Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
22,2007)
FACTS:
RULING:
ISSUE:
Whether or not a persons first name be change because of
sex reassignment?
ISSUE:
WON the State failed to intervene and inquire the reason of
his non-apperance
RULING:
No
The failure of petitioner's counsel to notify him on time of the
adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is
negligence which is not excusable. Notice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of
counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the
loss of this right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a
judgment valid and regular on its face. 16
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by
default is fraught with the danger of collusion. 22 Hence, in all
cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and
legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered
to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose of preventing
any collusion between the parties and to take care that their
evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If the defendant
spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare
him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting
ISSUE:
WON THE PT&T Companys policy on marriage was against
the fundamental policy of the state/Constitution
RULING:
Yes
The Supreme Court invalidated such policy as it not only runs
afoul of the constitutional provision on equal protection but
also on the fundamental policy of the State toward marriage.
The Supreme Court relevantly said:
FACTS:
Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by
respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as
medical representative on October 24, 1995, after Tecson had
undergone training and orientation. Thereafter, Tecson signed
a contract of employment which stipulates, among others, that
he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to
disclose to management any existing or future relationship by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of
competing drug companies and should management find that
such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign
from the company.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxos
products in the Camarines Sur- Camarines Norte sales area.
Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship
with Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals 3 (Astra), a
ISSUE:
WON the Glaxos policy against its
employees from competitor is valid
employees marrying
RULING:
YES
An employment contract requiring an employee to disclose to
management any existing or future relationship by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of
competing drug companies and requiring such employee to
resign should management find that such relationship poses a
possible conflict of interest was not held to be in violation of
the equal protection clause of the constitution considering that
the said stipulation is reasonable under the circumstances
because such relationship might compromise the interest of
the company and the requirement was shown to be aimed
against the possibility that a competitor company will gain
access to its secrets and procedures. The Supreme Court said
that the provision does not impose an absolute prohibition
against relationships between the companys employees and
those of Competitor Company.
ISSUE:
Whether the policy of the employer banning spouses from
working in the same company violates the rights of the
employee under the Constitution and the Labor Code or is a
valid exercise of management prerogative.
RULING:
Yes.
Where a company policy provided that, in case two of their
employees decide to get married to each other , one of them
should resign from the company, the Supreme Court held that
the act of the company in enforcing such policy is illegal as it
failed to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the
questioned policy especially so when the asserted policy is
premised on the mere fear that employees married to each
other will be less efficient. Thus, it was not shown how the
marriage between sheeting machine operators of the company
married to an employee in the repacking section in the same
company, or a production helper to a cutter machine helper,
can be detrimental to the business operations of the
company.
GR No. 112019
January 4, 1995
Leouel Santos vs.The Honorable Court of Appeals and
Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos
Facts:
Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in
Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial
court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The
couple lived with Julias parents at the J. Bedia
Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was
named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will
quarrel over a number of things aside from the interference of
Julias parents into their family affairs.
Ruling:
No. Julia's failure to return to her husband and communication
with him do not constitute psychological incapacity. The
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time
the
marriage
is
celebrated.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability. The incapacity must be
grave such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required.
GR No. 166676
September 12, 2008
Republic of the Philippines vs. Jennifer B. Cagandahan
Facts:
Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her
Certificate of Live Birth. Growing up, she developed secondary
male characteristics and was diagnosed to have CONGENITAL
ADRENAL HYPERPLASIA (CAH). 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 or menstruation. According to her, for
all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion,
FACTS:
A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by
petitioner against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that
on December 8, 1982 he and respondent, without securing the
required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the
purpose of looking for a person who could arrange a marriage
for them. They met a person who, for a fee, arranged their
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage license is void.
RULING:
The Supreme Court decided that the marriage license was
valid.
The law requires that the absence of such marriage
license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the
very least, supported by a certification from the local civil
registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the
parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the
petitioner and respondent reflects a marriage license number.
A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil
registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification moreover is
precise in that it specifically identified the parties to whom the
marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and
Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in
fact issued to the parties herein.
The certification of Municipal Civil Registrar Macrino L. Diaz of
Carmona, Cavite, reads:
This is to certify that as per the registry Records of Marriage
filed in this office, Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in
favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara and Miss Rosita Almario on
December 8, 1982.
This Certification is being issued upon the request of Mrs.
Rosita A. Alcantara for whatever legal purpose or intents it
may serve.
Petitioners Argument:
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in
not appreciating the evidence they presented to prove that
they acted only as agents of a certain Pablo Lim and, as such,
should not have been held liable. In addition, they aver that
there is no evidence to show that the erasure of the tape was
done in bad faith so as to justify the award of damages.
