37)

In January 1983, the spouses Flores and Minerva Timan sent a telegram to their relatives
Mr. and Mrs. Midoranda to express their condolences to the latter spouses. The Timans
used the Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) to send the telegram. The
message in the telegram was: May God give you courage and strength to bear your loss.
Our deepest sympathy to you and members of the family.
RCPI delivered the correct message however, RCPI typed the message of condolence on
a birthday card and then placed the birthday card in a Christmas envelope. And so when
the spouses Midoranda received the telegram, they were embarrassed.
When the spouses Timan learned of this, they too were embarrassed. Mrs. Timan was too
embarrassed that she suffered nervousness and hypertension which led to her
confinement in a hospital.
Eventually, the Timans sued RCPI for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the
Timans. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. RCPI was ordered to pay the
Timans P30k for actual and compensatory damages, P10k for moral damages, P5k for
exemplary damages, and P5k for attorneys fees.
In its defense, RCPI averred that typing of the message onto a birthday card and then
placing the same in a Christmas envelope was an error in good faith. RCPI is also
contesting the award of exemplary damages, among others, in favor of the Timans on the
ground that it cannot be held liable for such because it committed no crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not RCPI is correct.
HELD: No. The act complained of is not a mere error in good faith. The message sent by
the Timans was clearly denominated as a telegram of condolence. It is therefore quite
odd for RCPI to place the same on a birthday card enclosed in a Christmas card. Such act
is a clear showing of carelessness and incompetence; it not only render violence to good
taste and common sense, they depict a bizarre presentation of the senders feelings. They
ridicule the deceaseds loved ones and destroy the atmosphere of grief and respect for the
departed.
Anent the issue of exemplary damages, it has been held that in contracts and quasicontracts, exemplary damages may be awarded if the defendant acted in a wanton,
fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. There was gross negligence on the
part of RCPI personnel in transmitting the controversial telegram, of which RCPI must be
held liable. Gross carelessness or negligence constitutes wanton misconduct.

80)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MOLINA G.R. No.
108763 February 13, 1997
Facts:
On April 14, 1985, Roridel Olaviano Molina, respondent was married to Reynaldo
Molina at the Church of Saint Augustine, Manila. From their marriage was borne a child
named Albert Andre Olaviano Molina. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo started
exhibiting signs of immaturity and irresponsibility. He preferred to spend more time
with the company of his friends and peers on whom he squandered money, he depended
on his parents for aid and assistance, ;and he was never honest with the family finances.
These circumstances led to frequent quarrels between the petitioner and respondent. In
February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, making Roridel the sole
breadwinner. On October 1986, they were both estranged from each other. In February
1986, Roridel moved back to Baguio with her parents and a few weeks later Reynaldo
abandoned Roridel and left Albert in her custody. Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel
could no longer live together as husband and wife because of Roridels strange behavior
and insistence to leave his group of friends eve after their marriage, Roridels refusal to
perform some of her marital duties like cooking meals, and Roridels failure to run the
household and handle their finances. On May, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
rendered judgment and declared the marriage void. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto
the Regional Trial Courts decision.
Issue:
Whether or not opposing and conflicting personalities is equivalent to psychological
Incapacity.
Ruling:
No. Psychological incapacity must be judged according to: (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. In this case, there was no clear showing of the
psychological incapacity but the mere showing of difficulty, refusal, neglect and
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities which do not constitute
psychological incapacity. In this case, it is not enough to prove that the parties failed to
meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. Essentially, it must be shown
that they are incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
Although there was evidence that the couple could not get along or are incompatible with
each other, there was no evidence of the gravity of the psychological incapacity; neither
its juridical antecedence nor incurability. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological, not physical.
The following guidelines must be proved in invoking psychological incapacity:
(1)The burden of proof to show nullity of the marriage lies in the plaintiff;
(2)The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:

a. Medically or clinically identified,

b. Alleged in the complaint,
c. Sufficiently proven by experts, and
d.Clearly explained in the decision.
(3)The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
(4)Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
(5)Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of
the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of
the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the state.

