You are on page 1of 68

Restrictions on Civil Capacity

Topic
Codal Provision
A.

B.1.

Presumption of Capacity
Restrictions on Capacity life, except in cases specified
to Act
by law. (n)
Order Numbered Two Hundred
Minority
Nine, and forshall
Other
requirement
bePurposes
imposed
on the exercise
of suffrage.
Numbered
Two Hundred
Nine,
and for Other Purposes
Minority

B.2.

Insanity

B.

B.3.

Deaf-Mutism

B.4.

Prodigality

B.5.

Civil Interdiction

B.6.

Family Relations

B.7.

Alien Age

B.8.

Absence

B.9.

Insolvency Trusteeship

mutes who do not know how


to write. (1263a)
manner,
the contents thereof.
(n)
of a will mentioned in article
805 of this Code. (n)
thereby an easy prey for
deceit and exploitation.
any act or any conveyance
inter
been vivos.
expressly remitted in
the pardon.
sisters, whether of the full or
half-blood
(217a)
husband and
wife without a
valid marriage. (133a)

absentee has expired. (181a)


Read: NCC 381-396
Any others specially
disqualified
law. (1459a)
by
law to beby
subject
to
rescission. (1291a)

Case
Standard Oil Co. v.
Arenas

Mercado v. Espiritu
Young v. Tecson
Bambalan
Maramba
Sia Suan &v.Gaw
Chiao
v.
Alcantara
Braganza v. De VillaAbrille
US
v. Vaguillar
Standard
Oil Co. v.
Arenas
People v. Rafanan

Facts
gave the bond on Dec. 15,
1908.

and unfounded complaint by


the plaintiffs.
where
it has been kept ever
since.
respondent was well aware
that
Isidro
was reversed
a minor. the
Appeals
which
CFI
sonsDecision.
when they signed the
contract.
been crazy because he cut
me
bonds given by her husband
while in a state
insanity.
December
1976of
and
stayed
there until 26 June 1978.

Relevant
Dates

Variables

Issue
December
15, 1908.

Held and Ratio


well that he was
insane.

were of legal had already reached


age.
their majority.
tortious
act (art. 1903,
Civil
Code).
question
the petitioner didn't
void
or
valid.
try
hideofhis
agedue
time of its
the to
deed
sale,
execution.
his
of loan they to
due
tominority.
their failure to
have signed. disclose their minority.
criminal
commission of the
liability.
capacity to crime.
never squandered any
act.
large sum of money.
commission
circumstance
under
of the crime. the art 13 of RPC.

Separate
Decision
Opinion
the court, has not been proved in this
case.

with the provisions of the law on


estoppel
see
to it that the other party has
sufficient
to bind
himself.
Thus, the capacity
sale is invalid.
(Minor
was
intimidated.)
estopped him from disavowing the
contract.
when converted to Philippine money is
equivalent to P1,166.67.
presumed that he was in a normal
state of mind.
increased to P30,000.00. Costs against
appellant.

Dissenting
Opinion

Additional
Notes

execution of
the sale.
disavowing
the
suchcontract.
as
easements.
(Minor was
in
bad of
faith.)
action
deceit.
prior to the
killing.
appellant
Rafanan.

Case
Requisites
Pugeda vs Trias
Sison vs Te Jay Li
Villar v Paraiso
Formal
Aranes v Occiano
Effects of
Requisites
Absence of
Martinez v Tan
Absence of
Authority-Form
Madridejo v De Leon
AuthorityMacua v Avenido
Marriage
Abbas v Abbas
Borja-Manzano vs Sanchez
Marriage
License
Ninal v Bayadog
Republic v Albios
Perido v Perido
Presumption of
Marriage
Fiel v Banawa
People vs Mendoza
People vs Aragon
Tolentino v Paras
Wiegel v Sempio-Dy
Void Marriages
Donato v Luna
Terre v Terre
Republic v Granada
Republic v Cantor
marriage upon
Jones v Hortiguela
reappearance
In re Szatraw
of absent
`Republic v CA & Molina
Choa and
v Choa
Appeals
Tadeo
Psychological
Bengzon
Republic
v QuinteroIncapacity
Hamano
Republic v Encelan
Effect of Nullity Yaptinchay v Torres
Fujiki v Marinay
Who can invoke
nullity
Garcia-Quiazon v Belen
declaring the
Republic v Olaybar
nullity of a
Wiegel v Sempio-Dy
Terre v Terre
Morigo v People
Tenebro v CA
Capili v People
Requisite for
People v Odtuhan
valid
remarriage Go-Bangayan v Bangayan
Jocson v Robles
No confession
of judgment
Tolentino v Villanueva
Buccat v Buccat
Voidable
Aquino v Delizo
Marriages:
Fraud

Voidable
Marriages:
Fraud
force,
intimidation
and undue
influence
Impotence
Procedure in
annulment
Marriage when
one spouse is
absent
Illegal
Marriages

Anaya v Palaroan
Sison v Te Lay Li
Ruiz v Atienza
People v Santiago
Sarao v Guevara
Jimenez v Canizares
Jocson v Robles
Tolentino v Villanueva
Jones v Hortiguela
Lukban v Republic
Gue v Republic
People v Masinsin

Facts
that the properties mentioned
in plaintiff's complaint were
joint properties of the plaintiff and the defendants.
SEE BELOW.
has never been cancelled,
nor respondent has requested
for
its
cancellation.
also agreed to officiate the marriage in an area outside his
jurisdiction
Orobia's
inability
travel
far.
document
signed bydue
theto
justice
of the
peacetoand
their
witnesses
(a
marriage
certificate).
Pedro Madridejo, a bachelor, 30 years of age, by the parish

