Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

GOITIA V CAMPOS-RUEDA physical assault of the husband, she can therefore

Eloisa Goitia De la Camara (wife, plaintiff-appellant) and Jose claim support from the husband for separate
Campos-Rueda (husband, defendant-appellee) maintenance even outside the conjugal home.
o Married in MNL, Jan 7, 1915 _____________________________________________________
o Established residence at 115 Calle San Marcelino,
where they lived together for about a month SERMONIA V REPUBLIC
Eloisa returned to the house of her parents bec of the ff Jose Sermonia (petitioner)
allegations: o Charged w Bigamy before RTC Pasig for contracting
o Jose demanded of her that she perform unchaste and marriage with Ma. Lourdes Unson on 15 February
lascivious acts on his genital organs 1975 while his prior marriage to Virginia C. Nievera
o Eloisa spurned the obscene demands of Jose and remained valid and subsisting.
refused to perform any act other than legal and valid o moved to quash the information on the ground that his
cohabitation criminal liability for bigamy has been extinguished by
o Jose, since that date had continually on other prescription. DENIED on Oct 1, 1992. Petitioner then
successive dates, made similar lewd and indecorous filed an MR to such denial, but then again denied on
demands on his wife, Eloisa, who always spurned Oct 27, 1992.
them PRESCRIPTION The role that the passage
o Which just refusals of Eloisa exasperated Jose and of time plays in the making and ending of
induce him to maltreat her by word and deed and certain rights.
inflict injuries upon her lips, her face and different parts the effect of the lapse of time in creating and
of her body destroying rights
o Eloisa was unable by any means to induce Jose to o He then challenged the above orders before the Court
desist from his repugnant desires and cease from of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and
maltreating her, she was obliged to leave the conjugal prohibition.
abode and take refuge in the home of her parents. Petitioners arguments:
TRIAL COURT: Eloisa filed a claim for support, where the same o his criminal liability for bigamy has been obliterated by
was dismissed as the court held that Jose cannot be compelled prescription. He avers that since the second marriage
to support Eloisa, except in his own house, unless it be by contract was duly registered with the Office of the Civil
virtue of a judicial decree granting her a divorce or separation Registrar in 1975, 7 such fact of registration makes it a
from him. matter of public record and thus constitutes notice to
Jose furthermore objects that the facts alleged in the complaint the whole world. The offended party therefore is
do not state a cause of action. considered to have had constructive notice of the
ISSUE: Whether or not Goitia can compel her husband to subsequent marriage as of 1975; hence, prescription
commenced to run on the day the marriage contract
support her outside the conjugal home.
was registered.
HELD:
o the second marriage was publicly held at Our Lady of
o The obligation on the part of the husband to support
Nativity Church in Marikina on 15 February 1975, and
his wife is created merely in the act of marriage. The adding for good measure that from the moment of
law provides that the husband, who is obliged to registration the marriage contract was open to
support the wife, may fulfill the obligation either by inspection by any interested person.
paying her a fixed pension or by maintaining her in his
Court of Appeals:
own home at his option.
o Dismissed his petition for lack of merit.
ART 149 CC: The person obliged to give
o PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE: should
support may, at his option, satisfy it, either by
paying the pension that may be fixed or by not be applied in regard to the crime of bigamy as
receiving and maintaining in his own home judicial notice may be taken of the fact that a
the person having the right to the same. bigamous marriage is generally entered into by the
o However, this option given by law is not absolute. The offender in secrecy from the spouse of the previous
subsisting marriage.
law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate
o CONCEALMENT ISSUE:
his obligation to support his wife if the wife is driven
away from the conjugal home because of his wrongful While the celebration of the bigamous
acts. marriage may be said to be open and made
READ FOR EXPLANATION: That in of public record by its registration, the
accordance with the ruling of the supreme offender however is not truthful as he
court of Spain in its decisions dated May 11, conceals from the officiating authority and
1897, November 25, 1899, and July 5, 1901, those concerned the existence of his
the option which article 149 grants the previous subsisting marriage. He does not
person, obliged to furnish subsistence, reveal to them that he is still a married
between paying the pension fixed or person. xxx And for these, he contracts the
receiving and keeping in his own house the bigamous marriage in a place where he is not
party who is entitled to the same, is not so known to be still a married person. And such
absolute as to prevent cases being a place may be anywhere, under which
considered wherein, either because this right circumstance, the discovery of the bigamous
would be opposed to the exercise of a marriage is rendered quite difficult and would
preferential right or because of the existence take time. It is therefore reasonable that the
of some justifiable cause morally opposed to prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy
the removal of the party enjoying the should be counted only from the day on
maintenance, the right of selection must be which the said crime was discovered by the
understood as being thereby restricted. offended party, the authorities or their agency.
o In the case at bar, the wife was forced to leave the if the prescriptive period for the offense of
conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and bigamy were to be counted from the date of
registration thereof, the prosecution of the o that the lots which were partitioned in said document
violators of the said offense would almost be belonged to the conjugal partnership of the spouses
impossible. Lucio Perido and Benita Talorong
The interpretation urged by the petitioner o and that the five children of Lucio Perido with
would encourage fearless violations of a Marcelina Baliguat were all illegitimate and therefore
social institution cherished and protected by had no successional rights to the estate of Lucio
law. Perido
ISSUE: WON the Petitioner committed the crime of bigamy July 31, 1965: Trial Court rendered its decision re the
HELD: annulment of the DHEP, however it did not order the partition of
o CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE ISSUE: the lots involved among the plaintiffs exclusively in view of its
there is no legal basis for applying the findings that the five children of Lucio Perido with his second
constructive notice rule to the documents wife, Marcelina Baliguat, were legitimate.
registered in the Civil Register. o that all the lots, except Lot No. 458, were the exclusive
Sec 52 of PD 1529 (Property Registration properties of Lucio Perido;
Decree) has no counterpart provision either o and that 11/12 of Lot No. 458 belonged to the conjugal
in Act partnership of Lucio Perido and his second wife,
No. 3753 (Act to Establish a Civil Register) or Marcelina Baliguat.
in Arts. 407 to 413 of the Civil Code CA affirmed the trial courts decision. Nag-PetRev sa SC.
o CONCEALMENT ISSUE: ISSUE: W/N the children and grandchildren of the second
petitioner would want us to believe that there marriage of Lucio Perido were legitimate, entitling them for the
was no concealment at all because his partition of lands
marriage contract with Ms. Unson was HELD:
recorded in the Civil Registry which is open to o LEGITIMACY ISSUE:
all and sundry for inspection. found that there was evidence to show that
We cannot go along with his argument Lucio Perido's wife, Benita Talorong, died
because why did he indicate in the marriage during the Spanish regime.
contract that he was "single" thus obviously Lucio Perido had no legal impediment to
hiding his true status as a married man? Or marry Marcelina Baliguat before the birth of
for that matter, why did he not simply tell his their first child in 1900.
first wife about the subsequent marriage in With respect to the civil status of Lucio Perido
Marikina so that everything would be out in as stated in the certificates of title issued to
the open. him in 1923, the Court of Appeals correctly
Obviously, petitioner had no intention of held that the statement was not conclusive to
revealing his duplicity to his first spouse and show that he was not actually married to
gambled instead on the probability that she or Marcelina Baliguat. Furthermore, it is weak
any third party would ever go to the local civil and insufficient to rebut the presumption that
registrar to inquire. persons living together husband and wife are
o Affirmed CA decision. Petitioner guilty of BIGAMY. married to each other. This presumption,
_____________________________________________________ especially where legitimacy of the issue is
involved, as in this case, may be overcome
PERIDO V PERIDO only by cogent proof on the part of those who
Lucio Perido of Himamlayan, Negros Occidental, married twice allege the illegitimacy.
