1&1 vs.

NLkC
272 SCkA S96

lacLs:
Crace de Cuzman, prlvaLe respondenL, was lnlLlally hlred as a rellever by 1&1,
peLlLloner, speclflcally as a Supernumerary ro[ecL Worker, for a flxed perlod due Lo a
cerLaln employee who's havlng a maLernlLy leave. under Lhe agreemenL she slgned, her
employmenL was Lo lmmedlaLely LermlnaLe upon Lhe explraLlon of Lhe agreed perlod.
1hereafLer, 1&1 agaln hlred Crace as rellever for Lhe succeedlng perlods, Lhls Llme as a
replacemenL Lo an employee who wenL on leave. 1he rellever sLaLus was Lhen formally
compleLed unLll she was asked agaln Lo [oln 1&1 as a probaLlonary employee coverlng 130
days. ln Lhe [ob appllcaLlon form, she lndlcaLed ln Lhe porLlon of Lhe clvll sLaLus Lhereln LhaL
she was slngle alLhough she had conLracLed marrlage a few monLhs earller. Crace has also
made Lhe same represenLaLlon on her Lwo successlve rellever agreemenLs. 1he branch
supervlsor of 1&1 havlng dlscovered Lhe dlscrepancy senL Crace a memorandum requlrlng
her Lo explaln Lhe sald dlscrepancy and she was remlnded abouL Lhe company's pollcy of noL
accepLlng marrled women for employmenL. ln her reply, she sLaLed LhaL she wasn'L aware of
such pollcy aL LhaL Llme and all along she hadn'L dellberaLely hldden her Lrue clvll sLaLus.
Powever, 1&1 remalned unconvlnced of Lhls reasonlng pledge by Crace and Lhus she was
dlsmlssed from Lhe company. Crace conLesLed by lnlLlaLlng a complalnL for lllegal dlsmlssal
and wlLh a clalm for non-paymenL of cosL of llvlng allowances.

lssue:
WheLher or noL 1&1 ls llable agalnsL Crace's lllegal dlsmlssal due Lo cerLaln
company pollcy.

8ullng:
Marrlage as a speclal conLracL cannoL be resLrlcLed by dlscrlmlnaLory pollcles of
prlvaLe lndlvlduals or corporaLlons. Where's a company pollcy dlsquallfled from work any
woman worker who conLracLs marrlage, Lhe Supreme CourL lnvalldaLed such pollcy as lL noL
only runs afoul Lhe consLlLuLlonal provlslon on equal proLecLlon buL also on Lhe fundamenLal
pollcy of Lhe SLaLe Loward marrlage.
1he danger of such pollcy agalnsL marrlage followed by 1&1 ls LhaL lL sLrlke aL Lhe
very essence, ldeals and purpose of marrlage as an lnvlolable soclal lnsLlLuLlon and ulLlmaLely
of Lhe famlly as Lhe foundaLlon of Lhe naLlon. 1herefore, 1&1 ls deemed llable for Crace's
lllegal dlsmlssal and Lhe laLLer shall clalm for damages.