priest
of the
Siniloan.
rights of her children
over
properties acquired by
Eustaquio.
that he solemnized the marriage of Syed Azhar Abbas and
GloriainGoo
at theinresidence
of the
on 34
Janu
marriage
question
accordance
withbride
Article
of the
Code.
to Norma alleging that Family
the said
marriage was void for lack
of a marriage license
court ruled that all children were legitimate.Petitioners
appealled to a higher court.
for bigamy because it took place after the death of Jovita
de Asis.
marriage with a certain Jesusa
C. Maglasang on October 3,
1953,
in
Sibonga,
Tolentino, her name. The lowerCebu.
Court dismissed the
petition
and void, she and the first husband Eduardo A. Maxion
having
been allegedly
forced
to enter
said marital
evidenced
by a joint
affidavit
executed
by themunion.
on
September
26,1978
disappearance until she found out later that respondent
married
Malicdem.
General (OSG),
fileda acertain
MotionVilma
for Reconsideration
of this
Decision.
check the patients directory whenever she went to a
hospital.
of General Orders, No. 68,
the marriage so contracted by
Felix
Hortiguela
and
Marciana
Escao
null and
void.the
and that her parental authority over
herischild,
should
latter
bemeals;
alive and
on appear,
be preserved.
cooking
andlater
(3) Roridel's
failure
to run the
household
and handle
their finances.
dimiss based
on a demurrer
to evidence
(objection based
on insufficient
evidence).
filed anew a Petition
for Annulment
of Marriage against
petitioner
Diana.
Toshio stopped giving
financial
support. The trial court
rendered
their
marriage
null anddifferences
void.
left their home because of irreconcilable
with
her
mother
inlaw.
her cohabitation with Isidro Y. Yaptinchay and for
damages.
the rule that only the husband
or wife of said marriage can
invoke
nullity.
was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution11
7 August
2009.
wife portion of thedated
alleged
marriage
contract is, in effect,
declaring the marriage void ab initio.
SEE ABOVE.
SEEherein
ABOVE.
Criminal Case No. 8688,
petitioner pleaded not
guilty
to
the
charge.
Trial
thereafter
requisites for validity, retroacts to the dateensued.
on which the
second
marriage
was
celebrated
that the second marriage between him and private
respondent
had already
been declared
void
by athe RTC.
marriage
with Modina.7
She thus
filed
ComplaintAffidavit8
charging
respondent
withinBigamy.
the
share of respondent
is declared
FORFEITED
favor of
Bernice
Go Bangayan
Bentley
summary
judgment,
on theand
ground
that Go
no Bangayan.
genuine issue of
fact isthat
involved
the case.
when he discovered
she isinresiding
in San Francisco,
Cebu.
nine days, the defendant
gave birth to a child nine
months,
on
23
February
1939.a marriage
not constitute such fraud as would annul
dismissed the complaint.

cohabiting with his distant relative and having children


with
her. do so without informing
whenever she pleased and
would
him of her
whereabouts.
would have difficulty
when
he would take the bar
examinations
due
to
rejection
on prosecution
moral grounds.
told him what had happened, and this
for rape
was
started.
impotency on the part of the defendants incapability to
offspring.
instead of annullingproduce
the marriage
the Court should have
punished her for contempt of court
SEE ABOVE.
SEE ABOVE.
ABOVE.
years, and because she SEE
intends
to marry again, she desires
her civil
status
definedisaspresumed
widowed.to be
orderthat
declaring
that
suchbe
absentee
dead."

Relevant Dates

pability to

Variables

Issue
purportedly co-owns
with Maria Ferrer is
valid
and his resignation was duly accepted, as
claimed,
thereby
removing his
gross
neglience
for solemnizing
thedisability.
marriage
outsideor
hisnot
territorial
jurisdiction
[1] Whether
the marriage
of Martinez
and
Tan
is
valid
certificate [2] Whether Melecio is a

legitimate
son ofby
Flaviana
and Pedro of
can
be overturned
the presumption
Whether orpetitioner's
not a validmarriage
marriage license is
issuedthe
by marriage
the couple
solemnizing
between
Manzano
Payao after it was
validity of the
secondand
marriage
dissolved due to their fathers death
Whether or not the marriage between
Perido and Baguilat is valid
[1] Whether or not the appellant is liable
fordefendant
bigamy could legally
[1] Whether the
contract
marriage
Jesusa
Maglasang
declared
as the with
surviving
spouse
of
Tolentino
[1] Whether or not petitioner's second
is the
validsuspension of
Abayan filedmarriage
leading to
criminal
caserespondent's
against petitioner
[1] the
Whether
or not
marriage
to
petitioner
is
void
ab
initio
under Article 41 of the Family Code based
on
the evidence belief
that respondent
presented
a well-founded
that Jerry is
already
dead.
marriage to the deceased Marciana Escano
is valid
no cause
action
whether or not
the CAofmade
an erroneous
interpretation
of psychological
incapacity
direction in failing
to rely on previous
jurisprudence?
ANNULMENT
OF MARRIAGE, ITS
TERMINATION
AND STATUS
Whether
or not respondent's
spouse was
truly
psychologically
incapable
Whether or not the CA is correct in ruling
that
Lolita
is not
psychologically
on the
basis
of their
19 years of incapable
conjugal
living
marriage between his or her spouse and a
foreign
on theinground
of bigamy
showncitizen
no interest
the letters
of
administration
annulment of marriage rather than a Rule
108 proceeding
PENAL CODE, CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN
INDISPENSABLE
REQUISITE.
the petitioner
with bigamy
despite the
non-existence
of
the
first
marriage
ground for dismissal of the criminal
case
for
bigamy
bigamy despite the fact that his first
marriage
was annulled
Whether
or not Benjamin
is guilty of
bigamy
Relations is correct
in denying the motion
forannulled
summarybased
judgment
marriage
on evidence
whether or notprovided
defendant's cause for
annulment
is valid
whether or not Aquino
can annul his
marriage on claims of fraud

relationship with another woman is a


ground
for annulment
of marriage
whether
plaintiff
has grounds
of annulment
based
on
claims
of
her
forced
consent
whether or not Jose Ruiz was forced
to
marry
Atienza
under
duress
to Felicita exonerates him from the crime
of rape for annulment of
impotency and is grounds
marriage
claimed and testified
that his wife was and
is impotent

as to the presumptive death of petitioner's


husband candeath
be made
as to the presumptive
of petitioner's
husband can be made

Held and
is assigned to the widow,
butRatio
if she passes away, the
certificate passes to their heirs.

childrenDecision
at the rate of
one-eighth per child.

holding a religious position granting him the power to solemnize


marriages
HOWEVER, he cannot avoid
liability for violating the law on

votes still cannot be


elected
office)
future
will into
be dealt
with

marriage.
before the justice of the peace,
witnesses disagree AND letters
addressed
to
Tan
prove
the
shakiness
of thisand
evidence.
compulsion, before or after their marriage,
therefore

more severely
instance
against the
appellant.
Madridejo and Flaviana

ore said
marriage
did Trinity
not legitimate
him.
parish priest
of the
Most Holy
Cathedral
of Talibon,
Bohol.
license in Carmona, Cavite despite her and petitioner not
residing is
inait.
subsisting previous marriage
diriment impediment,
which would make the subsequent marriage null and void.
f

Perez. So ordered.
pronouncement
as to
costs.
9, 1993 is hereby
REINSTATED.
Sanchez
is increased to
ASIDE. P20,000.
The said case is
ordered REINSTATED.