during his lifetime the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding
o FIRST: with Benita Talorong, begot 3 children, namely: that the five children of Lucio Perido and
Felix, Ismael, and Margarita Marcelina Baliguat were born during their
o SECOND (after Benita died): with Marcelina Baliguat, marriage and, therefore, legitimate.
begot 5 children: Eusebio, Juan, Maria, Sofronia and o DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT LOTS
Gonzalo NOS. 471, 506, 511, 509-513-PART, 807 AND 808
o Died in 1942. Second wife, Marcelina, died in 1943 WERE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES OF LUCIO
FIRST MARRIAGE: Only Margarita is alive PERIDO:
SECOND MARRIAGE: Maria, Sofronia, and Gonzalo are the CA: We cannot agree again with them on
only ones alive this point. It is to be noted that the lands
Aug 15, 1960: the children and grandchildren of the first and covered by the certificates of title (Exhs. B to
G) were all declared in the name of Lucio
second marriages of Lucio Perido executed a document
Perido. Then there is evidence showing that
denominated as Declaration of Heirship and Extra-judicial
the lands were inherited by Lucio Perido from
Partition (DHEP for brevity) -- whereby they partitioned among
his grandmother (t.s.n., p. 21, Feb. 20, 1964).
themselves Lots Nos. 458, 471, 506, 511, 509, 513-B, 807, and
In other words, they were the exclusive
808, all of the Cadastral Survey of Himamaylan, Occidental
properties of the late Lucio Perido which he
Negros.
brought into the first and second marriages.
March 8, 1926: children belonging to the 1st marriage filed a
By fiat of law said Properties should be
complaint against the children of the 2 nd marriage, praying for divided accordingly among his legal heirs.
the annulment of the DHEP, and for another partition of the lots o 11/12 OF LOT 458 WAS THE CONJUGAL
mentioned therein AMONG THE PLAINTIFFS ALONE.
PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY OF LUCIO PERIDO AND
o They alleged, among other things, that they had been
HIS SECOND WIFE, MARCELINA BALIGUAT:
induced by the defendants to execute the document in The finding of the lower court on this point
question through misrepresentation, false promises
need not be disturbed. It is expressly stated
and fraudulent means;
in the certificate of title that Lucio Perido, the
registered owner, was married to Marcelina
Baliguat unlike in the previous land titles. If
the law presumes a property registered in the o RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law):
name of only one of the spouses to be SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
conjugal, the presumption becomes stronger Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
when the document recites that the spouse in Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be
whose name the land is registered is married changed or corrected without a judicial order, except
to somebody else, like in the case at bar. It for clerical or typographical errors and change of first
appearing that the legal presumption that the name or nickname which can be corrected or changed
No. 458 belonged to the conjugal partnership by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or
had not been overcome by clear proofs to the consul general in accordance with the provisions of
contrary, we are constrained to rule, that the this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
same is the conjugal property of the SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or
deceased spouses Lucio Perido and Nickname. The petition for change of first name or
Marcelina Baliguat. nickname may be allowed in any of the following
o Affirmed the decision of the CA. cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname
_____________________________________________________ to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce;
SILVERIO V REPUBLIC (2) The new first name or nickname has been
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio (petitioner) habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and
o Nov 26, 2002 filed a petn for the change of his first he has been publicly known by that first name or
name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC Mnl. nickname in the community; or
Impleaded the civil registrar of Mnl as respondent. (3) The change will avoid confusion.
o alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, HELD:
anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a o No. There is no law authorizes the change of entry as
female and that he had always identified himself with of sex and first name through the intervention of sex
girls since childhood reassignment surgery. Article 376 of the Civil Code as
o Feeling trapped in a mans body, he consulted several amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law), together
doctors in the United States. He underwent with Article 412 of the same Code, change of name or
psychological examination, hormone treatment and sex in the birth certificate is allowed by the courts so
breast augmentation. His attempts to transform long as clerical or typographical errors are involved.
himself to a woman culminated on January 27, 2001 o Changes sought by Silverio will have serious legal and
when he underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in public policy consequences.
Bangkok, Thailand To grant this petition filed by Silverio will
o From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in greatly alter the laws on marriage and family
fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have relations.
his name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel Second, there will be major changes in
Jacinto to Mely, and his sex from male to female. statutes that underscore the public policy in
TRIAL COURT: In favour of Silverio relation to women.
o granting the petition would be more in consonance certain felonies under the Revised Penal
with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual Code
[re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, and the presumption of survivorship in case
thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of
physique of a female. Petitioners misfortune to be Court,41 among others.
trapped in a mans body is not his own doing and _____________________________________________________
should not be in any way taken against him.
o the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice PEOPLE V DELA CRUZ
will be caused to anybody or the community in Parricide against Victoriano Lorenzo Dela Cruz (appellant)
granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the PROSECS VERSION:
petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on Joel Song: bw 3:30-4PM, Aug 18, 2002, he and 2 others,
the part of the petitioner and her [fianc] and the including the aunt of Victoriano, playing tong-its a few kms
realization of their dreams. away from Vics house
o no evidence was presented to show any cause or While playing, Joel saw Vic punching and kicking his wife,
ground to deny the present petition despite due notice herein victim Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz (Anna). Vic then
and publication thereof. Even the State, through the dragged Anna inside the house by pulling the latters hair, then
[OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition. slammed the door. Joel overheard the couple shouting while
Aug 18, 2003 the Republic of the PH (Republic), thru the they were already inside the house.
OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It Vic and Anna came out of the house, together with their young
alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the daughter. Vic was behind Anna, with his arms wrapped around
birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. her. He asked for Joels help. Joel noticed blood spurting out of
CA: rendered a decision in favour of the Republic. Said that Annas mouth. He took the couples daughter and gave her to
TCs decision lacked legal basis. There is no law allowing the Vics aunt.
change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the He then went with them to the Bulacan Provincial Hospital on
ground of sex reassignment through surgery. Set aside the TCs board a tricycle. However, Anna died.
decision. On the same day, at about 6:30 p.m., Senior Police Officers 1
Silverio filed an MR, but was denied, hence, this petition. Condrado Umali and Eligio Jose, responding to the call of duty,
ISSUE: WON the change of name and sex is allowed on the went to the hospital for investigation. There, Vic was turned
basis of sex assignment over to the police officers by the hospital's security guard on
RELEVANT LAWS: duty.
o ART 376 CC: No person can change his name or DEFENSES VERSION:
surname without judicial authority. Victoriano:
o Around 6:30PM, Aug 18, 2002, he went home very o To support their cause, the petitioners and their
drunk from a friends house. siblings appended in their Manifestation, the following
o Before he could enter their house, his wife, Anna, documents:
started nagging him saying, Hindi ka naman pala 2 marriage certificates between Isabel and
namamasada, nakipag-inuman ka pa. He asked her Rodolfo;
to go inside their house but she refused. Thus, Vic The birth certificate of their mother, Sylvia;
slapped Anna and dragged her inside their house. Their respective proof of births.
o Continuous nagging of Anna Vic pushed her aside Bernardinos defense:
so he could go out of the house She fell on a o the petitioners and their siblings have failed to
jalousie window, breaking it in the process. He establish the status of Isabel as an heir of Rodolfo.
helped her stand up, Victoriano noticed that her back The very evidence presented by the petitioners and
was punctured by a piece of shattered glass of the their siblings showed that Isabel had a previous and
jalousie. subsisting marriage with John Desantis at the time she
o He brought her outside immediately and asked the was purportedly married to Rodolfo.
help of his neighbors who were playing tong-its o COMMENT TO THE MANIFESTATION:
nearby. Vic admitted that Joel accompanied him and In Sylvias birth cert, Sylvia was a legitimate
his wife to the hospital. child of Isabel and John
o Also testified that he does not usually drink; that he Also on the same document, Isabel and John
consumed hard liquor at the time of the incident; that were married
Anna was not immediately treated in the hospital; that o According to the respondent, Isabels previous
he loved his wife; and that he did not intentionally hurt
marriage, in the absence of any proof that it was
her.
dissolved, made her subsequent marriage with
TRIAL COURT: found Vic guilty of Parricide Art 246 of RPC Rodolfo bigamous and void ab initio.
