Art 46

(Villanueva v CA) Facts:

*Orlando-husband
*Lilia-wife
Facts:
Orlando and Lila were married on April 13, 1988 (Civil
Code). Orlando filed a petition for annulment for he claims
that he was forced into marriage by use of threats of violence
and duress to Lilia who was at that time already pregnant.
Lilia
Lilia claims that Orlando freely married her in Palawan. That
there are even letters the petitioner wrote to here that declares
his love for her.
Orlando
Claims that he was forced and threatened. He was even visited
by “Ka Celso” after class in UE who escorted him to Palawan
to get married.
Issue:
Can the marriage be annulled on the basis of vitiated consent?
Held:
No. Petition partly granted
Orlando was not forced. It was shown that he was just trying
to evade a pending bigamous case filed against him in the
same court.
Art 48
(Malcampo-sin v Sin)
*Philipp- Husband (Portugese)
*Florence-wife
Facts:
Philipp and Florence were married in St Jude Parish on Jan. 4,
1987 (Civil Code). And on 1994, Florence applied for a
declaration of nullity of marriage but was dismissed. There
was lack of evidence showing of the active participation of the
state during the pendency of the case. Fiscal Jabson only filed
a manifestation that he did not find collusion between the
parties. He merely entered his appearance in certain hearings
of the case but nothing more was heard from him.
Issue:
W/N the state was able to fulfill its role as defensor vinculi?
Held:
No. REMANDED
The court was not able to avoid evil even if the case was
dismissed. The state must actively participate in the protection
of the family through the Fiscal who must check for any
evidence of collusion or fraud between the parties.
(Llave v Philippines)
*Sen Tamano-Husband
*Zorayda-1st wife
*Adib-son
*Estrellita-2nd wife
After the death of Sen. Tamano, Zorayda filed a declaration of
nullity for the marriage between Estrellita and Sen Tamano for
it being bigamous. She claims that her marriage with Sen
Tamano was still subsisting when Estrellita got married to
him. Sen. Tamano represented himself as divorced in his
marriage with Estrellita were he was married under Islamic
laws and under the Civil law in 1993.
Estrellita
Estrellita claims that the marriage between Zorayd and Sen
Tamano is governed by muslims laws for both of them are
muslim. And that the divorce between them is valid if it was
under the Muslim laws. She also claims that Zorayda had no
legal standing because only the husband and the wife could
file for a nullity of their marriage.
Zorayda
Claims that it is the civil code that governs their marriage. She
has legal standing for she is an injured party and the valid first
wife.
Issue:
1. Was the prosecutor able to guarantee that there was no
collusion between the parties?
2. What governs their marriage?
3. Does Zorayda have legal standing?
Held:
Yes. Case dismissed
1. Yes. the petitioners vehement opposition to the annulment
proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion existed
between the two parties. We are convinced that the non-
intervention of the prosecuting attorney to assure lack of
collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the
validity of the proceedings of the trial court
2. Civil code. Even is the marriage of Zorayda and Sen
Tamano was solemnized in both (like Estrellita), the civil code
states that only 1 marriage can subsist. And since the marriage
was first solemnized civilly, I guess it’s the civil code that
governs their marriage. Likewise, the Muslim personal code
took effect after the marriage of Zorayda and Sen . Tamano so
it cannot be given retroactive effect.
3. Yes. Zorayda has legal standing for she is the legal wife and
injured party. It is logical that if the bigamous couple would
benefit from their marriage, they would not in any way file for
a nullity of their marriage. No rights can arise from a void
marriage.
Art 68
(Lacson v San-Jose Lacson)
*Alfonso Lacson-husband
*Carmela-wife
*Enrique, Maria Teresa, Gerard, Ramon-kids
Facts:
Alfonso Lacson and Carmen were married I Feb 14, 1953.
They had 4 children. On January 1963, Carmela left the
conjugal home in Bacolod and went to Manila. On April 27,
1963 they filed a compromise agreement in the CFI to for the
separation of property and the custody of the children.
It was agreed that the 2 older children will stay with Alfonso
and the 2 younger ones will stay with Carmela. After the CFI
approved the petition for not being contrary to law, Alfonso
delivered all the 4 children to Carmela. Carmela never
returned the 2 older children to Alfonso.
Issue:
Was the compromise agreement conformable to law?
Held:
Yes. Remanded
Children below 7 years old are by default given to the mother
except for compelling reasons. This is to avoid many a tragedy
of a mother seeing her baby torn away from her at a tender
age. (basically to protect the mother from hurting) Although
since 5 years has already passed since the compromise was
filed, the children now have become older and only Ramon is
below 7 years old. The case was remanded as to decide the
custody of the children
Facts:
Aleko was a writer, author and photographer married to Sonja.
His works were translated by his wife into English, german
and Swedish. Sonja also acted as his secretary. After meeting
an accident where the Manila Railroad’s train crashed into the
car of Aleko where he and his family were riding, he filed a
case asking for damages as the deprivation of the domestic
services of his wife, since his wife suffered lacerations and a
fracture on her left leg.
The court ruled that the domestic assistance and conjugal
companionship are purely personal and voluntary acts which
neither spouse may be compelled to render. The person
claiming for indemnity should prove that the person obliged to
render the services before getting injured would still be willing
to do so if he or she would not have been prevented from
doing so.
Issue:
Can Aleko file for damages?
Held:
No. affirmed in toto with single modification.

(Arroyo v Arroyo) I order that a husband may recover damages for deprivation of
*Mariano-husband her wife’s assistance during her illness from the accident, he
*Dolores-wife must necessarily prove that his wife is willing to continue
Facts: rendering the service had she not been prevented from doing
Mariano and Dolores have been married since 1910 and have so by her illness.
had short intervals of separation. They lived together in Iloilo
until July 4, 1920, when Dolores decided to live away from
her husband. She filed a case to grant a (1) a decree of
separation. (2) liquidation of conjugal partnership, (3)
allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate
maintenance. She claims that it was because of Mariano’s ill
treatment of her that she left the conjugal home.

It was then proven that Mariano had done nothing to forfeit his
right to marital society of his wife. They declared Dolores
absent from the marital home without sufficient cause.

Mariano asks the court to compel Dolores to cohabit with him,

and that her refusal to follow will result in imprisonment for
contempt.

Issue:
Can the courts order Dolores to cohabit with Mariano?

Held:
No. Dolores declared absent without sufficient cause

The courts have found forcing a husband or a wife to cohabit

with each other quite questionable. The courts cite cases from
England, America and Spain. They found that Spain affirmed
a decision requiring the wife to return to the conjugal home
but did not imprison her for disobedience.

(Lilius v Manila Railroad)

*Aleko-husband
*Sonja-wife
*Brita-4 yr old daughter