YES. To protect the sanctity of marriage, there is


presumption of marriage and legitimacy.

affirmed, with costs


against the petitioners.

no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity, as acquitted, with costs de


distinguished
from mere
annulable
marriages.
officio
so ordered.
contracting
this marriage
can not
prosper.
(SEE: Ruling on
marriage
can not
People
vs
Mendoza)
prosper.
respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and
Civil Registrar of
void
from
the
beginning
and
of
no
force
and
effect.
Paombong,
Bulacan.
Eduardo A. Maxion having been allegedly forced to enter said are hereby AFFIRMED.
marital
union.
Costs
against petitioner.
left their abode upon
learning
that Leonilo Donato was
no
pronouncement
as to
already
previously
married.
costs.
should know that a judicial declaration of the marriage
be circularized to all
being
void
ab
initio
is
essential.
the
courts
theCV
land.
him presumptively dead is already final and can no longer be 2009
in CAof
G.R.
No.
modified
or
reversed.
90165
are
AFFIRMED.
end, but she did not. Worse, she failed to explain these
hereby REVERSED and
omissions.
SET ASIDE.
marriage is, therefore, valid and lawful.
and which
are conjugal
For
properties
A judicialsufficiently
declarationproven
based by
solely
uponand
that(d)
presumption
may not
experts
clearly explained
in be made.
and remains valid.
the decision
SO
failed to identify and prove
the root cause of the alleged
psychological
He failed
to prove
rootFamily
cause.
nullity of theincapacity.
marriage based
on Article
36 the
of the
Code
7 andalleged
on grounds
of psychological
incapacity.
never
nor proven
to be due to
some kind[2]ofNo.
REVERSED and SET
psychological
illness.
ASIDE.to Lolita
these are simply grounds for legal separation. They are not his marriage
signs
of a and
disordered
Castillo
Encelan.
industry or their
wages
salariespersonality.
shall be governed by the aside.
Costs
against
rules
on
co
ownership."
petitioner.
Marinay. (Also to recognize Japanese Family Court Ruling,
accordance with this
you
need
a
proof
of
fact.)
San Nicolas de Tolentino in Capas, Tarlac[3] NO. Elise is as an August Decision.
2009 Resolution,
interested
party
and
stands
to
benefit
as
an
heir
of
Eliseo.
are
AFFIRMED
speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage
16519CEB, in
aretoto
to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence.
AFFIRMED.

and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. As such,


moral certainty. SO
one
of
the
elements
of
bigamy
is
not
present.
ORDERED.
nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for maximum,
is AFFIRMED
the
avoidance
of
criminal
liability
for
bigamy.
in
toto.
marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of G.R. CR No. 30444 are
nullity,
thebecrime
had
already
consummatedof
hereby
AFFIRMED SO
which
may
raised
only
duringbeen
the presentation
further
proceedings.
ORDERED.
represented themselves evidence
as husband and wife without the
No.
94226. SO
benefit
of marriage.
indications of collusion
between
the parties in their attempt from isORDERED.
affirmed. Costs
to secure the nullification of said marriage.
against theWITH
appellant.
DISMISSED.
COSTS
efuses to submit
himself
for interrogation.
Refer
tosociety
Articlesrests.
88 and
AGAINST
Civilthe
Code.
PETITIONER.
See above.
is that
is foundation
upon which
the
To101
do of the
against
appellant.
away
with
it,
one
must
come
up
with
grave
reasons.
So
it
is
ordered.
already been adduced would, in our opinion, be sufficient to
quo for new trial.
sustain the fraud alleged by plaintiff.
Without costs.

fraud should have been brought within four years after the
order is hereby
marriage.
affirmed.
No costs.
lending credence to the plaintiff's complaint.The marriage petitioner rather
than
was
also
not
ratified
by
cohabitation.
Php
1200.
pointed out in appellee's brief. Force or violence, as well,
does void
not include
intimidation.
Judgment
was therefore
for lackmere
of essential
consent,
and it affirmed, with costs against appellant.
supplies
no incapacity
impediment
to thebeprosecution
of the to
wrongdoer.
occasional
cannot
used as a ground
nullify a
marriage
and seeks. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be
pronouncement as to
deemed to have been satisfactorily established.
costs.

which a competent court has to pass. It suffers from juris


tantum ( a rebuttable presumption).
No. Same ruling as In Re Szatraw.

Separate Opinion

costs against appellant.

Dissenting Opinion

JOHNS, J., dissenting: I dissent and the judgment of the


lower court should be affirme

marriage before the former marriage has been legally


dissolved".
Reyes dissent: same logic as in People v Mendoza

criminal law never existed and for that reason, one of


the essential elements of bigamy has disappeared.

Additional Notes

proceeding for the declaration of


presumptive death of the absentee
e

and that the second or subsequent marriage


has all the essential requisites for validity

Topicand
Concept
Historical
Background
Agreement to

Case
Benedicto v de la Rama
Albano v Gapusan
separate
In Re: Attorney Rufillo Bucana
Tenchavez vs Escano
Van Dorn vs Rommillo
Divorce decreed
abroad
Pilapil vs Somero
Garcia-Recio vs Garcia
Goitia vs Campos
Grounds for Legal People vs Zapanta
Separation
Gandionco vs Penaranda
Munoz vs Barrios
Contreras vs Macaraig
Lapuz vs Eufemio
When may
petitions be filed? Matubis vs Praxedes
Bugayong vs Ginez
Yangco vs Rohde
Support and
custody
Pendente
Cooling off Period De La Vina vs Villareal
Araneta vs Concepcion
Somosa-Ramos vs Vamenta
Lerma vs CA
Defenses
People vs Sansano
(Consent)
People vs Schneckenberger
Defenses
Bugayong vs Ginez supra
(Condonation)
Defenses
Brown vs Yambao
(Recrimination)
Defenses
Ocampo vs Florenciano
(Collusion)
Custody of
Matute vs Macadaeg
Children
Use of Surname
Laperal vs Republic