CA: affirmed TCs decision INTESTATE COURT: convinced that the evidence at hand
ISSUE: WON Vic was guilty of the crime of Parricide adequately establish Isabels status as the legal spouse of
RELEVANT LAWS: Rodolfo and, by that token, permitted the petitioners and their
o ART 246 RPC: Parricide. Any person who shall kill his siblings to intervene in the proceedings on her behalf.
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or ISSUE: W/N the marriage of Isabel and Rodolfo was valid
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, HELD:
or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be o the existence of a previous marriage between Isabel
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to and John Desantis was adequately established.
death. o In the present case, the birth certificate of Sylvia
o The key element in Parricide other than the fact of precisely serves as the competent evidence of
killing is the relationship of the offender to the marriage between Isabel and John Desantis. As
victim. In the case of Parricide of a spouse, the best mentioned earlier, it contains the following notable
proof of the relationship between the accused and the entries: (a) that Isabel and John Desantis were
deceased would be the marriage certificate. "married" and (b) that Sylvia is their "legitimate"
HELD: child.50 In clear and categorical language, Sylvias
o In this case, the testimony of the accused that he was birth certificate speaks of a subsisting marriage
married to the victim, in itself, is ample proof of such between Isabel and John Desantis.
relationship as the testimony can be taken as an o The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to
admission against penal interest Clearly, then, it was present evidence to prove that Isabels prior marriage
established that Victoriano and Anna were husband was dissolved results in a failure to establish that she
and wife. has interest in the estate of Rodolfo. Clearly, an
o In sum, Victoriano failed to sufficiently show that the intervention by the petitioners and their siblings in the
CA committed any reversible error in its assailed settlement proceedings cannot be justified.
Decision. His guilt was sufficiently established by o Affirmed CAs decision.
circumstantial evidence.
o Guys, sa case na to, hindi ko na diniscuss yung crim _____________________________________________________
stuff. Yung exempting chenes, na kesho aksidente
lang daw yung nangyari, kasi ang issue lang naman CERCADO-SIGA V CERCADO, JR
kung dapat bang parricide, which was proven by the petitioners Simplicia Cercado-Siga (Simplicia) and Ligaya
marriage of the accused and the victim. Yun lang. Cercado-Belison (Ligaya) claimed that they are the legitimate
children of the late Vicente and Benita Castillo (Benita), married
_____________________________________________________ on Oct 9, 1929
o alleged that during the lifetime of their parents, their
DE SANTIS V.INTESTATE ESTATE JALANDONI father acquired by gratuitous title a parcel of land
Rodolfo Jalandoni died intestate. identified as Lot No. 7627 Cad 609-D located at
Apr 28, 1967 - Bernardino G. Jalandoni (Bernardino), the Barangay Kinagatan, Binangonan, Rizal with an area
brother of Rodolfo, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of of 6,032 square meters and covered by Tax
administration9 with the Court of First Instance of Negros Declaration No. BIP-021-0253.
Occidental, to commence the judicial settlement of the latters o claimed that upon the death of their father Vicente and
estate. by virtue of intestate succession, ownership over the
Jan 17, 2003 - introduced themselves as the children of Sylvia subject land pertained to them as heirs
Blee Desantis (Sylvia)who, in turn, was revealed to be the o upon the death of Benita, her share was acquired by
daughter of Isabel Blee (Isabel) with one John Desantis. petitioners by operation of law.
o contend that their grandmotherIsabelwas, at the Sometime in September 1998, petitioners read from a
time of Rodolfos death, the legal spouse of the newspaper a notice that the estate of Vicente and a certain
latter.13 For which reason, Isabel is entitled to a share Leonora Ditablan has been extrajudicially settled by their heirs,
in the estate of Rodolfo. respondents herein.
o petitioners were furnished a copy of the Extrajudicial recognized the signatures, or the person to whom the
Settlement of the Estate (Deed) executed and signed parties to the instruments had previously confessed
by respondents. execution thereof. As observed by the Court of
o Petitioners insist that Vicente and Leonora were not Appeals, petitioners failed to present any one of such
married or if they were so married, then said marriage witnesses.
was null and void by reason of the subsisting marriage o the document presented to prove Ligayas kinship is a
of their parents, Vicente and Benita. Joint Affidavit executed by two persons to the effect
Petitioners prayed: that she was born to Vicente and Benita. These two
o for the declaration of the Deed as null and void affiants were never presented in court. Thus, their
o for the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal to statement is tantamount to hearsay evidence.
correct the entry on the marital status of Vicente o While we acknowledge the difficulty of obtaining old
o for the payment of damages and attorneys fees. records, we simply cannot ignore the rules on
evidence, specifically the rule on authentication with
To prove the marriage between Vicente and Benita, petitioners
respect to private documents which is precisely in
presented the following documents:
place to prevent the inclusion of spurious documents
o marriage contract
in the body of evidence that will determine the
o Certification dated 19 November 2000 issued by resolutions of an issue.
Iglesia Filipina Independiente of its acceptance of o Considering that petitioners failed to prove the validity
original marriage contract of the marriage between Vicente and Benita, it follows
o Certification of non-production of record of birth of that they do not have a cause of action in the case for
Simplicia issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil the declaration of nullity of the Extrajudicial Settlement
Registrar of Pililla, Rizal of the Estate of Vicente and Leonora.
o Certificate of Baptism of Simplicia _____________________________________________________
o Certification of non-production of record of birth of
Ligaya issued by the Office of the Municipal Civil ESPINOSA v ATTY. OMANA
Registrar of Pililla, Rizal
o Joint Affidavit of two disinterested persons attesting Complainant: Rodolfo Espinosa and Maximo Glindo
that Ligaya is the child of Vicente and Benita. Respondent: Atty. Julieta A. Omaa
Respondents answer: Citation: AC No. 9081
o they are the legitimate heirs of Vicente and Leonora, Date of Promulgation: October 12, 2011
who were married on 27 June 1977 as evidenced by a Ponente: Carpio
marriage certificate registered with the Local Civil
Registrar of Binangonan, Rizal FACTS:
o averred that petitioners are not the real-parties-interest Nov. 17, 1997: Espinosa and his wife ELENA MARANTAL
to institute the case because they failed to present sought Atty. Omaas advice on whether they could legally
their birth certificates to prove their filiation to Vicente separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on July 23,
o that the marriage between Vicente and Benita was not 1983
valid Atty. Omaa: Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay
o the document showing that Vicente was married to Stipulations:
Benita is not a certified true copy 1. Na nais na naming maghiwalay at magkanya-kanya ng aming mga
o that they are now estopped by laches. buhay ng walang pakialaman, kung kayat bawat isa sa amin ay maaari
RTC: ruled in favour of the petitioners ng humanap ng makakasama sa buhay
2. Na ang aming mga anak na sina Ariel John Espinosa, 14 na taong
CA: reversed the RTCs decision gulang; Aiza Espinosa, 11 taong gulang at Aldrin Espinosa, 10 taong
o The appellate court ruled that the trial court can pass gulang ay namili na kung kanino sasama sa aming dalawa. Si Ariel
upon the issue of the validity of marriage of Vicente John at Aiza Espinosa ay sasama sa kanilang ama, Rodolfo Espinosa,
and Leonora [because] no judicial action is necessary at ang bunso, Aldrin Espinosa at sasama naman sa ina na si Elena;
to declare a marriage an absolute nullity and the court 3. Na dahil sina Ariel John at Aiza ay nagsisipag-aral sa kasalukuyan
sila ay pansamantalang mananatili sa kanilang ina, habang tinatapos
may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in a suit
ang kanilang pag-aaral. Sa pasukan sila ay maaari ng isama ng ama,
not directly instituted to question the same, as long as sa lugar kung saan siya ay naninirahan;
it is essential to the determination of the case before 4. Na ang mga bata ay maaaring dalawin ng sino man sa aming dalawa
it. tuwing may pagkakataon
o the appellate court found that the Contrato Matrimonial 5. Na magbibigay ng buwanang gastusin o suporta ang ama kay Aldrin
of Vicente and Benita, being a private document, was at ang kakulangan sa mga pangangailangan nito ay pupunan ng ina;
not properly authenticated, hence, not admissible in 6. Na lahat ng mga kasangkapan sa bahay tulad ng T.V., gas stove,
mga kagamitan sa kusina ay aking (Rodolfo) ipinagkakaloob kay Elena
evidence
at hindi na ako interesado dito;
o did not consider the baptismal certificate submitted by 7. Na lahat ng maaaring maipundar ng sino man sa amin dalawa sa
petitioners as conclusive proof of filiation. mga panahong darating ay aming mga sari-sariling pag-aari na at hindi
o The Joint Affidavit executed by a certain Mario Casale na pinagsamahan o conjugal.