Lstrada vs. Lscr|tor
A.M. -02-16S1 August 4, 2003

lacLs:
ln a sworn leLLer-complalnL, Ale[andro LsLrada, complalnanL, wroLe Lo !udge
Caolbes !r. requesLlng for an lnvesLlgaLlon of rumors LhaL respondenL Soledad LscrlLor, courL
lnLerpreLer of Las lnas, ls llvlng wlLh a man noL her husband. !udge Caolbes referred Lhe
leLLer Lo LscrlLor, who sLaLed LhaL Lhere ls no LruLh as Lo Lhe veraclLy of Lhe allegaLlon" and
challenged LsLrada, Lo appear ln Lhe open and prove hls allegaLlon ln Lhe proper courL".
!udge Caolbes seL a prellmlnary conference and LscrlLor move for lnhlblLlon Lo avold blas and
susplclon ln hearlng her case. ln Lhe conference, LsLrada conflrmed LhaL he flled a leLLer-
complalnL for dlsgraceful and lmmoral conducL" under Lhe 8evlsed AdmlnlsLraLlve Code
agalnsL LscrlLor for LhaL hls frequenL vlslL ln Lhe Pall of !usLlce ln Las lnas learned LscrlLor ls
cohablLlng wlLh anoLher man noL hls husband.
LscrlLor LesLlfled LhaL when she enLered [udlclary ln 1999, she was already a wldow
slnce 1998. She admlLLed LhaL she's been llvlng wlLh Luclano Cullapo !r. wlLhouL Lhe beneflL
of marrlage for 20 years and LhaL Lhey have a son. LscrlLor asserLed LhaL as a member of Lhe
rellglous secL known as !ehovah's WlLnesses, and havlng execuLed a ueclaraLlon of ledglng
lalLhfulness" (whlch allows members of Lhe congregaLlon who have been abandoned by
Lhelr spouses Lo enLer lnLo marlLal relaLlons) [olnLly wlLh Cullapo afLer Len years of llvlng
LogeLher, her con[ugal arrangemenL ls ln conformlLy wlLh her rellglous bellefs and has Lhe
approval of Lhe congregaLlon, Lherefore noL consLlLuLlng dlsgraceful and lmmoral conducL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL LscrlLor ls admlnlsLraLlvely llable for dlsgraceful and lmmoral
conducL.

8ullng:
LscrlLor cannoL be penallzed. 1he ConsLlLuLlon adheres Lo Lhe benevolenL neuLrallLy
approach LhaL glves room for accommodaLlon of rellglous exerclses as requlred by Lhe lree
Lxerclse Clause, provlded LhaL lL does noL offend compelllng sLaLe lnLeresLs. 1he CSC musL
Lhen demonsLraLe LhaL Lhe sLaLe has used Lhe leasL lnLruslve means posslble so LhaL Lhe free
exerclse clause ls noL lnfrlnged any more Lhan necessary Lo achleve Lhe leglLlmaLe goal of Lhe
sLaLe. ln Lhls case, wlLh no loLa of evldence offered, Lhe records are berefL of even a feeble
aLLempL Lo show LhaL Lhe sLaLe adopLed Lhe leasL lnLruslve means. WlLh Lhe SollclLor Ceneral
uLLerly falllng Lo prove Lhls elemenL of Lhe LesL, and under Lhese dlsLlncL clrcumsLances,
LscrlLor cannoL be penallzed.
1he ConsLlLuLlon lLself mandaLes Lhe CourL Lo make exempLlons ln cases lnvolvlng
crlmlnal laws of general appllcaLlon, and under Lhese dlsLlncL clrcumsLances, such con[ugal
arrangemenL cannoL be penallzed for Lhere ls a case for exempLlon from Lhe law based on
Lhe fundamenLal rlghL Lo freedom of rellglon. ln Lhe area of rellglous exerclse as a preferred
freedom, man sLands accounLable Lo an auLhorlLy hlgher Lhan Lhe sLaLe.



Go|t|a vs. Campos-kueda
3S h||. 2S2

lacLs:
ArLlcle 1, Llolsa ColLla, plalnLlff-appellanL, and !ose Campos-8ueda, defendanL,
were legally marrled ln Lhe clLy of Manlla. 1hey esLabllshed Lhelr resldence 113 Calle San
Marcellno, where Lhey llved LogeLher for abouL a monLh. Powever, Lhe plalnLlff reLurned Lo
Lhe home of her parenLs.
1he allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL were LhaL Lhe defendanL, one monLh afLer Lhey
had conLracLed marrlage, demanded plalnLlff Lo perform unchasLe and lasclvlous acLs on hls
genlLal organs ln whlch Lhe laLLer re[ecL Lhe sald demands. WlLh Lhese refusals, Lhe defendanL
goL lrrlLaLed and provoked Lo malLreaL Lhe plalnLlff by word and deed. unable Lo lnduce Lhe
defendanL Lo deslsL from hls repugnanL deslres and cease of malLreaLlng her, plalnLlff was
obllged Lo leave Lhe con[ugal abode and Lake refuge ln Lhe home of her parenLs.
1he plalnLlff appeals for a complalnL agalnsL her husband for supporL ouLslde of Lhe
con[ugal domlclle. Powever, Lhe defendanL ob[ecLs LhaL Lhe facLs alleged ln Lhe complalnL do
noL sLaLe a cause of acLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL ColLla can clalm for supporL ouLslde of Lhe con[ugal domlclle.