Facts
This is an action for divorce. The complaint, which was filed on October
29,
1901, alleged,
grounds
therefor,dated
abandonment
and
adultery.
The
Redentor
Albano as
in the
a verified
complaint
August 18,
1975
charged
Municipal Judge
Patrocinio
C. Gapusan
of Dumalneg
Adams,
Ilocos
Respondent
was required
by the
SC to show
cause as toand
why
he should
not
beRefer
disciplinarily
dealth
with
for
the
following
notarization:
to Effect and Application of Laws; Binding Effect
Refer to Effect and Application of Laws; Binding Effect
Refer to Effect and Application of Laws; Binding Effect
Petition for review of RTC decision.
Action for support outside of conjugal domicide by wife against
husband.
Special civil action for Certioari with application for injuction to
annul 1.) the order of respondent Judge that petitioner pay support
An Appeal from decision of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Said
Courtfor
dsimissed
petitioner's
complaint
for Leg.Sep.
on the
A petition
certiroari
on an order
of the Juvenile
& Domestic
Relations Court of MNL. Said order dismissed a case for Leg.Sep.
A
case for Leg.Sep.
Petitioner Benjamin
Bugayong
filed
case for
jurisdiction
over thesubject-matter
of the action;
(2) that
theapetition
legal
speration
in
the
CFI
wherein
on
motion
of
defendant,
the case
does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause action
Narcisa Geopano filed a complaint against De La Vina in the CFI of
Iloilo
for allegedly
committing
adultery
withagainst
an Anahis
Calog
and
The main
action was
brought by
Petitioner
wife,
one of
the
Respondent
herein,
for
legal
separation
on
the
ground
of
On June 18, 1971, petitioner filed in the sala of respondent Judge
against
Clemente
Ramos
legal
separation,
on19,
Teodoro respondent
E. Lerma and
Concepcion
Diazfor
were
married
on May
1951.
On
Augustand
22,1969
theVentura
petitioner filed
a complaint
for29,
Ursula
Sensano
Mariano
married
on
concubinage
through reckless
imprudence were
and sentenced
to aApril
penalty
of
1919.
Theyand
hadone
one
child.
Shortly
after
the birth
of his child, the
two months
day
of arresto
mayor.
Hence
his appeal
July 14, 1955 William Brown filed legal separation that while
internedand
by Japanes
Invaders
from 1942
to 1945
his wife
Juanita
Plaintiff
defendant
were married
in April
5, 1938.
They
begot
several children
who legal
are now
living with
plaintiff.
In March,
1951,
Armando
Medel filed
separation
against
Rosario
Matute
for
adultery
and1960,
was granted
such infiled
1952
as custody
of their
On
May 10,
Elisea Laperal
in as
thewell
Court
of First Instance
of Baguio (Sp Proc. No. 433) a petition which reads: That

Relevant Dates/ Laws in Effect


Judge Gapusan notarized the contract in issue in 1941.

Family Code was in effect here.

Case was docketed in 1987 but events involved happened 19861987. Thus, Family Code not yet in effect here.
NCC was in effect here.

1902, Old Civil Code was in effect


1920, Old Civil Code
1956, New Civil Code
1972, New Civil Code
1974, New Civil Code
1933,Old Civil Code
1941, Old Civil Code
1957, At the time the case was decided upon New Civil Code, but
marriage
ofCivil
parties
is covered by Old Civil Code
1960, New
Code
1956, New Civil Code
1960, New Civil Code

Variables

Atty. X notarized a contract betwen married couple, A and B. The contract,


in effect, allowed A & B to remarry and prohibited either from filing suit

X married Australian A in the RP but they eventually got divorced.


X Then got Australian citizenship. X then married Y, a Filipina, in
Y filed for Leg.Sep. on grounds of concubinage against X. Then, Y
filed a criminal charge of concubinage against X. Judge J ruled that
X and Y are married. X thenafter presumable resided with A.

X and Y were married. While X was away, he heard of Y's infidelity.


A filed divorce against B
A
that
B pay Alimony
and Attorney's fees while case is
A demands
filed divorce
against
B
A
a preliminary
preventing
B from alienating
A filed
filed for
divorce
against Binjunction
on the grounds
of B committing
adultery
B
filed
omnibus
petition
granting
her
custody
of
the
children
A files leg sep against B, Also A files prelim injunction againstand
B for
the
return
of
her
paraphernal
and
exclusive
property,
B
opposses
A filed adultery against B, While adultery case was pending B filed
leg
sep against
A with custody of children, separation of property,
A married
B
A
for Cagayan
and did not return to domicile for 3 years
A left
married
B
A and B agreed to live seperately and composed document stating
A files legal separation against B on grounds of B having
adulterous
relations
during
his internment
A
married B,
A discovers
B had
illicit relations with C, A sent B to
Manila
to study,
A discovered
that while
Manila
B had
illicit of
A
files leg
sep against
B, A is granted
leginsep
and also
custody
children,
brings
children
to Sep
Manila
for her father's
funeral
with
A
files legBsep
against
B, Leg
is granted,
A desires
that se
be
permitted to se her maiden name, Petition was opposed by City

Issues
Whether or not the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over
divorce
cases
[1] whether or not Albano
can file
a malpractice charge versus
Gapusan due to notarizing the document [2] whether or not

1.) WoN the documents presented by the respondent


were sufficient to state that he had legal capacity to
1.) Is Petitioner correct in his contention that "a criminal
case must first be settled before any consequences of a
1.) WoN the J&DR Court erred in stating that petitioner
Contreras
became
of the
cause in September
1.) WoN death
of a cognizant
party abates
proceedings
of an
action for Leg.Sep.
WoN there was condonement on part of Petitioner.
W/N Obin (A) can claim alimony from (B) while the case
was
pending
and woman
"although
theacquire
question
of validityorof
1. W/N
a married
may
a residence
domicile
separate
from
that of
husband
during
W/N the court
would
violate
theher
6 month
cooling
offthe
period
admitting
that
would
determine
W/N Artby
103
(Coolingevidence
of period)
would
preclude
court
from acting upon a motion for preliminary injunction
pleased, and by his silence for seven years notwithstanding that
he was informed of said adultery.
W/N The accused can be charged with concubinage
under Section 344 of the RPC
W/N legal separation can prosper when offended spouse
committed
thewas
same
offense
and case
filed against said
W/N collusion
present
in this
W/N the custody of the children should be granted to
the petitioner
W/N
Rule 103 which refers to change of name in general
will prevail over the specific provision of Art. 372 of the

Held and Ratio


[1] YES. Given that marriage is a sacred institution, he
may
beAs
sanctioned
as Justice
a notary
public but
not a judgev.
[1]
NO.
stressed by
Malcolm
in Panganiban
Borromeo,4 it is for the notary to inform himself of

1.) NO. At time of marriage to petitioner,


respondent was a foreigner and was thus subject
1.) NO. Art.3, Sec.3 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
Procedure only refers to "...civil actions to
1.) YES. The SC is convinced that the only
considerable
occassion
where
there cognizance
1.) YES. An action
for legal
separation...is
purely
personal.
YES. Though there is no precedence in our
courts,
American
jurispridence
statethe
that
any of
No. As stated
by the
judge himself
validity
the
marriage
clear nor
wasgiven
it without
1. Yes.
Wherewas
thenot
husband
has
cause
for
divorce,
the
wife
may
acquire
another
No. The cooling off period is to allow
reconcilliation
to prevent
the Article
fanning103
of the
it is the holdingand
of this
Court that
Civil Code is not an absolute bar to the hearing
Yes, the court erred. Apart from the fact that the
husband
this
casehand,
was assuming
mere
No. Upon in
the
other
we believea and
sopose
hold
that the accused should be acquitted of the
No. Article 100 of NCC: The legal separation may
be claimed
only
by the innocent
spouse,
No.
Collusion
in divorce
or legal separation
means
the agreement
between husband
and wife
No.
Respondent
had, admittedly,
the custody
of
saidIn
minors.
Petitioner merely
obtained
his is
No.
Legal Separation
the married
status
unaffected by the separation. The finding that