and Balas Chimlangco attesting to the birth of Ligaya Complainants alleged that Marantal and Espinosa executed
to Vicente and Benita was not given credence by the and implemented the provisions of this Contact, as they were
appellate court for being a hearsay evidence. fully convinced of its validity
o failure of petitioners to prove their cause of action by Marantal eventually took custody of all their children and took
preponderance of evidence possession of most of the property acquired during their union
HELD: Affirmed the CAs decision. PETITION DENIED. Espinosa then asked for the advice of Grildo (a law graduate
o Under Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court, before a and his co-employee), who informed him that the Kasunduan
private document is admitted in evidence, it must be was invalid
authenticated either by the person who executed it, Espinosa and Grildo then filed a complaint for disbarment
the person before whom its execution was against Atty. Omaa before IBP. Grounds: violation of her
acknowledged, any person who was present and saw lawyers oath, malpractice and gross misconduct in the office
it executed, or who after its execution, saw it and Atty. Omaas Contentions:
1. She knows Glindo but she does not personally know 1951: Soledad gave up teaching and became a life insurance
Espinosa underwriter in Cebu City, where intimacy developed between
2. She denies preparing the Kasunduan them
3. She admitted that Espinosa went to see her and requested 1953: One evening, after watching movies, they had sexual
for the notarization of the Kasunduan, but she told him it intercourse in his cabin on board M/V Escano to which he was
was illegal the apprentice pilot
4. Espinosa returned the next day and persuaded her office February 1954: Soledad advised Francisco that she was in a
staff, ARLENE DELA PEA to notarize the same. family was, whereupon, he promised to marry her
Signature was forged
June 17, 1954: Chris Hermosisima was born
5. She also submitted Marantas Affidavit to support her
claims and to show that the Complaint is instigated by July 24, 1954: Francisco married one ROMANITA PEREZ
Glindo, and a Letter of Apology from her staff October 4, 1954: Moral Damages for Breach of Promise to
Espinosa later submitted a Karagdagang Salaysay stating that Marry
Atty.Omaa was not in her office when the document was RTC:
notarized WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, declaring the child, Chris
Hermosisima, as the natural daughter of defendant, and confirming the
DECISION OF IBP-COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE: order pendente lite, ordering defendant to pay to the said child, through
1. Respondent truly signed the document, yet she still plaintiff, the sum of thirty pesos (P30.00), payable on or before the fifth
disclaimed its authorship, thereby revealing much more her day of every month sentencing defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of
propensity to lie and make deceit, which she is deserving FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P4,500.00) for actual
of a disciplinary action or disbarment and compensatory damages; the sum of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
2. Suspension of 1 year from the practice of law and for 2 (P5,000.00) as moral damages; and the further sum of FIVE
years as a Notary Public HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) as attorney's fees for plaintiff, with costs
against defendant
ISSUE: W/N Omaa violated the Canon of Professional
CA: affirmed the RTC decision, except as to the actual and
Responsibility in the notarization of Marantal and Espinosas
compensatory and moral damages, which were increased to
Kasunduan ng Paghihiwalay?
PhP 5614.25 and PhP 7,000, respectively
HELD:
ISSSUE: W/N moral damages are recoverable, under our laws,
Finding of IBP were adopted
for breach of promise to marry?
Extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership without
HELD:
judicial approval is void. Notary public should not facilitate
SC affimed the CA decision, but eliminated the award for
the disintegration of a marriage and a family by
encouraging the separation of the spouses and damages
extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership In De Jesus v Syquia, it was ruled that action for breach of
The allegation that it was her office staff who notarized that promise to marry has no standing in civil law, apart from
document is unaaceptable. Even if it was true, it only the right to recover money or property advanced upon the
shows her negligence in doing her notarial duties. A notary faith of such promise.
public is personally responsible for the entries in his The history of breach of promise suit in the US and in
notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this England has shown that no other action lends itself more
responsibility by passing blame on his secretaries or any readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous
member of his staff jmen. It is this experience which has led to the abolition of
We likewise agree with the IBP-CBD that in preparing and the rights of action in the so-called Balm suit in US states
notarizing a void document, Omaa violated Rule 1.01, Apart from the fact that the general tenor of said Article
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which 2219, particularly the paragraphs preceding and those
provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, following the one cited by the Court of Appeals, and the
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Omaa knew fully language used in said paragraph strongly indicates that the
well that the "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay" has no legal "seduction" therein contemplated is the crime punished as
effect and is against public policy. Therefore, Omaa may such in Article as such in Article 337 and 338 of the
be suspended from office as an attorney for breach of the Revised Penal Code, which admittedly does not exist in the
ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of present case, we find ourselves unable to say that
Professional Responsibility petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, not only because
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Julieta A. Omaa from he is approximately ten (10) years younger than the
the practice of law for ONE YEAR. We REVOKE Atty. complainant who around thirty-six (36) years of age, and
Omaas notarial commission, if still existing, as highly enlightened as a former high school teacher and
and SUSPEND her as a notary public for TWO YEARS. a life insurance agent are supposed to be when she
_____________________________________________________ became intimate with petitioner, then a mere apprentice
pilot, but, also, because, the court of first instance found
that, complainant "surrendered herself" to petitioner
because, "overwhelmed by her love" for him, she "wanted
HERMOSISIMA v CA to bind" "by having a fruit of their engagement even before
Complainant: Francisco Hermisisima they had the benefit of clergy
Respondent: CA
Citation: 109 PHIL 629 _____________________________________________________
Date of Promulgation: September 30, 1960
Ponente: Concepcion WASSMER v VELEZ

FACTS: Plaintiff: Beatriz P. Wassmer


Defendant: Francisco X. Velez
Soledad Casigas: teacher at Sibonga Provincial HS in Cebu
Citation: 12 SCRA 648
Francisco Hemosisima: ten years younger than Soledad Date of Promulgation: December 26, 1964
The two used to go around and were regarded as engaged, Ponente: Bengzon, J.P
although he had made no promise of marriage
FACTS:
Sept. 4, 1954: Wedding day set by Velez and Wassmer Defendant urges in his afore-stated petition that the
Sept. 2, 1954: Wassmer left a note to his bride-to-be: damages awarded were excessive. No question is
Dear Bet raised as to the award of actual damages. What
Will have to postpone wedding My mother
opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today.
defendant would really assert hereunder is that the
Please do not ask too many people about the reason award of moral and exemplary damages, in the
why That would only create a scandal. amount of P25,000.00, should be totally eliminated.