8ullng:
Marrlage ls someLhlng more Lhan a mere conLracL. lL ls a new relaLlon, Lhe rlghLs,
duLles and obllgaLlons of whlch resL noL upon Lhe agreemenL of Lhe parLles buL upon Lhe
general law whlch deflnes and prescrlbes Lhose rlghLs, duLles and obllgaLlons. When Lhe
ob[ecL of a marrlage ls defeaLed by renderlng lLs conLlnuance lnLolerable Lo one of Lhe parLles
and producLlve of no posslble good Lo Lhe communlLy, rellef ln some way should be
obLalnable.
1he law provldes LhaL defendanL, who ls obllged Lo supporL Lhe wlfe, may fulflll Lhls
obllgaLlon elLher by paylng her a flxed penslon or by malnLalnlng her ln hls own home aL hls
opLlon. Powever, Lhe opLlon glven by law ls noL absoluLe. 1he law wlll noL permlL Lhe
defendanL Lo evade or LermlnaLe hls obllgaLlon Lo supporL hls wlfe lf Lhe wlfe was forced Lo
leave Lhe con[ugal abode because of Lhe lewd deslgns and physlcal assaulLs of Lhe defendanL,
8eaLrlz may clalm supporL from Lhe defendanL for separaLe malnLenance even ouLslde of Lhe
con[ugal home.






8a|ogbog vs. CA
G.k. No. 83S98 March 7, 1997

lacLs:
eLlLloners Leoncla and Caudloso 8alogbog are Lhe chlldren of 8aslllo 8alogbog and
Cenoveva Arzlbal who dled lnLesLaLe ln 1931 and 1961, respecLlvely. 1hey had an older
broLher, Cavlno, buL he dled ln 1933, predeceaslng Lhelr parenLs. ln 1968, prlvaLe
respondenLs 8amonlLo and Ceneroso 8alogbog broughL an acLlon for parLlLlon and
accounLlng agalnsL peLlLloners, clalmlng LhaL Lhey were Lhe leglLlmaLe chlldren of Cavlno by
CaLallna ubas and LhaL, as such, Lhey were enLlLled Lo Lhe one-Lhlrd share of Cavlno ln Lhe
esLaLe of Lhelr grandparenLs. ln Lhelr answer, peLlLloners denled knowlng prlvaLe
respondenLs. 1hey alleged LhaL Lhelr broLher Cavlno dled slngle and wlLhouL lssue ln Lhelr
parenLs' resldence aL 1ag-amakan, AsLurlas, Cebu. 1he CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Cebu ClLy
rendered [udgmenL for prlvaLe respondenLs, orderlng peLlLloners Lo render an accounLlng
from 1960 unLll Lhe flnallLy of lLs [udgmenL, Lo parLlLlon Lhe esLaLe and dellver Lo prlvaLe
respondenLs one-Lhlrd of Lhe esLaLe of 8aslllo and Cenoveva, and Lo pay aLLorney's fees and
cosLs. Cn appeal, Lhe CourL of Appeals afflrmed.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe marrlage beLween Cavlno and CaLallna ls valld even ln Lhe
absence of marrlage cerLlflcaLe.