Judgment
WHEREFORE, the respondent, as a member of the bar, is censured for having
notarized
the above
mentioned
void agreement.
The
secondis charge
is malpractice
dismissed. SO
WHEREFORE,
We hold
that respondent
Rufillo D.
Bucana
guilty of
and is hereby suspended from the office of notary public for a period of six (6)

WHEREFORE, in the interest of orderly procedure and and substantial


justice, we REMAND the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against
petitioner.
WHERFORE, the decision appealed from is set aside and another is hereby
rendered
holding
that
appellant
is entitled
to legal
separation...the
case
is
ACCORDINGLY,
the
appealed
judgment
of the
Manila
Court of Juvenile
and
Domestic Relations is hereby affirmed. No special pronouncements as to
Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing, the order appealed from
is
hereby
wuth
costs against
appellant.
is sobut
ordered
(order
of
The
court affirmed,
below had
jurisdiction
to try the
divorceItsuit,
he was
without
jurisdiction
to grant
alimony
when that
the right
to claim alimony
had not
It
follows
from
all ofthe
thealimony
foregoing
the respondent,
Honorable
courts
order
fixing
and requiring
payment the
is reversed.
Antonio
Villareal,
as Auxiliary Judge sitting in the Court of First Instance of
Without
costs. delay
proceed without
to hear the motion for preliminary mandatory injunction. Costs
against
respondent
Clemente
rendered in the pending actionG.
forRamos.
legal separation between the parties. No
pronouncement as to costs.
We cannot accept the argument of the Attorney-General that the seven
years
acquiescence
on his partwe
in do
thenot
adultery
ofbe
hismisconstrued
wife is explained
In thisof
arriving
at this conclusion
with to
as
legalizing an agreement to do an illicit act, in violation of law. Our view
The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. So
ordered.
of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved, with costs
against the Petitioner.
ORDERED.
WHEREFORE,
the order It
of is
theSO
lower
court of December 1, 1960, granting the
petition, is hereby set aside and the petition dismissed. Without costs. So ordered.

Other Information
The respondent judge here was censured due
to his unawareness of legal prohibition against

With regards to divorces decreed abroad:


"Presentation solely of the divorce decree
Added notes as to proving concubinage:
"A decree of legal separation, on the
Added notes: Whereas Art.102 of the NCC
gives a double prescription for Leg.Sep,

Obligation to Live
Together
Family Domicile

Grounds for Legal


Separation

When may petitions


be filed?

Case
Atilano v Chua Ching Beng
Goitia v Campos-Rueda
Arroyo v. Vasquez-de Arroyo
Ramirez-Cuaderno v Cuaderno
Abella v COMELEC

Facts
Chua Ching Beng and Pilar Atilano were living in Manila with the former's
parents
they visited
Atilano'sagainst
parentsrespondent,
at Zamboango.
Respondent
This when
is an action
by petitioner
her husband,
for left
support
theand
conjugal
Thede
pertinent
allegations
the
Mariano outside
B. Arroyo
Doloresdomicile.
C. Vazquez
Arroyo were
united of
in the
bonds
of wedlock
by marriage
in living
the year
1910, and
since
that date,
Petitioner
and respondent
were
separately
since
November
17,with
1956a
when
respondent,
afterP.having
on petitioner
in the
Petitioner
Benjamin
Abellainflicted
was the bodily
officialinjuries
candidate
of the Liberal
Party for provincial governor of Leyte in the local election held on

Relevant Dates/ Laws in Effect


1958- Article 110 of the Civil Code
1916- Spanish Civil Code
1910
1964- Civil Code
Animus Revertendi- legal doctrine stating intent to return to reside in a
certain place; Article 68 and 69 of the Family Code

Variables
X married Y. X and Y live with Y's parents. X hates her in-laws and files for
support
and
apart
from
herbeyond
husband.
rules
against
it because
A married
B.to
B live
forced
A into
acts
herCourt
conjugal
duties.
A refused
so
B
maltreated
A.
A
filed
for
support
outside
the
conjugal
home.
A and B are married. A leaves their conjugal home, stating that B is cruel
her. Courtmistreated
rules in favor
Supreme
Court home.
finds that
A isfor
jealous
af
Ctophysically
D soof
D A.
left
the conjugal
D filed
support
theB Juvenile
Relations Court
and won.
C took
the domicile
case to
Ainand
both ranand
for Domestic
office. A petitioned
to disqualify
B as
her real
is Ormoc, not Kananga. B claimed animus revertendi but the court ruled

Issues
Whether a wife is entitled to receive support from her husband
where she
refused
to live
with
account
of some
whether
or not
petitioner
can
filehim
for on
support
based
on the
actions
of
her
husband
[1] whether or not respondent is entitled to live apart from the
conjugal
[2]petitioner
whether or
not petitioner
is entitled
to a
whetherhome
or not
is entitled
to support
from her
husband
thatisshe
was driven
away
from their
whetheron
or the
not grounds
respondent
allowed
to claim
residency
in
Kananga, Leyte based on the concept of animus revertendi

Held and Ratio


[1] NO. The law, in giving the husband authority to fix
the conjugal
residence,
does notand
prohibit
him
from
YES.
This is done
from necessity
with a
view
to
preserve
the
public
peace
and
the
purity
of
the
wife;
[1] NO. Upon considering the evidence, the Court ruled
that
is the
jealousy
of the
wife both
that parties
makes the
YES.itFor
while
marriage
entitles
to
cohabitation
or
consortium,
the
sanction
therefor
[1] NO. There is no evidence to prove that the is
petitioner temporarily left her residence in Kananga,

Judgment
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby modified by giving the defendant
husband Chua Ching Beng
the option
of supporting
his wife at their conjugal
Petitioner
is entitled
to support.
Plaintiff is entitled to a judicial declaration that the defendant absented herself
without
sufficient
cause and
is her
duty
return.
is alsoand
notthat
entitled
to
WHEREFORE,
the decision
ofitthe
Court
of to
Appeals
is She
set aside
of the
Juvenile
Domestic
Court
is hereby
revived,
without
costs. So
The
Courtand
does
not findRelations
any reason
to reverse
and
set aside
the questioned
decision and resolution of the COMELEC. The COMELEC has not acted without or in