Respondents Argument:
Respondents contend that for not abiding on the
contract and erasing the footage of their wedding, petitioners
should be liable for damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners should be liable.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioners are jointly
and severally liable.
Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for
having failed to process the video tape. Considering that
private respondents were about to leave for the United States,
they took care to inform petitioners that they would just claim
the tape upon their return two months later. Thus, the erasure
of the tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.
In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that
"those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who is any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages."
In the instant case, petitioners and private respondents
entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former
undertook to cover the latter's wedding and deliver to them a
video copy of said event. For whatever reason, petitioners
failed to provide private respondents with their tape. Clearly,
petitioners are guilty of contravening their obligation to said
private respondents and are thus liable for damages.
FACTS:
Petitioners Argument:
The petitioner submits that he should not be faulted for
relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the Ontario
court. He highlights the fact that he contracted the second
marriage openly and publicly, which a person intent upon
bigamy would not be doing.
Respondents Argument:
For the respondent, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
submits that good faith in the instant case is a convenient but
flimsy excuse.
ISSUES:
Whether or not there was a previous marriage.
Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of bigamy.
RULING:
FACTS:
Herein private respondent Catalina Sanchez, claiming
to be the widow of Roberto Sanchez, averred that her
husband was the owner of a 275 sq. meter parcel of land
located at Rosario, Cavite, which was registered without her
knowledge in the name of the herein petitioners on the
strength of an alleged deed of sale executed in their favor by
her late husband on February 7, 1968. Involving the report of
a handwriting expert from the Philippine Constabulary Criminal
Investigation Service, who found that the signature on the
document was written by another person, she prayed that the
Petitioners Argument:
Petitioners contend that Catalina Sanchez was not the
widow of Roberto Sanchez; and that she had no capacity to
institute the complaint.
Respondents Argument:
Respondent submitted the marriage contract between
her and the late Roberto Sanchez.
ISSUE:
DE
FACTS:
Petitioners Argument:
It appears that long before, and during the War of the
Pacific, these two persons lived together as wife and husband
at Cabrera Street, Pasay City. They acquired properties but
had no children. In the early part of the liberation of Manila
and surrounding territory, Matea became seriously ill. Knowing
her critical condition, two young ladies of legal age dedicated
to the service of God, named Carmen Ordiales and Judith
Vizcarra1 visited and persuaded her to go to confession. They
fetched Father Gerardo Bautista, Catholic parish priest of
Pasay. The latter, upon learning that the penitent had been
living with Felipe Apelan Felix without benefit of marriage,
asked both parties to ratify their union according to the rites
of his Church. Both agreed. Whereupon the priest heard the
confession of the bed-ridden old woman, gave her Holy
Communion, administered the Sacrament of Extreme Unction
and then solemnized her marriage with Felipe Apelan Felix in
articulo mortis, Carmen Ordiales and Judith Vizcarra acting as
sponsors or witnesses. It was then January 29 or 30, 1945.
After a few months, Matea recovered from her sickness; but
death was not to be denied, and in January 1946, she was
interred in Pasay, the same Fr. Bautista performing the burial
ceremonies.
On May 12, 1952, Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria filed
this complaint to compel defendant to an accounting and to
RULING:
The SC ruled that the marriage was valid.
There is no question about the officiating priest's
authority to solemnize marriage. There is also no question that
the parties had legal capacity to contract marriage, and that
both declared before Fr. Bautista and Carmen Ordiales and
ISSUE:
Whether the marriage solemnized by Judge Palaypayon were
valid.
HELD:
Bocaya & Besmontes marriage was solemnized without a
marriage license along with the other couples.
The
testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola including the
photographs taken showed that it was really Judge
Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared
that they were advised by judge to return after 10 days after
the solemnization and bring with them their marriage
license. They already started living together as husband and
wife even without the formal requisite. With respect to the
photographs, judge explained that it was a simulated
solemnization of marriage and not a real one. However,
considering that there were pictures from the start of the
wedding ceremony up to the signing of the marriage
certificates in front of him. The court held that it is hard to
believe that it was simulated.
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he
solemnized marriage between Abellano & Edralin and claimed
it was under Article 34 of the Civil Code so the marriage
license was dispensed with considering that the contracting
parties executed a joint affidavit that they have been living
together as husband and wife for almost 6 years
already. However, it was shown in the marriage contract that
Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months and 7 days old. If he and
Edralin had been living together for 6 years already before
they got married as what is stated in the joint affidavit,
Abellano must have been less than 13 years old when they
started living together which is hard to believe. Palaypayon
should have been aware, as it is his duty to ascertain the
qualification of the contracting parties who might have
executed a false joint affidavit in order to avoid the marriage
license requirement.