Paquing
Sept. 3, 1954: He sent another telegram:
NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED Per express provision of Article 2219 (10) of the New
RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA Civil Code, moral damages are recoverable in the
PAPA LOVE .
cases mentioned in Article 21 of said Code. As to
PAKING
Velez did not appear. Nothing was heard from him again exemplary damages, defendant contends that the
Wassmer sue Velez for damages same could not be adjudged against him because
Velez was declared in default under Article 2232 of the New Civil Code the condition
April 29, 1955: Wassmer presented the evidence before a precedent is that "the defendant acted in a wanton,
Clerk of Court as Commissioner fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent
Judgment: Velez to pay Wassmr 2k as Actual Damages, 25k manner." The argument is devoid of merit as under the
as Moral Damages and Exemplary Damages and 2.5k as above-narrated circumstances of this case defendant
Attorneys Fees clearly acted in a "wanton ... , reckless [and]
June 21, 1955: Velez filed a Petition for Relief from Orders, oppressive manner." This Court's opinion, however, is
Judgment and Proceedings and Motion for New Trial and that considering the particular circumstances of this
Reconsideration case, P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages is
Wassmer moved to strike it
deemed to be a reasonable award.
August 2, 1955: Both were required by the court to appear for
a possible settlement. Failure to appear will result to the
submission of a resolution for the petition filed by Velez _____________________________________________________
August 23, 1955: Velez failed to appear.
On the following day, Velez counsel filed a Motion to Defer for TANJANCO v CA
two weeks the resolution on said petition. He stated that he
would first confer with Velez who was in Cagayan de Oro that
Petitioner: Apolonio Tanjanco
time
Respondents: CA and Araceli Santos
The court granted the 2-week allowance and scheduled another Citation: 18 SCRA 994
setting for settlement Date of Promulgation: December 17, 1966
Defendants counsel informed the court that the chances of Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L
settling the case amicably were nil
July 20, 1956: Velez petition was denied FACTS:
Defendant appealed, invoking that excusable negligence as a December 1957: Tanjanco courted Santos, who in turn,
ground to set aside the judgment by default. He also stated that reciprocated the undying love and affection of the former
he did not file an answer in the belief that an amicable In consideration of Tanjancos promise of marriage, Santos
settlement was being negotiated consented and acceded to the formers pleas for carnal
A petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud, accident, knowledge; that regularly, until December 1959, he through his
mistake or excusable negligence, must be duly supported by an protestations of love and promises of marriage, he succeeded
affidavit of merits stating facts constituting a valid defense. in having carnal access to Santos
(Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court.) Defendant's affidavit of merits Santos got pregnant she eventually resigned from her job as
attached to his petition of June 21, 1955 stated: "That he has a secretary at IBM where she was receiving P230 per month
good and valid defense against plaintiff's cause of action, his Santos became unable to support herself and her baby
failure to marry the plaintiff as scheduled having been due to Due to Tanjancos refusal to marry her, Santos suffered from
fortuitous event and/or circumstances beyond his control." An
mental anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
affidavit of merits like this stating mere conclusions or opinions
moral school and social humiliation
instead of facts is not valid
Prayer: recognize the unborn child; pat her not less than P430
Velez also cited the case of Hermosisima v CA, stating tat a
a month for her support and that of her baby, plus P100 in
mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong
moral and exemplary damages plus 10k attorneys fees
ISSUE: W/N Wassmer can recover damages from Velez by
Tanjanco: Motion to Dismisss
reason of breach of promise to marry?
RTC: dismissed the case for lack of cause of action
HELD:
CA: Affirmed RTCs decision that she has no cause of action as
YES. Records reveal that this is not just a case of
to hold Tanjanco to recognize the unborn child, but decreed that
mere breach of promise to marry
she has a cause of action for damages under Art. 21. Directed
Wedding was already set. Invitations were distributed.
the court of origin to procced with the case
Their dresses and other apparels were purchased.
Tanjanco: appealed to SC, stating that actions for breach of
Matrimonial Bed. Bridal showers.
promise to marry are not permissible in our jurisdiction
As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an
ISSUE: W/N Santos has a cause of action for the claim of
actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and
go through all the above-described preparation and damages against Tanjanco?
publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is HELD:
about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is NO.
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for In holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for
which defendant must be held answerable in damages damages, under Article 21 above mentioned, the Court of
in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
Appeals relied upon and quoted from the memorandum Petitioner: Ga Shem Shookat Baksh
submitted by the Code Commission to the Legislature in Respondents: CA and Marilou Gonzales
1949 to support the original draft of the Civil Code. Citation: 219 SCRA 115
Date of Promulgation: February 19, 1993
Referring to Article 23 of the draft (now Article 21 of the
Ponente: Davide, Jr
Code), the Commission stated:
FACTS:
But the Code Commission has gone farther than the Oct. 27, 1987: Gonzales, without a counsel, filed a Complaint
sphere of wrongs defined or determined by positive for Damages against Baksh for his alleged violation of their
law. Fully sensible that there are countless gaps in the agreement to get married
statutes, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs Prayer: judgment ordering the petitioner to pay her damages in
helpless, even though they have actually suffered the amount of not less than P45,000.00, reimbursement for
actual expenses amounting to P600.00, attorney's fees and
material and moral injury, the Commission has deemed costs, and granting her such other relief and remedies as may
it necessary, in the interest of justice, to incorporate in be just and equitable
the proposed Civil Code the following rule: Gonzaless allegations:
1. She is 22 yrs old and a pretty lass of GMC and
"ART. 23. Any person who wilfully causes loss reputation duly respected in their community
or injury to another in a manner that is contrary 2. Baksh is an Iranian citizen and is an exchange student
taking a medical course at Lycum Northwestern
to morals, good customs or public policy shall
Colleges in Dagupan City
compensate the latter for the damage." 3. Before August 20, 1987, Baksh courted and proposed
to marry her, which in turn, she accepted
The Court of Appeals seems to have overlooked that the 4. They agreed to get married after the end of the school
semester
example set forth in the Code Commission's memorandum
5. Baksh visited her parents to get their approval
refers to a tort upon a minor who has been seduced. The 6. Sometime on Aug. 20, 1987, Baksh forced her to live
essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than with him in Lozano Apartments
mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of 7. She was a virgin before she began living with him. A
marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, week before filing the complaint, Bakshs attitude
enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the changed to the extent that he even threatened to kill
part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded (U.S. her. Maltreated.
8. Confrontation at the Barangay = petitioner repudiated
vs. Buenaventura, 27 Phil. 121; U.S. vs. Arlante, 9 Phil.