Other Information

Person Assigned
Absolute
Community
Conjugal
Partnership

Mela

Nomar

Rean

Ate Ning

Rey de Juan

Rey Lu

Judy

Sitty

Bea

Case
Spouses
Abrenica
Delizo vs vs
Delizo
Ballados vs CA
Jocson vs CA
Ansaldo vs
Sheriff
Castro vs Miat
PNB vs Quintos
Laperal vs
Katigbak
Barciles vs GSIS
Veloso vs
Martinez
Plata vs Yatco
Lim vs Garcia
Manotok Realty
vs
CA & Felipe
Palanca
vs
Smith-Bell
Lim Quenco&vs
Cartagene
Torela vs Torela
PNB vs CA
Magallon vs
Montejo
Cuenca vs
Cuenca
Dela Pena vs
Avila
Tan vs Andrade
Zulueta vs Pan
Mendoza vs
Reyes
Castillo vs
Pasco
Calimlim vs
Fortun
Maramba vs
Lozano
Javier vs
Osmena
Vda. De Sta.
Romana
vs PCIB
DBP vs Adil
Luzon Surety vs
de
BA Garcia
Finance vs
CA

Carlos vs
Abeardo

Joker

Effect of
abandonment
Effect of
dissolution
Effect of
dissolution
Regime of
Separation of
Property
Regimes of

Raizza
Raizza
Raizza
Joe

Mario

Cole

Jerell

People vs
Lagrimas
Ysasi vs
Fernandez
Felipe vs Heirs
of
Aldon
Aguilar-Reyes
vs
De Mijares
la Cruz vs
De
la Cruz
Buemer
vs
Amores
Santero vs CFI
Garcia vs
Manzano
Lacson vs San
Jose-Lacson
Maxey vs CA
Salas, Jr. vs
AGuila
Juaniza vs Jose
Gomez vs
Lipana
Vda. De
Consuegra
Yap vs CA vs
Carino vs
Carino
Go-Bangayan vs
Bangayan
Ventura, Jr. vs
Spouses Abuda

Facts (differentiate decision from lower court, appelate court, & supreme court)
Nicolas Delizo married twice. The first was with Rose Villasfer from 1891-1909;
the second was with Dorothea de Ocampo from 1911-1957.The action for partition
Emilio Jocon and Alejandra Jocson were husband and wife.
The
wife Angel
died first
intestate
the husband
followed.
Appellee
Ansaldo
stoodthen
as guarantor
for Romarico
Agcaoili.
indemnify
the Surety
for
Father ofHe
twopromised
children,toMoises,
widower
(wife Company
died in 1978),
originally
intended
his granted
two properties,
one in Paco
and to
thethe amount of P31,284
On June 20,
1918 PNB
the defendants
a credit
to which
1. The Pascual
LaperalsBerciles
instituted
complaint
against His
Katigbak
and Kalaw
seeking
the
Judge
dieda of
cardiac arrest.
retirement
benefits,
unpaid
salary, retirement premiums and terminal leave and representation and

Felipe Madlangawa, respondent claims that he hasbeen occupying a parcel of land


in
the Clara
Tambunting
dethe
Legarda
sincea 1949
upon permission
--Smith
Bell de
& Co
(SB-Co.), in
CFI ofSubdivision
MNL, obtained
judgement
against
Emiliano
Boncan
for
a
sum
of
money.
CFI
further
executed
that
such
sum shall be
Mi no espanol

Antonia Dela Pena (Antonia) obtained from A.C.Aguila & Sons, Co. (Aguila) a loan
in
the sum
ofDe
P250,000.00
with
at 5%
per month.
a
Rosario
Vda.
Andrade was
theinterest
registered
owner
of fourAntonia
parcels executed
of land situated
in
Cebu City,
which
she and
mortgaged
to and
were subsequently
foreclosed
by one
Spouses
Rafael
Zulueta
Telly Albert
Zulueta,
with their daughter
boarded
a
PANAM
plane
from
Honolulu
to
Manila,
the
first
leg
of
which
was
Wake
Island.
Ponciano and Julia were married in 1915. The properties in question consisting of

Lots
5 and 61931,
(Blk 132
Retiro,
QC), Sr
were
bought
on installment
basis. (widower
The spouses
In
October
Marcelo
Castillo
(widow)
married
Macaria Pasco
with

2 previous for
husbands).
Onon
December
22, 1932,
Gonzales
co-owners of the
Petition
Review
Certiorari.
Thisspouses
is to assail
the precedent

resolution
of CFI of Pangasinan, Brach I which decided in the case of CORAZON

FIRST DIVISION
G.R.
No. L-56479
November
15, 1982

On February
10, 1940,
Spouses
Patricio Confesor and Jovita Villafuerte obtained
an
agricultural
loan
amounting
to
2000
Development
of the
Philippines

Petitioner executed a surety bond in favor


of from
PNB the
to guaranty
a crop loan
granted
by the
latter to Chavez in the sum of PhP 9,000. Vicente Garcia, together with Ladislao Chavez

In October 1989, respondent and his wife Maria Theresa Carlos-Abelardo


requested petitioner to advance them the amount of US$25,000 for the purchase


Thewas
accused
Froilan
wasold)
found
guilty
crime
murder
husband
already
oldLagrimas
(77 years
and
hadof
a the
blind
left of
eye,
and in
the
Samar
on
February
19,
1960
and
sentenced
to
reclusion
perpetua
as
well
as to pay
he
abandoned
their
properties
without
just
cause.
lands back, saying that the lands were only mortgaged and that they
were
offereing
to illiteracy
redeem such
mortgage
spouses
Felipethe
refused.
advantage
of his
and that
he didbut
notthe
really
petitioned
court
for guardianship and authorization.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in Bacolod City on Feb 1, 1938.
They
are engaged
varied business
ventures in
Bacolod married
and Manila.
The plaintiff
Petitioner,
a DutchinNational,
and respondent,
a Filipina,
in March
29,
1980.
On
November
10,
2000
the
RTC
of
Negros
Oriental
declared
the
nullity
Petitioners Princesita Santero-Morales, Federico Santero and Winy Santero areofthe
children
begotten
Santero with
Pacursa
whilesince
private
Garcia alleges
thatby
hethe
andlate
his Pablo
wife Manazano
haveFelixberta
been living
separately
1948.
Gracia
was
a veterinary
and Manzano
was engaged
in the business
Alfonso
Lacson
and
Carmen Sandoctor
Jose-Lacson
were married
on February
14, 1953of
and to thenMaxey
were born
four children.
January
9, 1963,
left the
Melbourne
and Regina
Morales,On
both
deceased
livedCarmen
as husband
and wife in
Davao, and to them were born six children, the petitioners. The petitioners claim

