny the Petition.
The RTC ruling on the issue of whether respondent
was able to prove her well-founded belief that her absent
spouse was already dead prior to her filing of the Petition to
declare him presumptively dead is already final and can no
longer be modified or reversed. Indeed, [n]othing is more
settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The
same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law.
BLOCKD2013
72
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
3. Is the computation of net profits earned in the conjugal partnership of gains the same with the computation of net profits earned in the absolute community? NO.
RATIO:
1. First, since the spouses were married prior to the
promulgation of the current family code, the default rule is
that In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the
same are void, the system of relative community or
conjugal partnership of gains as established in this Code,
shall govern the property relations between husband and
wife.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Art 102 on dissolution of absolute community or Art 129 on dissolution of conjugal partnership
of gains is applicable in this case. Art 129 will govern.
2. Whether the offending spouse acquired vested rights
over of the properties in the conjugal partnership
NO.
BLOCKD2013
73
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA
BLOCKD2013
74
ATTY.MELSTA.MARIA