their marriage agreement and asked her not to live
595). with him anymore and; the petitioner is already
married to someone living in Bacolod City
Over and above the partisan allegations, the facts stand Bakshs counter-allegations:
out that for one whole year, from 1958 to 1959, the plaintiff- 1. He admitted only the personal circumstances of the
appellee, a woman of adult age, maintained intimate parties
2. He denied proposing marriage to or agreed to be
sexual relations with appellant, with repeated acts of
married with Gonzales
intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible with the idea of 3. He neither sough the consent of her parents nor
seduction. Plainly there is here voluntariness and mutual forced her to live in with his apartment
passion; for had the appellant been deceived, had she 4. No maltreatment
surrendered exclusively because of the deceit, artful 5. He alleged that Gonzales stoke her money and
persuasions and wiles of the defendant, she would not passport. He was deceived
have again yielded to his embraces, much less for one RTC: Application of Art. 21. Baksh yo pay 20k as MD;
year, without exacting early fulfillment of the alleged 3k as AF and 2k as Litigation expenses. Other claims
promises of marriage, and would have cut chart all sexual were denied
relations upon finding that defendant did not intend to fulfill
his promises. Hence, we conclude that no case is made The decision is anchored on the trial court's findings and
under Article 21 of the Civil Code, and no other cause of conclusions that (a) petitioner and private respondent were
action being alleged, no error was committed by the Court lovers, (b) private respondent is not a woman of loose morals or
of First Instance in dismissing the complaint. questionable virtue who readily submits to sexual advances, (c)
petitioner, through machinations, deceit and false pretenses,
The dismissal must be understood as without prejudice to promised to marry private respondent, d) because of his
whatever actions may correspond to the child of the persuasive promise to marry her, she allowed herself to be
plaintiff against the defendant-appellant, if any. On that deflowered by him, (e) by reason of that deceitful promise,
point, this Court makes no pronouncement, since the private respondent and her parents in accordance with
child's own rights are not here involved. Filipino customs and traditions made some preparations for
the wedding that was to be held at the end of October 1987 by
looking for pigs and chickens, inviting friends and relatives and
_____________________________________________________
contracting sponsors, (f) petitioner did not fulfill his promise to
marry her and (g) such acts of the petitioner, who is a foreigner
and who has abused Philippine hospitality, have offended our
sense of morality, good customs, culture and traditions. The trial
BAKSH v CA court gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony
because, inter alia, she would not have had the temerity and Where a man's promise to marry is in fact the
courage to come to court and expose her honor and reputation proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a
to public scrutiny and ridicule if her claim was false woman and his representation to fulfill that promise
thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving
The above findings and conclusions were culled from the of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he
detailed summary of the evidence for the private had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that
respondent in the foregoing decision, digested by the the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
respondent Court as follows: device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to
obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the
award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because
According to plaintiff, who claimed that she was a virgin at the
of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
time and that she never had a boyfriend before, defendant
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor
started courting her just a few days after they first met. He later
and reputation which followed thereafter. It is
proposed marriage to her several times and she accepted his
essential, however, that such injury should have been
love as well as his proposal of marriage on August 20, 1987, on
committed in a manner contrary to morals, good
which same day he went with her to her hometown of Baaga,
customs or public policy.
Bugallon, Pangasinan, as he wanted to meet her parents and
inform them of their relationship and their intention to get
married. The photographs Exhs. "A" to "E" (and their In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was
submarkings) of defendant with members of plaintiff's family or the petitioner's "fraudulent and deceptive
with plaintiff, were taken that day. Also on that occasion, protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff
defendant told plaintiffs parents and brothers and sisters that he that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to
intended to marry her during the semestral break in October, him and to live with him on the honest and sincere
1987, and because plaintiff's parents thought he was good and belief that he would keep said promise, and it was
trusted him, they agreed to his proposal for him to marry their likewise these fraud and deception on appellant's part
daughter, and they likewise allowed him to stay in their house that made plaintiff's parents agree to their daughter's
and sleep with plaintiff during the few days that they were in living-in with him preparatory to their supposed
Bugallon. When plaintiff and defendant later returned to marriage." 24 In short, the private respondent
Dagupan City, they continued to live together in defendant's surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of
apartment. However, in the early days of October, 1987, every single Filipina, not because of lust but because
defendant would tie plaintiff's hands and feet while he went to of moral seduction the kind illustrated by the Code
school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the Commission in its example earlier adverted to. The
morning that made her sleep the whole day and night until the petitioner could not be held liable for criminal
following day. As a result of this live-in relationship, plaintiff seduction punished under either Article 337 or Article
became pregnant, but defendant gave her some medicine to 338 of the Revised Penal Code because the private
abort the fetus. Still plaintiff continued to live with defendant and respondent was above eighteen (18) years of age at
kept reminding him of his promise to marry her until he told her the time of the seduction.
that he could not do so because he was already married to a
girl in Bacolod City. That was the time plaintiff left defendant, The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for
went home to her parents, and thereafter consulted a lawyer while indeed, the private respondent may not have
who accompanied her to the barangay captain in Dagupan City. been impelled by the purest of intentions, she
Plaintiff, her lawyer, her godmother, and a barangay tanod sent eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual
by the barangay captain went to talk to defendant to still congress not out of lust, but because of moral
convince him to marry plaintiff, but defendant insisted that he seduction. In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of
could not do so because he was already married to a girl in conscience about the entire episode for as soon as
Bacolod City, although the truth, as stipulated by the parties at she found out that the petitioner was not going to
the pre-trial, is that defendant is still single. Plaintiff's father, a marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore,
tricycle driver, also claimed that after defendant had informed in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means "in
them of his desire to marry Marilou, he already looked for equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt
sponsors for the wedding, started preparing for the reception by or in legal fault." 35 At most, it could be conceded that
looking for pigs and chickens, and even already invited many she is merely in delicto.
relatives and friends to the forthcoming wedding
Equity often interferes for the relief of the less guilty of
CA: RTCs decision was affirmed the parties, where his transgression has been brought
about by the imposition of undue influence of the party
ISSUE: W/N Art. 21 applies to the present case at bar? on whom the burden of the original wrong principally
rests, or where his consent to the transaction was
itself procured by
HELD:
fraud. 36

YES We should stress, however, that while We find for the


private respondent, let it not be said that this Court
condones the deplorable behavior of her parents in ISSUE: W/N Nicolas Mabute be dismissed from work as a
letting her and the petitioner stay together in the same government official because of the acts complained of by the
room in their house after giving approval to their Complainant which allegedly manifesting a disgraceful or
marriage. It is the solemn duty of parents to protect the grossly immoral conduct?
honor of their daughters and infuse upon them the HELD:
We find it evident that the sexual relations between the
higher values of morality and dignity.
complainant and the respondent were consensual.
They met at the Singles for Christ, started dating and
_____________________________________________________ subsequently became sweethearts. The respondent
frequently visited the complainant at her boarding
ABANAG v MABUTE house and also at her parents residence. The
complainant voluntarily yielded to the respondent and
Petitioner: Mary Jane Abanag they eventually lived together as husband and wife in
Respondents: Nicolas Mabute a rented room near the respondents office. They
Citation: A.M No. P-11-2922 continued their relationship even after the complainant
Date of Promulgation: April 4, 2011 had suffered a miscarriage.
Ponente: Brion Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and
consenting adults are not enough to warrant
FACTS: administrative sanction for illicit behavior.[7] The Court
Admistrative Case against Nicolas Mabute (Court has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a
Stenograoher in MTC Samar for Disgraceful and Immoral man and a woman who are not married, where both
Conduct) are not under any impediment to marry and where no
Complainant: 23-yr old unmarred woman alleged that deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled
respondent courted her and professed his undying love for her act that would warrant disbarment or disciplinary
Relying on such promise, she agreed to live with him. She got action
pregnant, but respondent brought her to a manghihilot to abort While the Court has the power to regulate official
the baby conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is
When she did not agree, respondent became cold, and not within our authority to decide on matters touching
abandoned her on employees personal lives, especially those that will
Depressed = loss of her baby she also stopped schooling due affect their and their familys future. We cannot intrude
to humiliation into the question of whether they should or should not
marry.[9]However, we take this occasion to remind
Respondents Comment on the Complaint: He denies the
judiciary employees to be more circumspect in their
allegations and claimed that the charges against him were
adherence to their obligations under the Code of
baseless, false, fabricated and were intended to harass him
Professional Responsibility. The conduct of court
and destroy his reputation
personnel must be free from any taint of impropriety or
he added that complainants co-employee, NORMA scandal, not only with respect to their official duties but
TORDESILLAS, was using the complaint to harass him, and also in their behavior outside the Court as private
that it was her who drafter the letter-complaint in behalf of the individuals. This is the best way to preserve and
Complainant protect the integrity and the good name of our courts
Reply: Complainant insisted that she herself wrote the letter- Dismissed for lack of merit
complaint. She also belied respondents statement that _____________________________________________________
Tordesillas was using her
Summary of Facts, Court: MARIATEGUI v CA
In his Report/Recommendation dated June 7, 2010,
[2]
Executive Judge Avila reported on the developments in the Petitioner: Maria del Rosario Mariategui, et al.,
hearing of the case. The complainant testified that she met the Respondents: CA, Jacinto Mariategui, Julian Mariategui and
respondent while she was a member of the Singles for Christ. Paulina Mariategui
They became acquainted and they started dating. The Citation: 205 SCRA 337
relationship blossomed until they lived together in a rented Date of Promulgation: January 24, 1992
room near the respondents office. Ponente: Bidin
The respondent, for his part, confirmed that he met the
complainant when he joined the Singles for Christ. He FACTS:
described their liaison as a dating relationship. He admitted that Lupo Mariategui: died without a will on June 26, 1953. During
the complainant would join him at his rented room three to four his lifetime, he contracted 3 marriages:
times a week; when the complainant became pregnant, he 1. Eusebia Montellano died on Nov. 8, 1904. 4
asked her to stay and live with him. He vehemently denied children: Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbana and
having brought the complainant to a local manghihilot and that Ireneo
he had tried to force her to abort her baby. He surmised that the *Baldomera died and was survived by her children:
complainants miscarriage could be related to her epileptic Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and
attacks during her pregnancy. The respondent further testified Federico (all surnamed Espina)
that the complainants mother did not approve of him, but the *Ireneo also died and left a son, Ruperto
complainant defied her mother and lived with him. He proposed 2. Flaviana Montellano begot a daughter named
marriage to the complainant, but her mother did not like him as Crescenciana
a son-in-law and ordered the complainant to return home. The 3. Felipa Velasco 3 children: Jacinto, Julian and
complainant obeyed her mother. They have separated ways Paulina
since then, but he pledged his undying love for the complainant. *Felipa Velasco died on July 3, 1929
RTC: Dismissed the Complaint. The personal affair of a court At the time of his death, Lupo left certain properties which when
employee who is a bachelor and has maintained an amorous he acquired, he was still unmarried Lots Nos. 163, 66, 1346
relation with a woman equally unmarried has nothing to do with and 156 of the Muntinlupa Estate
his public employment.