Jose Consuegra married Rosario Diaz and begot two children both of whom predeceased
Josetwice.
Consuegra
for a
secondandhad
time with
a Basiliawith
Berdin.
Maning YapJose.
married
First married
with Talina
Bianong
4 children
her, 2
of
which
died
during
infancy.
Second
with
Nancy
Yao
and
also
had
4
children
with
SPO4 Santiago S. Carino married twice. First with Susan Nicdao and begot two
childrend.
Second with
Yee and had
no children.
SantiagoAlegre.
died under
Benjamin Bangayan,
Jr. Susan
was previously
married
to one Azucena
WhenSusan
his
wife
left
for
the
US,
Benjamin
developed
a
romantic
relationship
with
Sally
Go
Esteban (Abletes) and Soccoro (Torres) were married in 1980. Both had children
from prior marriage, Evangeline (Abuda) was the daughter of Esteban from a

FC or NCC? (+ relevant dates/laws)


FC, Art 92, par. (3)
Spanish Civil Code

Variables

Civil Code- while the case was filed


in
1989, Civil
marriage
Spanish
Code occured prior to
Civil Code Art 153 (1) The
following
are conjugal
Spanish
Civil Code
NCC
NCC

Issues
(1) WoN the two motor vehicles
as
well
the house
and lotby
WoN
theasproperty
acquired
homesteadi is conjugal property
Poblete is conjugal property or
exclusive property.
WON a joint savings account and
a
joint
current
(1)
WON
Pacoaccount,
propertyinisa conjug
Whether or not they are jointly
liable
for property
the debtsinincurred
WON the
question
constitutes
the paraphernal
Is the GSIS decision
valid

NCC.
:(
Spanish Civil Law. No specification Property A was the
as to marriage settlement but
exclusive property of

W/N Don Vicente Legarda could


validly
disposeof the
paraphernal
W/N a propoerty
owned
by
Alejandra is liable to levy

NCC 160
NCC 160 (Rosario's husband died on
August
NCC 7, 1978)
NCC
NCC
Article 158 of Civil Code, Manresa's
Commentary on Article 1404 of the

Whether or not the CA erred in


reversing
the RTC holding
WoN the properties
were the
exclusive
properties
of Rosario
Whether or
not the damages
involved
part
of disputed
the conjugal
Whether are
or not
the
propertiesorare
or
Whether
notconjugal
the litigated
fishpond
conjugal orof conjugal
(1) W/N is
construction
house on the exclusive property

NCC
>Writ
NCC of execution-a court order to
NCC

Does the wife need to be a


party
in or
the
to bind the
Whether
notcase
conjugal
partnership
is liable
for the debt in
Whether or not
a conjugal
partnership, in the absence of any

Issue: W/N A&L Industries is a


conjugal property and therefore
should be held liable for the
obligations contracted by Augusto
Yulo
Issue: W/N the conjugal
partnership is liable for the loan

NCC
NCC 165, 166, 172
NCC 166, 173.
NCC (Art 167 and 178)
NCC
Section
7 Article
1987
NCC (Art.
290 andXII188)
NCC
NCC
Old CC (i think)

NCC
NCC
FC
NCC and Family Code

3 cases decided in 1

A married B, A married C
in
good faith
firstC
A married
B, Awhile
married
while
marriage
with B
A married
B, A married
C, A dies, C claims she is

fines and indemnities imposed


upon Lagrimas may be satisfied
W/N the wife may deprive the h
W/N the heirs may seek the an
W/N the sale is annullable; and
1. W/N the separation of the
defendant
from the (a
plaintiff
W/N the petitioner
foreigner)
can
claim
reimbursement
for the
W/N support / allowance can
be
granted
to
the
children
despite
Whether or not there is sufficient
ground
of judicial
Whetherfor
orthe
notdecree
the compromise
agreement
themilitary
spouses
(1)
Whetherbetween
or not the
fashion marriage of Melbourne

1. Whether or not a wife of a


void
subsequent
marriage
is is
Whether
or not Leyes
Partidas
applicable
in spouse
deaths of
wherein
Whether the
a void the
subsequent
marriagerelations
is entitled
won a the property
of
second
marriage
contracted
Whether or not Esteban and
Socorro were co-woners of the

Judgment
(1) NO. Petitioner Erland had a previous marriage. Art. 92, par. (3) of the Family
Code
the community
thethe
property
acquired
before theCourt
80% toexcludes
the 2nd from
marriage,
20% to theproperty
first. From
findings
of the Appellate
that 66 hectares of
Article 60 of the Civil Code states that the property is presumed to belong to the
conjugal
NO. The decision of the lower court is affirmed by the
Supreme
AlthoughCourt
petitioners allege that property was paid for by
Moises
and
theCode
time1698
it was
paid, his
wife
had long
Under New at
Civil
it states
that
partners
arebeen
not solidarily liable with
respect
to
the
debt
NO Indeed, all properties acquired during the marriage are, by law, presumed
conjugal.
The between
presumption
however
notdeceased
conclusivewas
butsufficiently
merely rebuttable.
This
is a
The
marriage
Iluminada
andisthe
proved and
ruled
upon by this court, fully supported by appropriate evidence as certified by the civil

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the


decision
appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET
As the SC saw it,
--An examination of evidence showed that Emiliano indeed gave Alejandra property

No, petition is denied. CA decision affirmed in toto.


Yes, pertinent to the resolution of this issue is Article 160 of the Civil Code which
states
that "[a]ll agreement
property of(payment)
the marriage
is presumed
to belong
the conjugal
The compromise
is effective
insofar
as it is to
deductible
from
the
aggregate
award
(~P700,000
-see
Held
and
Ratio),
and
because
it
is
due
from
The properties are conjugal. The Civil Code provides:
ART.fishpond
153. Theisfollowing
are conjugal
partnership
property:
The
partly paraphernal
(1/6)
and partly
conjugal (5/6). For the first
installment
(P1,000),
wife Issue
under1,Art.
the CC cannot
bind
the conjugal
The
Court held
that tothe
resove
it is1418
firstof
necessary
to settle
interpretation
concerning Paragraph 2 of Article 158 of the Civil Code: "Buildings constructed at the

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the Orders of the respondent Judge
issued in Civil Case
13533
dated of
March
5, 1980isand
May 15,
1980
hereby
WHEREFORE,
the No.
decision
subject
the petition
reversed
and
set are
aside
and
another
decisionthe
is decision
hereby rendered
reinstating
the
Citynow
Court
of Iloilo
WHEREFORE,
of the Court
of Appealsthe
of decision
Decemberof17,
1965,
under
review, is affirmed with costs against petitioner Luzon Surety Co., Inc.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby set aside and the
petitioner is ordered to pay the private respondent Lily Yulo the amount of Six Hundred
Sixty Thousand Pesos (P660,000) as actual damages. The remaining properties
subject of the attachment are ordered released in favor of the petitioner. So ordered.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA
GR CV No. 54464 is modified in that respondent is ordered to pay petitioner the