HELD:
Ninal vs. Bayadog
FACTS:
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
license.
ISSUES:
FACTS:
Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November
15, 1973 in Quezon City. They had two children. On
September 15, 1983, Fernando left the conjugal dwelling.
Since then, they lived separately with the children in the
custody of their mother. On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a
petition for legal separation before the RTC of San Fernando,
Pampanga which was later amended to a petition for
separation of property. In 1988, she filed a case of attempted
parricide against Fernando. However, the case was lowered to
slight physical injuries. Petitioner filed for a declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. It was denied. On appeal, she raised the issue of
their marriage being void ab initio for the lack of marriage
license. Their marriage license was obtained on September 17,
1972 while their marriage was celebrated on November 15,
1973. Hence, the marriage license was expired already.
Issue:
W/N the marriage is valid
Held:
No. Evidence shows that there was no marriage license. A
marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders
the marriage void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract
shows that the marriage license, was issued in Carmona,
FACTS:
Petitioner Mercedita Mata Aranes charged respondent Judge
Occiano with gross ignorance of the law. Occiano is the
presiding judge in Court of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However,
he solemnized the marriage of Aranes and Dominador Orobia
on February 17, 2000 at the couples residence in Nabua,
Camarines Sur which is outside his territorial jurisdiction and
without the requisite of marriage license.
It appeared in the records that petitioner and Orobia filed their
application of marriage license on January 5, 2000 and was
stamped that it will be issued on January 17, 2000 but neither
of them claimed it. In addition, no record also appeared with
the Office of the Civil Registrar General for the alleged
marriage.
Facts:
vs.CARMELITA
N.
Held:
The above Rule authorized the custodian of documents to
certify that despite diligent search, a particular
document does not exist in his office or that a
particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be
found in a register. As custodians of public documents, civil
registrars are public officers charged with the duty, inter alia,
of maintaining a register book where they are required to
enter all applications for marriage licenses, including the
names of the applicants, the date the marriage license was
issued and such other relevant data. (Emphasis supplied.)
matrimony
are
presumed,
in
the
absence
of
any
Facts:
On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado, the sister of Josefa, filed a
Petition on Letters of Administration of the estate of deceased
spouses Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia (died 1972 and
1974 respectively). Such letter was opposed by Marciana
Rustia, a sister of Guillermo, claiming that they should be the
beneficiaries of the estate. The trial court then allowed
Guillerma Rustia, a legitimate child of Guillermo, to intervene
in the case as she claimed that she possessed the status of an
acknowledged legitimate natural child, hence, she should be
the sole heir of the estate. Later, Luisa Delgado said that the
spouses were living together without marriage. Luisa Delgado
died and was substituted dela Rosa (herein petitioner) in this
case. The RTC appointed dela Rosa as the administrator of the
estates of the deceased.
Issue:
Whether or not dela Rosa should be the sole administrator of
the
estate
noting
that
Josefa
and
Guillermo did not contract marriage.
Ruling:
The Court held, through the testimonies of the witnesses, that
marriage between Josefa and Guillermo never occurred.
Although it is presumed that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage, such testimonies shall prevail. Since, no
marriage had occurred between the two, the estate must be
settled in different proceedings. Therefore, dela Rosa cannot
be appointed as the sole administrator of the estate of the
deceased.
RULING:
Yes. The Court ruled that the certification of "due search and
inability to find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys
probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to
keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage
license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and
pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a
certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently
proved that his office did not issue marriage license
no.3196182 to the contracting parties. The fact that private
respondent Castro offered only her testimony in support of her
petition is, in itself, not aground to deny her petition. The
failure to offer any other witness to corroborate her testimony
is mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case .The
finding of the appellate court that the marriage between the
FACTS:
marriage
solemnized
by
Judge
HELD:
Bocaya & Besmontes marriage was solemnized without a
marriage license along with the other couples.
The
testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola including the
photographs taken showed that it was really Judge
Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared
that they were advised by judge to return after 10 days after
the solemnization and bring with them their marriage
license. They already started living together as husband and
wife even without the formal requisite. With respect to the
photographs, judge explained that it was a simulated
solemnization of marriage and not a real one. However,
considering that there were pictures from the start of the
wedding ceremony up to the signing of the marriage
certificates in front of him. The court held that it is hard to
believe that it was simulated.
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he
solemnized marriage between Abellano & Edralin and claimed
it was under Article 34 of the Civil Code so the marriage
license was dispensed with considering that the contracting
parties executed a joint affidavit that they have been living
together as husband and wife for almost 6 years
already. However, it was shown in the marriage contract that
Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months and 7 days old. If he and