8ullng:
under Lhe 8ules of CourL, Lhe presumpLlon ls LhaL a man and a woman conducLlng
Lhemselves as husband and wlfe are legally marrled. 1hls presumpLlon may be rebuLLed only
by cogenL proof Lo Lhe conLrary. ln Lhls case, peLlLloners' clalm LhaL Lhe cerLlflcaLlon
presenLed by prlvaLe respondenLs, Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Lhe record of Lhe marrlage had been losL
or desLroyed durlng Lhe war, was belled by Lhe producLlon of Lhe 8ook of Marrlages by Lhe
asslsLanL munlclpal Lreasurer of AsLurlas. eLlLloners argue LhaL Lhls book does noL conLaln
any enLry perLalnlng Lo Lhe alleged marrlage of prlvaLe respondenLs' parenLs. 1hls conLenLlon
has no merlL. AlLhough a marrlage conLracL ls consldered prlmary evldence of marrlage, Lhe
fallure Lo presenL lL ls noL proof LhaL no marrlage Look place. CLher evldence may be
presenLed Lo prove marrlage.
Pere, prlvaLe respondenLs proved, Lhrough LesLlmonlal evldence, LhaL Cavlno and
CaLallna were marrled ln 1929, LhaL Lhey had Lhree chlldren, one of whom dled ln lnfancy,
LhaL Lhelr marrlage subslsLed unLll 1933 when Cavlno dled, and LhaL Lhelr chlldren, prlvaLe
respondenLs hereln, were recognlzed by Cavlno's famlly and by Lhe publlc as Lhe leglLlmaLe
chlldren of Cavlno. Pence, Lhe marrlage beLween Cavlno and CaLallna ls valld.





Lugen|o Sr. vs. Ve|ez
18S SCkA 42S

lacLs:
unaware of Lhe deaLh on 28 AugusL 1988 of vlLallana vargas, her full blood
broLhers and slsLers, hereln prlvaLe respondenLs flled a peLlLlon for habeas corpus before Lhe
81C of Mlsamls CrlenLal alleglng LhaL vlLallana was forclbly Laken from her resldence
someLlme ln 1987 and conflned by hereln peLlLloner ln hls palaclal resldence ln !asaan,
Mlsamls CrlenLal. uesplLe her deslre Lo escape, vlLallana was allegedly deprlved of her llberLy
wlLhouL any legal auLhorlLy. AL Lhe Llme Lhe peLlLlon was flled, lL was alleged LhaL vlLallana
was 23 years of age, slngle, and llvlng wlLh peLlLloner 1omas Lugenlo. eLlLloner refused Lo
surrender Lhe body of vlLallana (who had dled on 28 AugusL 1988) Lo Lhe respondenL sherlff.
As her common law husband, peLlLloner clalmed legal cusLody of her body. rlvaLe
respondenLs (vargases) alleged LhaL peLlLloner 1omas Lugenlo, who ls noL ln any way relaLed
Lo vlLallana was wrongfully lnLerferlng wlLh Lhelr (vargases') duLy Lo bury her. lnvoklng ArLs.
303 and 308 of Lhe Clvll Code, Lhe vargases conLended LhaL, as Lhe nexL of kln ln Lhe
hlllpplnes, Lhey are Lhe legal cusLodlans of Lhe dead body of Lhelr slsLer vlLallana. An
exchange of pleadlngs followed. eLlLloner clalms he ls Lhe spouse conLemplaLed under ArL.
294 of Lhe Clvll Code, Lhe Lerm spouse used Lhereln noL belng preceded by any quallflcaLlon,
hence, ln Lhe absence of such quallflcaLlon, he ls Lhe rlghLful cusLodlan of vlLallana's body.
vlLallana's broLhers and slsLers conLend oLherwlse.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner can be consldered as a spouse of vlLallana vargas.

8ullng:
1here ls a vlew LhaL under ArLlcle 332 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code, Lhe Lerm "spouse"
embraces common law relaLlon for purposes of exempLlon from crlmlnal llablllLy ln cases of
LhefL, swlndllng and mallclous mlschlef commlLLed or caused muLually by spouses. 1he enal
Code arLlcle, lL ls sald, makes no dlsLlncLlon beLween a couple whose cohablLaLlon ls
sancLloned by a sacramenL or legal Lle and anoLher who are husband and wlfe de facLo. 8uL
Lhls vlew cannoL even apply Lo Lhe facLs of Lhe case aL bar. We hold LhaL Lhe provlslons of Lhe
Clvll Code, unless expressly provldlng Lo Lhe conLrary as ln ArLlcle 144, when referrlng Lo a
"spouse" conLemplaLe a lawfully wedded spouse. eLlLloner vls-a-vls vlLallana was noL a
lawfully wedded spouse, ln facL, he was noL legally capaclLaLed Lo marry her ln her llfeLlme.
CusLody of Lhe dead body of vlLallana was correcLly awarded Lo her survlvlng
broLhers and slsLers (Lhe vargases).