Dec. 2, 1967: Lupos descendants by his 1st and 2nd marriages two months after learning that petitioners had registered in
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they their names the lots involved.
adjudicated unto themselves Lot No. 163.
Lot 163 became the subject of a voluntary registration EVERYTHING ABOUT MARRIAGE:
proceedings filed by the adjudicates under Act No 496 With respect to the legal basis of private respondents' demand
OCT No. 8828 was then issued they then caused the for partition of the estate of Lupo Mariategui, the Court of Appeals
subdivision of the said lot into Lots. 163-A to 163-H separate aptly held that the private respondents are legitimate children of the
titles deceased.
Aug. 23, 1973: Lupos children by his 3rd marriage filed an
Amended Complaint claiming Lot No. 163, together with Lot Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco were alleged to have been
Nos. 669, 1346 and 154 were owned by their common father,
lawfully married in or about 1930. This fact is based on the
and with the adjudication of Lot N. 163, they were deprived of
their respective shares declaration communicated by Lupo Mariategui to Jacinto who
Plaintiffs: pray for the partition of estate and annulment of the testified that "when (his) father was still living, he was able to
deed of extrajudicial partition mention to (him) that he and (his) mother were able to get married
Cresenciana, Flaviana and Isabel were impleaded in the before a Justice of the Peace of Taguig, Rizal." The spouses
Complaint as unwilling defendants as they would not like to join deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the
the suit as plaintffs although they acknowledged the status and community to be such. Although no marriage certificate was
rights of the plaintiffs and agreed to the partition of the parcels introduced to this effect, no evidence was likewise offered to
of land as well as the accounting of their fruits.
controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the
Petitioners: filed an Answer with Counterclaim, and later on
marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all
filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of
action and prescription. They contended that the complaint was requisites for its validity are present (People vs. Borromeo, 133
one for recognition of natural children SCRA 106 [1984]).
MTD was denied
Complaint as well as petitioners counterclaim were dismissed Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to have
CA: decision declaring all the children and descendants of taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume that a
Lupo Mariategui, including appellants Jacinto, Julian and man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife,
Paulina (children of the third marriage) as entitled to equal have entered into a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in
shares in the estate of Lupo Mariategui; directing the
lawful wedlock, there being no divorce, absolute or from bed and
adjudicatees in the extrajudicial partition of real properties who
eventually acquired transfer certificates of title thereto, to board is legitimate; and that things have happened according to the
execute deeds of reconveyance in favor, and for the shares, of ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life (Section 5
Jacinto, Julian and Paulina provided rights of innocent third (z), (bb), (cc), Rule 131, Rules of Court; Corpus v. Corpus, 85 SCRA
persons are not prejudiced otherwise the said adjudicatees 567 [1978]; Saurnaba v. Workmen's Compensation, 85 SCRA 502
shall reimburse the said heirs the fair market value of their [1978]; Alavado v. City Gov't. of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230 [1985];
shares; and directing all the parties to submit to the lower court Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 439 [1985]).
a project of partition in the net estate of Lupo Mariategui after
payment of taxes, other government charges and outstanding
legal obligations. Courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great favor as it
MR: denied for lack of merit is founded on the following rationale:
ISSUES:
1. W/N prescription barred private respondents right to The basis of human society throughout the
demand the partition of the estate of Lupo? civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this
2. W/N the private respondents, who belatedly filed the action
for recognition, were able to probe their successional rights jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a
over said esate? new relation, an institution in the maintenance of
HELD: which the public is deeply interested.
In view of the foregoing, there can be no other conclusion Consequently, every intendment of the law leans
than that private respondents are legitimate children and toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling
heirs of Lupo Mariategui and therefore, the time limitation together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in
prescribed in Article 285 for filing an action for recognition the absence of any counterpresumption or
is inapplicable to this case. Corollarily, prescription does evidence special to that case, to be in fact
not run against private respondents with respect to the
married. The reason is that such is the common
filing of the action for partition so long as the heirs for
whose benefit prescription is invoked, have not expressly order of society and if the parties were not what
or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership. In other words, they thus hold themselves out as being, they
prescription of an action for partition does not lie except would be living in the constant violation of
when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co- decency and of
owner law . . . (Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, 43 Phil.
Petitioners' registration of the properties in their names in
43, 56 [1922] quoted in Alavado vs. City
1971 did not operate as a valid repudiation of the co-
Government of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230 [1985]).
ownership
Inasmuch as petitioners registered the properties in their
names in fraud of their co-heirs prescription can only be So much so that once a man and a woman have lived as husband
deemed to have commenced from the time private and wife and such relationship is not denied nor contradicted, the
respondents discovered the petitioners' act of defraudation presumption of their being married must be admitted as a fact
(Adille vs. Court of Appeals, supra). Hence, prescription (Alavado v. City Gov't. of Tacloban, supra).
definitely may not be invoked by petitioners because
private respondents commenced the instant action barely
_____________________________________________________ Several months after that fateful encounter of January 7, 1994, in a
Bible Study session, the complainant learned from Manila RTC Judge
Ramon Makasiar, a member of the Bible Group, that he (Judge Makasiar)
DE MIJARES v VILLALUZ
solemnized the marriage between former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz and a
certain Lydia Geraldez. Infuriated and impelled by the disheartening news,
Complainant: Priscila Castillo VDA de Mijares
complainant lost no time in gathering evidence against respondent, such
Respondent: Justice Onofre A. Villaluz (Retired)
that, on June 6, 1995 she filed the instant Complaint for Disbarment against
Citation: 271 SCRA 1
him (Exh. "A").