123)
EMILIO R. TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 116607 April 10, 1996
Facts:
Maria Victoria Lopez and Emilio Tuason were married on June 3,1972. Lopez alleged
that at the time of the marriage. Emilio was already psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations that became manifested afterwards. The
same resulted in violent fights. Emilio was also said to be using prohibited drugs, he was
a womanizer and gave minimal support to the family. Likewise, he became spendthrift
and abusive of his administration of the conjugal partnership by alienating some of their
assets without Victorias consent. Attempts for reconciliation failed because Emilios
refusal to reform. In the prayer of Victoria for annulment of marriage, she further prayed
for powers of administration to save the conjugal properties from further dissipation. At
variance, Emilio denied the imputation against him. Thereafter, trial ensued and Victoria
presented four witnesses including documentary evidence consisting of newspaper
articles of Emilios relationship with other women, his apprehension for illegal
possession of drugs and copies of prior church annulment decree. After Victoria rested
her case, reception for Emilios evidence was scheduled. It was postponed and on the
reset date, he failed to appear. The court then declared Emilio to have waived his right to
present evidence and deemed the case submitted for decision.
On June 29, 1990, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of Victorias
marriage to Emilio and awarded custody of the children to Ms. Lopez. Emilio filed a
petition for relief from judgment but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not a petition for relief from judgment is warranted under the circumstance of
the case where petitioner was declared in default due to non-appearance during the
hearing.
Ruling:
Rule 38, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, governs a petition for relief from
judgment. Under the rules, a final and executor judgment or order of the Regional Trial
Court may be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
In addition, the petitioner must assert facts showing that he has a good, substantial and
meritorious defense or cause of action. If the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to
hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.
Furthermore, the failure of counsel to notify his client on time of an adverse judgment to
enable the latter to appeal there from is negligence that is not excusable. Similarly
inexcusable is the failure of a counsel to inform the trial court of his clients confinement
and medical treatment as the reason for his non-appearance at the scheduled hearings.
Indeed, a petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy, allowed only in
exceptional cases where there is no other available or adequate remedy.

166)
METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO.vs. NICHOLSON PASCUAL G.R. No.
163744 February 29, 2008
Facts:
Respondent Nicholson Pascual and Florencia Nevalga got married on 1985. During the
union, Florencia bought from spouses Clarito and Belen Sering a 250-square meter lot in
with an apartment standing thereon. On year 1994, Florencia filed suit for the declaration
of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on part of Nelson under
Article 36 of the Family Code. RTC declared the marriage null and void. Also, it ordered
the dissolution and liquidation of the ex- spouses' conjugal partnership of gains. The s
pouses werent able to liquidate their conjugal partnership even after the declaration of
their legal separation. Sometime in 1997, Florencia with Sps. Norberto and Elvira
Oliveros obtained a loan from petitioner, Metrobank secured the obligation several Real
Estate Mortgage (REM) on their properties including one involving the lot bought from
Sering and showed a waiver made in favor of Florencia, covering the conjugal properties
with her ex-husband, but did not incidentally include the lot in question (bought from
Sering). When Florencia and Sps. Oliveros failed to pay their loan due, Metrobank
initiated foreclosure proceedings and caused the publication of auction sale on 3 issues of
the REMs. Nicholson filed a Complaint to declare the nullity of the mortgage of the
disputed property alleging that the property, which is conjugal, was mortgaged without
his consent. Metrobank in its answer: Alleged that the lot registered in the name of
Florencia was paraphernalia. Metrobank also asserted having approved the mortgage in
good faith. Florencia was declared in default for failure to file an answer within
reglementary period. RTc declared the REM Invalid and Metrobank is mortgagee in bad
faith on account of negligence. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Petitioner then
appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
a) Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage between the respondents
dissolved the regime of community of property of the spouses.
b)Whether the lot in question was conjugal and rendered the REM over the lot invalid.
Ruling:
No. The mere declaration of nullity of marriage, without more, does not automatically
result in a regime of complete separation when it is shown that there was no liquidation
of the conjugal assets.While the declared nullity of marriage of Nicholson and Florencia
severed their marital bond and dissolved the conjugal partnership, the character of the
properties acquired before such declaration continues to subsist as conjugal properties
until and after the liquidation and partition of the partnership. No.Art. 493 of the Civil
Code shall govern the property relationship between the former spouses, where:
Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But
the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be

limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination
of the co-ownership.
Florencia has the right to mortgage or even sell her undivided interests in the disputed
party even without the consent of Nicholson. However, the rights of Metrobank, as
mortgagee, are limited only to the 1/2 undivided portion that Florencia owned.
Accordingly, the mortgage contract insofar as it covered the remaining 1/2 undivided
portion of the lot is null and void, Nicholson not having consented to the mortgage of his
undivided half.

208)
JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCASG.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011
FACTS:
Petitioner, filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the
Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) before RTC of Valenzuela City. Respondent was
not served with a copy of the petition. Nonetheless, respondent learned of the petition to
establish filiation. His counsel therefore went to the trial court and obtained a copy of the
petition.Petitioner filed with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case.
Hence, on September 3, 2007, the RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance, issued the Order setting the case for hearing and urging anyone who has any
objection to the petition to file his opposition.After learning of the September 3, 2007
Order, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration.
Respondent averred that the petition was not in due form and substance because
petitioner could not have personally known the matters that were alleged therein. He
argued that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to
respondent as petitioners father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the
acceptability of DNA evidence.
ISSUE:
Should a court order for DNA testing be considered a search which must be preceded
by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid?
RULING:
Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient
justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a
court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed
regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost
universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can
constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find
that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood
testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. The
same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative
father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA
testing,the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable
possibility of paternity.Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a
DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for example,
consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already
preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be
corroborative, the court may, in its discretion,disallow a DNA testing.