Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


182894 April 22, 2014 actual damages and attorneys fees will be awarded
to the Rosario and her children.
Valino v. Adriano
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents (Rosario
FACTS: and her children) are entitled to the remains of Atty.
Atty. Adriano Adriano married
respondent Rosario Adriano with which their HELD: Rosario and her children are entitled to
marriage bore two sons, Florante and Ruben Adriano, the remains of Atty. Adriano in accordance to Article
three daughters, Rosario, Victoria, and Maria Theresa 305 which specifies the persons who have the right
and one adopted daughter, Leah Antonette. The and duty to make funeral arrangements for the
couples relationship turned sour and was separated. deceased. Furthermore, Art. 308 of the Civil Code
Years later, Atty. Adriano courted Valino, one of his maintained that No human remains shall be retained,
clients and eventually decided to live together as interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent
husband and wife. Despite the prevailing of the persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305.
arrangement, Atty. Adriano continued to provide Art. 199 specifies that whenever two or more people
financial support to Rosario and their children. In are obliged to give support, liability shall devolve
1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema and upon the following persons in the order provided: 1)
during that time, Rosario was in United States spouse; 2) descendants in the nearest degree; 3) the
spending Christmas with her children. Valino took ascendants in the nearest degree; and 4) brothers and
charge of the burial process since no one of the sisters. In this connection, Section 1103 of the
family members was around. When Rosario learned Revised Administrative Code provides that the
of her husbands death, she called Valino and immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased
requested for the interment to be delayed for few person if a married man or woman, regardless of the
days but was not heeded. Atty. Adrianos remains ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall
were then interred at Valinos family mausoleum in devolve upon the surviving spouse if he or she
Manila Memorial Park and were not attended by possesses the sufficient means to pay the necessary
Rosario and her children. Rosario and her children expenses. With that, Rosario and her children are
commenced a suit against Valino, claiming that they entitled of the remains of Atty. Adriano
were deprived of the chance to view the remains of notwithstanding the fact that Rosario has been living
Atty. Adriano before he was buried at Manila separately from her husband and was not at his
Memorial Park, which was contrary to the deceaseds deathbed when he drew his last breath. Moreover, it
burial wishes and prayed that they be indemnified for cannot be said that Rosario had waived or renounced,
actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorneys expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make
fees. Additionally, it was requested that Atty. arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband
Adrianos remains be exhumed and transferred to the and is deemed baseless. Hence, petition filed by
family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Valino is DISMISSED and no actual, moral, or
Novaliches, Quezon City. exemplary damages will be awarded to Rosario and
her children.
Valino contended that Rosario and Atty.
Adriano had been separated for more than twenty
years when he courted her and throughout that time,
she was presented and known by his friends and
associates as his wife. Additionally, she argued that
she took good care of Atty. Adriano unlike Rosario
and even shouldered his medical expenses when he
was seriously ill and that it was the deceaseds last
wish to be interred in Valinos family mausoleum at
the Manila Memorial Park.

The RTC dismissed the complaint of the

respondents for lack of merit but Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the RTCs decision on appeal,
directing Valino to have the remains of Atty. Adriano
exhumed at the expense of the respondents. The
Supreme Court likewise affirmed the decision of the
Court of Appeals and ruled that no moral, exemplary,