Vilano vs.

Adriano
Facts:
On November 15, 1955, Atty. Adriano married respondent, Rosario Adriano. They had two sons,
three daughters, and one adopted daughter. Unfortunately, years later, the two separated and
continued on with their lives. Atty. Adriano soon courted petitioner Vilano and then the two
agreed to live together. Despite such agreement, Atty. Adriano continued to provide financial
support to Rosario and their children (respondents).
In 1992, Atty. Adriano died and at that time Rosario was in the United States spending Christmas
with her children. Vilano then, shouldered and handled the funeral expenses for Atty. Adriano.
Upon hearing the news, Rosario immediately called Valino and requested that she delay the
interment for a few days but Valino rejected her request. The remains of Atty. Adriano was buried
at the mausoleum of the Vilano family located at the Manila Memorial Park.
Respondent filed a suit against Valino for depriving them of seeing Atty. Adriano during the
funeral and burial. Moreover, the respondents stated that Atty. Adrianos burial at the Manila
Memorial Park was contrary to his wishes.
The RTC dismissed the suit filed by the respondents against Valino because of lack of merit.
Ruling that Valino showed more compassion and love for Atty. Adriano because she performed
the duties and responsibilities of a wife.
Respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then reversed
and set aside the previous ruling of the RTC stating that Rosario, being the legal wife, was
entitled to the custody of the remains of her deceased husband (Art. 305 of the New Civil Code
and Art. 199 of the Family Code).
Issue: Who between Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano
Held: the Court ruled in favor of Rosario as being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano, she
has the right to the remains of Atty. Adriano, in accordance with Article 305 of the New Civil
Code and Article 199 of the Family Code.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Leonen expresses his dissent over the present petition because he believes that Valino is
the best person to carry or see through the final wishes of Atty. Adriano.
Justice Leonen stated that Article 305 of the New Civil Code shall only be considered when,
first, the deceased left no explicit instruction on how he wishes to be interred. Second, when
none among the deceaseds surviving relations are willing to make the funeral arrangements and
a conflict arises. And in these situations, the conflict must be settled according to the preference
stated in Article 199 of the Family Code.
When petitioners argued that Atty. Adriano insisted on being buried at with the Valinos and
invoked Article 307 of the Civil Code, ponencia and Justice Leonen shared different
interpretations. Ponencia interpreted Article 307 as the right to make arrangements for the funeral

remains with the person specified in Article 305 in relation to Article 199. However, Justice
Leonen interprets it as the right to determine ones funeral, including when and where one wishes
to be buried, and the absence of such wish will then need for other persons to decide for the
deceased. In the present case, there was no indication and not even any allegation that Atty.
Adriano did not freely and voluntarily relay his last wishes to the petitioner. Therefore, he did not
waive his right to determine where he should be buried.
Lastly, Justice Leonen clearly saw petitioners compassion and love towards the deceased. He
states that the Valino, being his companion throughout the years even beside his deathbead, was
the best person to relay Atty. Adrianos final wishes.