Cosca vs. a|aypayon
237 SCkA 249

lacLs:
8amon C. Sambo and oLher complalnanLs flled an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL Lo Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor agalnsL !udge Luclo alaypayon and nella 8aroy,
respondenLs, for Lhe followlng offenses:

!" #$$%&'$ )*$%+,-.'/-*, *0 +'11-'&%
2. lalslflcaLlon of Lhe monLhly reporLs of cases
3. 8rlbery ln conslderaLlon of an appolnLmenL ln courL
4. non-lssuance of recelpL for cash bond recelved
3. lnfldellLy ln Lhe cusLody of deLalned prlsoners, and
6. 8equlrlng paymenL of flllng fees from exempLed enLlLles

ComplalnanLs allege LhaL respondenL [udge solemnlzed marrlages even wlLhouL Lhe
requlslLe of marrlage llcense. 1hus, several couples were able Lo geL marrled by Lhe slmple
expedlenL of paylng Lhe marrlage fees Lo respondenL 8aroy, desplLe Lhe absence of marrlage
llcense. As a consequence, Lhelr marrlage conLracLs dld noL reflecL any marrlage llcense
number. ln addlLlon, Lhe respondenL [udge dld noL slgn Lhelr marrlage conLracLs and dld noL
lndlcaLe Lhe daLe of solemnlzaLlon, Lhe reason belng LhaL he allegedly had Lo walL for Lhe
marrlage llcense Lo be submlLLed by Lhe parLles whlch was usually several days afLer Lhe
ceremony. lndublLably, Lhe marrlage conLracLs were noL flled wlLh Lhe local clvll reglsLrar.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL [udge ls llable of lllegal solemnlzaLlon of marrlage.

8ullng:
Cn Lhe charge regardlng lllegal marrlages, Lhe lamlly Code perLlnenLly provldes
LhaL Lhe formal requlslLe of marrlage, lnLer alla, a valld marrlage llcense excepL ln Lhe cases
provlded for Lhereln. ComplemenLarlly, lL declares LhaL Lhe absence of any of Lhe essenLlal or
formal requlslLes shall generally render Lhe marrlage vold ab lnlLlo and LhaL, whlle an
lrregularlLy ln Lhe formal requlslLes shall noL affecL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe marrlage, Lhe parLy or
parLles responslble for Lhe lrregularlLy shall be clvllly, crlmlnally and admlnlsLraLlvely llable.
1hus, respondenL [udge ls llable for lllegal solemnlzaLlon of marrlage.






Wassmer vs. Ve|ez
12 SCkA 648

lacLs:
lranclsco velez, defendanL, and 8eaLrlz Wassmer, plalnLlff-appellanL, followlng
Lhelr muLual love, declded Lo geL marrled on SepLember 4, 1934. 1wo days before Lhe
weddlng, defendanL lefL a noLe Lo 8eaLrlz sLaLlng Lhereln Lhe posLponemenL of Lhelr weddlng
due Lo opposlLlon of defendanL's moLher and LhaL he wlll be leavlng. 8uL on SepLember 3,
1934, defendanL senL anoLher Lelegram sLaLed LhaL he wlll be reLurnlng very soon for Lhe
weddlng. Powever, defendanL dld noL appear nor was he heard from agaln.
8eaLrlz sued defendanL for damages and ln sllence of Lhe defendanL, Lrlal courL
granLed Lhe peLlLlon and ordered Lhe defendanL Lo pay 8eaLrlz acLual, moral and exemplary
damages. Cn !une 21, 1933 defendanL flled a peLlLlon for rellef from orders, [udgmenLs and
proceedlngs and moLlon for new Lrlal and reconslderaLlon." 8eaLrlz moved Lo sLrlke lL cuL buL
Lhe courL ordered Lhe parLles and Lhelr aLLorneys Lo appear for Lhe sLage of posslblllLy of
arrlvlng aL an amlcable seLLlemenL. uefendanL wasn'L able Lo appear buL lnsLead on Lhe
followlng day hls counsel flled a moLlon Lo defer for Lwo weeks Lhe resoluLlon on defendanL's
peLlLlon for rellef. lL was granLed buL agaln defendanL and hls counsel falled Lo appear.
AnoLher chance for amlcable seLLlemenL was glven by Lhe courL buL Lhls Llme defendanL's
counsel lnformed Lhe courL LhaL chances of seLLllng case amlcably were nll.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe Lrlal courL erred ln orderlng Lhe defendanL Lo pay plalnLlff
damages.