Date of Promulgation: June 19, 1997
Ponente: Regalado
On August 7, 1995, when she discovered another incriminatory
FACTS: document against respondent, the complainant executed against respondent
June 6, 1995: Judge Priscilla Castillo Vda. De Mijares charged her "Supplemental Complaint Affidavit for Falsification" (Exhs. "D" and "D-
retired CA Justice Onofre A. Villaluz for disbarment for gross 1").
immorality and grave misconduct
Resolution: refert the admin case to Assoc Justice Fidel Exhibit "C", marriage contract of respondent and Lydia Geraldez, dated May
Purisima of CA for investigation, report and recommendation 10, 1994, was offered by complainant to prove that respondent immorally
Judge Purisimas Recommendation: WHEREFORE, in light and bigamously entered into a marriage, and to show that the respondent
of the foregoing and without prejudice to the outcome of the distorted the truth by stating his civil status as SINGLE, when her married
aforesaid Criminal Case No. 142481 for Bigamy, it is Lydia Geraldez. This, the respondent did, to lead an immoral and indiscreet
respectfully recommended that the respondent, former Justice life. He resorted to falsification to distort the truth, complainant lamented.
Onofre A. Villaluz, be found guilty of gross misconduct, within Also presented for complainant were: Marriage Contract between her and
the contemplation of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court on respondent (Exh. "B"); Order declaring her first husband, Primitivo Mijares,
removal or suspension of attorneys, and therefor(e), he be presumptively dead (Exh. "E"); and Affidavit of Judge Myrna Lim Verano,
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) who solemnized the marriage between her (complainant) and respondent
years, commencing from the finality of the Decision in this (Exhs. "F" and "F-1").
case, with a warning that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
Respondent gave a different version. According to him, what he
inked with the complainant on January 7, 1994 was merely but a "sham
marriage". He explained that he agreed as, in fact, he voluntarily signed the
Antecedent Facts summarized by Judge Purisima:
Marriage Contract marked Exh. "B", in an effort to help Judge Mijares in the
Complainant is the Presiding Judge of Branch 108 of the Regional Trial
administrative case for immorality filed against her by her Legal Researcher,
Court, Pasay City, while respondent former Justice Onofre A. Villaluz is a
Atty. Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr., sometime in 1993. Respondent theorized
consultant at the Presidential Anti Crime Commission (PACC) headed by
that when his marriage with complainant took place before Judge Myrna Lim
Vice-President Joseph E. Estrada.
Verano, his marriage with Librada Pea, his first wife, was subsisting
because the Decision declaring the annulment of such marriage had not yet
Widowed by the death of her first husband, Primitivo Mijares, become final and executory, for the reason that said Decision was not yet
complainant commenced Special Proceeding No. 90-54650 and therein published as required by the Rules, the service of summons upon Librada
obtained a decree declaring the said Primitivo Mijares presumptively dead, Pea having been made by publication, and subject Decision was not yet
after an absence of sixteen (16) years. published. To this effect was the Certification by Mrs. Nelia B. Rosario, Acting
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
Complainant narrated that on January 7, 1994, she got married to (Exh. "4").
respondent in a civil wedding before Judge Myrna Lim Verano, then
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona, Cavite and CA: adopted the findings and recommendation of Justice
now Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. Their
Purisima that respondent is guilty of deceit and grossly immoral
marriage was the culmination of a long engagement. They met sometime in
1977, when respondent, as Presiding Judge of the Criminal Circuit Court in conduct
Pasig, Metro Manila, was trying a murder case involving the death of a son
of Judge Mijares. Since then, respondent became a close family friend of ISSUE: W/N respondent can invoke sham marriage as a
complainant (TSN, p. 14; April 10, 1996). After the wedding, they received defense?
their guests at a German restaurant in Makati. With the reception over, the
newlywed(s) resumed their usual work and activities. At 6:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of the same day, respondent fetched complainant from her house HELD:
in Project 8, Quezon City, and reached the condominium unit of respondent
two hours later at which time, she answered the phone. At the other end of NO
the line was a woman offending her with insulting remarks. Consternated,
complainant confronted respondent on the identity of such caller but
respondent simply remarked "it would have been just a call at the wrong That what complainant and respondent contracted was a
number". What followed was a heated exchange of harsh words, one word valid marriage is borne out by law and the evidence. To be
led to another, to a point when respondent called complainant a "nagger", sure, all the essential and formal requisites of a valid
saying "Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang gusto ko sa babae, yong sumusunod sa
marriage under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code, i.e.,
bawa't gusto ko". Get that marriage contract and have it burned." Such
legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a
unbearable utterances of respondent left complainant no choice but to leave
in haste the place of their would-be honeymoon. Since then, the complainant male and a female; consent freely given in the presence of
and respondent have been living separately because as complainant the solemnizing officer; authority of the solemnizing officer;
rationalized, contrary to her expectation respondent never got in touch with a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in
her and did not even bother to apologize for what happened (TSN, p. 13, Chapter 2 of Title I on marriage, Family Code; and a
April 10, 1996. marriage ceremony with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer, and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife,
in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age, respondent contracted with complainant on January 7,
were satisfied and complied with. 1994 was a "sham" marriage, as he terms it, the ineluctible
conclusion is that what respondent perpetrated was a
The theory of respondent that what (was) solemnized with gross misconduct on his part as a member of the Philippine
complainant was nothing but a "sham" marriage is too Bar and as former appellate Justice, at that. Even granting
incredible to deserve serious consideration. According to that the immorality charge against herein complainant in
respondent, he entered into subject marriage in an effort to the administrative case instituted against her by Atty.
save the complainant from the charge of immorality against Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr., is unfounded, respondent was
her. But, to repeat: regardless of the intention of not justified in resorting to a "sham" marriage to protect her
respondent in saying "I do" with complainant before a (complainant) from said immorality charge. Being a lawyer,
competent authority, all ingredients of a valid marriage the respondent is surely conversant with the legal maxim
were present. His consent thereto was freely given. Judge that a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong. If he
Myrna Lim Verano was authorized by law to solemnize the never had any immoral love affair with Judge Priscilla
civil marriage, and both contracting parties had the legal Castillo Vda. de Mijares and therefore, he felt duty bound
capacity to contract such marriage. to help her in ventilating the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, respondent could have testified in her favor in said
administrative case, to assure all and sundry that what Atty.
Without in anyway pre-empting whatever the Regional Trial
Joseph Gregorio Naval, Jr. complained of in said
Court of Manila will find in the criminal case of Bigamy
administrative case was without any factual and legal
against herein respondent, and even assuming for the
basis.
sake of argument that the judgment in Civil Case No. 93-
67048 decreeing the annulment of the marriage between
respondent and Librada Pena had not attained complete In this only Christian country of the Far East, society
finality due to non publication of said judgment in a cherishes and protects the sanctity of marriage and the
newspaper of general circulation; that circumstance, alone, family as a social institution. Consequently, no one can
only made subject marriage voidable and did not make a mockery thereof and perform a sham marriage with
necessarily render the marriage between complainant and impunity. To make fun of and take lightly the sacredness of
respondent void. marriage is to court the wrath of the Creator and mankind.
Therefore, the defense of respondent that what was
entered into by him and complainant on January 7, 1994
Besides, as stressed upon by complainant, respondent
was nothing but a "sham" marriage is unavailing to shield
stated under oath that his marriage with Librada Pena had
or absolve him from liability for his gross misconduct, nay
been annulled by a decree of annulment, when he
sacrilege.
(respondent) took Lydia Geraldez as his wife by third
marriage, and therefore, he is precluded, by the principle of
estoppel, from claiming that when he took herein WHEREFORE, finding herein respondent, former Justice
complainant as his wife by a second marriage, his first Onofre A. Villaluz, GUILTY of immoral conduct in violation
marriage with Librada Pea was subsisting and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, he is hereby
unannulled. SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two
(2) years effective upon notice hereof, with the specific
WARNING that a more severe penalty shall be imposed
But, anyway, as it is not proper to make here a definitive
should he commit the same or a similar offense hereafter
findings as to whether or not respondent can be adjudged
guilty of bigamy under the attendant facts and
circumstances, a crucial issue pending determination in
Criminal Case No. 142481 before Branch 12 of the Manila
Regional Trial Court, even assuming arguendo that what

Вам также может понравиться