WHEREFORE, the appealed order of August 7, 1965 is set aside and the case
remanded
the Code,
court ofthe
origin
for theisreception
of evidenceof
in the
accordance
with
Under thetoCivil
husband
the administrator
conjugal
partner
Yes, not by the wife but by the children. The contract was voidable because i
The sale was voidable in its entirety. Under the Civil Code, the husband coul
1. NO. The defendant is not guilty of abandonment of his wife, nor of such abuse of
his
of administration
NO.powers
The petition
lacks merit.of the conjugal partnership, as to warrant division of
YES. The controlling provision of law is not Rule 83, Sec. 3 of the New Rules of Court
but
and that
188 of
the
Civil Code.
The Arts.
Court290
agrees
the
complaint
doe not establish a case for separation of
property.
Consistent
with
the
policy
of discouraging
regime
of separation
as notand
in
The Court holds that the agreement with
respect to the
separation
of property
dissolution
the
conjugal
partnership
is valid.
The newwere
Civil only
Codemarried
provides
(1)
The CFI of
and
the
CA correctly
ruled that
the spouses
in that
1919
and that their 1903 marriage by military fashion was not recognized. There is no
WHEREFORE the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Petitionsersappellants.
It is so of
ordered.
is the net estate
the late Maning Yap, is distributed and adjuidicated as
stated above
Wherefore the petition is granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R.
CV148
No.should
51263 be
which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Article
applied.
No.

Held and Ratio


WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the
Petition isthe
hereby
DENIED.
The of
WHEREFORE,
appealed
decision
the Court of Appeals is hereby

Other
Information

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is


DISMISSED
and appealed
the decision
of isthe
The judgment
from
affirmed with costs against the

The record does not show that Don


Vicente
Legarda was
PROPERTY.When
a loan is negotiated Alejndra
by a husband upon property belonging wanted the

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the


petition
is G.R. No. 171904 granted
Petition in
while
in
Initial petition
SC decision:
Modified,
as above
stated, for
in the
sense
WHEREFORE,
the petitions
review
on certiorari are
DENIED
WHEREFORE,
the hereby
dismissal
of thefor
original complaint
is hereby
revoked
Wherefore,
theDecision
of Respondent
Judge, dated October6, 1980 and his

PETITION for
review
on
G.R. No.
171904.
G.R. No.August
L28589
G.R. No. L31618No.August
G.R.
L16857

The first case involving Ramon Sta.


Romana
caused
by the
failure
Article 165was
of the
Civil Code
provides
that
the
husband
is the
theCivil
administrator
Under
Article
161 of
Code, the of EN BANC
conjugal
is liable
debts and
No. L The property
Court held
that for
although
A&L G.R.
Ponente:
J.
Industries is a single proprietorship and Gutierrez, Jr.
the registered owner thereof is Lily,
(State division)
the said partnership was established
Nature of
during the marriage and its assets
action: Petition
were also acquired during the
for certiorari
marriage. Therefore, it is presumed
that this property forms part of the
conjugal partnership of the spouses
Augusto and Lily and thus, could be
held liable for the obligations
contracted by Augusto. However, under
Article 161 of the Civil Code, for the
said property to be held liable, the
review on
obligation
by the
husband
Article 121contracted
of the Family
Code
said
certiorari
must
have
redounded
to the benefit of
that all
debts
and obligations
the conjugal partnership. In the
present case, Augusto undoubtedly
contracted the loan for his own benefit
because at the time he incurred the
obligation, he had already abandoned
his family and left their conjugal

BA Finance
Corporation,
petitioner vs.
THE
HONORABLE
COURT OF
APPEALS,
Augusto Yulo,
Lily Yulo
(doing
business
under the
name and
style of A&L
Industries),
respondents
[G.R. No. L61464. May
28, 1988]April
146504.
9, 2002]

August 28,
The Court held that, in
Ponente: J.
1969]
interpreting
Article
161,
the
Fernando
(En
For the reasons given We vote to grant the petition for certiorari; We strike down the orders of r
WHEREFORE,
decision
of is
the
Court of
hereby
modified.
Judgment
is enteredthe
awardin
(3) Defendantthe
Vicente
Reyes
ordered
toAppeals
pay the is
heirs
of the
late Ignacia
Aguilar-Reyes,
amo
SO ORDERED.
The judgement pertaining to the decree
of
separation
of theResolution
conjugal properties,
Petition
is denied.
of the
Court
of
Appeals
is
affirmed.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the
aforementioned
circumstances,
the
Wherefore, the judgement
appealed
appeal
from the
is affirmed,
Accordingly,
decision with
datedcosts
May
11, 1964 andthe
thepetition
resolution
Wherefore,
for dated
reviewJuly
on
certiorari is hereby granted. The

To adress the issue about life insurance


beneficiaries
retirement
It was held byasthe
court thatinsurance
Leyes
Partidas
should
no
longer
apply
in this
No. For the purposes of remarriage
a
judicial
declaration
of
nullity
is
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 17 August
2011 Decision and the 14 March 2012

We strike down the orders of respondent judge of December 22, 1967 and January 17, 1968 complained of, in
.nacia
Judgment
is enteredthe
awarding
to of
Sofia
and Salvador
Aldon
their shares
of the landsas
asexemplary
stated in the
body of
Aguilar-Reyes,
amounts
P25,000.00
as moral
damages
and P25,000.00
damages.

968 complained of, in Civil Case 8306, and declare them null and void; and We direct respondent judge to is
stated in the
body of this decision; and the petitioners as possessors in bad faith shall make an accounting o
exemplary
damages.

espondent judge to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering and compelling respondents Ma
make an accounting of the fruits corresponding to the share aforementioned from 1959 and solidarity pay th

elling respondents Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi and Jon Ysasi to turn over to petitioner the possession and control
9 and solidarity pay their value to Sofia and Salvador Aldon; costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.

ossession and control of Hacienda Manucao-A, and all the agricultural machinery, implements, work animals,
s. SO ORDERED.

ments, work animals, and other properties used in the operation of the hacienda, as well as its records, pape

ell as its records, papers, documents and books of accounts, upon petitioners filing, and said judges approva

d said judges approval, of a bond in the sum of P50,000 to answer for any and all damages which private res

ages which private respondents or any of them may suffer by reason of the issuance of said injunction. No co

said injunction. No costs. So ordered.