8ullng:
1he case aL bar ls noL a mere breach of promlse Lo marry because lL ls noL
consldered an acLlonable wrong. 1he mere facL Lhe couple have already flled a marrlage
llcense and already spenL for lnvlLaLlons, weddlng apparels, glves Lhe plalnLlff reason Lo
demand for paymenL of damages. 1he courL afflrmed Lhe prevlous [udgmenL and ordered Lhe
defendanL Lo pay Lhe plalnLlff moral damages for Lhe humlllaLlon she suffered, acLual
damages for Lhe expenses lncurred and exemplary damages because Lhe defendanL acLed
fraudulenLly ln maklng Lhe plalnLlff belleve LhaL he wlll come back and Lhe weddlng wlll push
Lhrough.







Navarro vs. Iudge Domagtoy
A.M. No. M1I-96-1088 Iu|y 19, 1996

lacLs:
Mayor 8odolfo navarro flled an admlnlsLraLlve case agalnsL Munlclpal ClrculL 1rlal
CourL !udge Pernando uomagLoy. ComplalnanL conLended LhaL uomagLoy dlsplayed gross
mlsconducL as well as lnefflclency ln offlce and lgnorance of Lhe law when he solemnlzed Lhe
weddlngs of Caspar 1agadan and Arlyn 8orga, desplLe Lhe knowledge LhaL Lhe groom ls
merely separaLed from hls flrsL wlfe, and llorlano uador Sumaylo and Cemma del 8osarlo,
whlch was solemnlzed aL Lhe respondenL's resldence whlch does noL fall wlLhln hls
[urlsdlcLlonal area.
8espondenL [udge seeks exculpaLlon from hls acL of havlng solemnlzed Lhe
marrlage beLween Caspar 1agadan, a marrled man separaLed from hls wlfe, and Arlyn 8orga
by sLaLlng LhaL he merely relled on Lhe AffldavlL lssued by Lhe Munlclpal 1rlal !udge of 8asey,
Samar, conflrmlng Lhe facL LhaL Mr. 1agadan and hls flrsL wlfe have noL seen each oLher for
almosL seven years. WlLh respecL Lo Lhe second charge, he malnLalns LhaL ln solemnlzlng Lhe
marrlage beLween Sumaylo and uel 8osarlo, he dld noL vlolaLe ArLlcle 7, paragraph 1 of Lhe
lamlly Code and LhaL arLlcle 8 Lhereof applles Lo Lhe case ln quesLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL [udge may be held llable for solemnlzlng marrlages
whlch dld noL comply wlLh Lhe requlslLes ln Lhe lC.

8ullng:
1he CourL held LhaL even lf Lhe spouse presenL has a well-founded bellef LhaL Lhe
presenL spouse was already dead, a summary proceedlng for Lhe declaraLlon of presumpLlve
deaLh ls necessary ln order Lo conLracL a subsequenL marrlage. ln Lhls case, 1agadan was noL
able Lo presenL a summary proceedlng for Lhe declaraLlon of Lhe flrsL wlfe's presumpLlve
deaLh Lhus, he ls sLlll consldered marrled Lo hls flrsL wlfe.
A marrlage can only be consldered beyond Lhe boundarles of Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe
[udge ln Lhe followlng lnsLances: (1) aL Lhe polnL of deaLh, (2) ln remoLe places, or (3) upon
requesL of boLh parLles ln wrlLlng ln a sworn sLaLemenL Lo Lhls effecL. none of Lhese were
complled wlLh Lherefore Lhere ls an lrregularlLy.







Araes vs. Iudge Ccc|ano
A.M. No. M1I-02-1309 Apr|| 11, 2002

lacLs:
eLlLloner MercedlLa MaLa charged respondenL [udge wlLh Cross lgnorance of Lhe
Law, vla a sworn LeLLer-ComplalnL, for solemnlzlng Lhe marrlage beLween peLlLloner and her
laLe groom (8eL.) Commodore uomlnador 8. Crobla wlLhouL Lhe requlslLe marrlage llcense,
among oLhers.
Slnce Lhe marrlage ls a nulllLy, peLlLloner's rlghL, upon Crobla's deaLh, Lo lnherlL Lhe
vasL properLles" lefL by Crobla was noL recognlzed. eLlLloner was llkewlse deprlved of
recelvlng Lhe penslons of Crobla. eLlLloner prays LhaL sancLlons be lmposed agalnsL
respondenL for hls lllegal acLs and uneLhlcal mlsrepresenLaLlons, whlch caused her so much
hardshlps, embarrassmenL and sufferlngs. 1he case was referred by Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Chlef
!usLlce Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor, whlch requlred Lhe respondenL Lo commenL
on Lhe complalnL.
8espondenL averred, among oLhers, LhaL before sLarLlng Lhe ceremony, he
examlned Lhe documenLs submlLLed Lo hlm by Lhe peLlLloner and he dlscovered LhaL Lhe
parLles dld noL possess Lhe requlslLe marrlage llcense so he refused Lo solemnlze Lhe
marrlage. Powever, due Lo Lhe earnesL pleas of Lhe parLles, Lhe lnflux of vlslLors, and Lhe
dellvery of Lhe provlslons for Lhe occaslon, he proceeded Lo solemnlze Lhe marrlage ouL of
human compasslon. AfLer Lhe solemnlzaLlon, respondenL relLeraLed Lhe need for Lhe
marrlage llcense and admonlshed Lhe parLles LhaL Lhelr fallure Lo glve lL would render Lhe
marrlage vold. eLlLloner and Crobla assured Lhe respondenL LhaL Lhey would glve Lhe llcense
Lo hlm, buL Lhey never dld. Pe aLLrlbuLed Lhe hardshlps and embarrassmenL peLlLloner
suffered as due Lo her own faulL and negllgence.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL's gullLy of solemnlzlng a marrlage wlLhouL a marrlage
llcense and ouLslde hls LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon.

8ullng:
8espondenL [udge should be faulLed for solemnlzlng a marrlage wlLhouL Lhe
requlslLe marrlage llcense. ln !"#$%" '() *+,+, Lhe Supreme CourL held LhaL a marrlage, whlch
preceded Lhe lssuance of Lhe marrlage llcense, ls vold, and LhaL subsequenL lssuance of such
llcense cannoL render or even add an loLa of valldlLy Lo Lhe marrlage. LxcepL ln cases
provlded by law, lL ls Lhe marrlage llcense LhaL glves Lhe solemnlzlng offlcer Lhe auLhorlLy Lo
conducL marrlage. 8espondenL [udge dld noL possess such auLhorlLy when he solemnlzed Lhe
marrlage of Lhe peLlLloner. !udges, who are appolnLed Lo speclflc [urlsdlcLlons, may offlclaLe
ln weddlngs only wlLhln sald areas and noL beyond. Where a [udge solemnlzes a marrlage
ouLslde hls courL's [urlsdlcLlon, Lhere ls a resulLanL lrregularlLy ln Lhe formal requlslLe, whlch
whlle lL may noL affecL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe marrlage, may sub[ecL Lhe offlclaLlng offlclal Lo
admlnlsLraLlve llablllLy.



Vda. De Chua vs. CA
G.k. No. 11683S March S, 1998

lacLs:
8oberLo Chua was Lhe common-law husband of llorlLa A. valle[o and had Lwo
llleglLlmaLe sons wlLh her. Cn 28 May 1992, 8oberLo Chua dled lnLesLaLe ln uavao ClLy. upon
Lhe deaLh of 8oberLo, valle[o flled wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of CoLabaLo ClLy a peLlLlon for
Lhe guardlanshlp and admlnlsLraLlon over Lhe persons and properLles of Lhe Lwo mlnors.
Pereln peLlLloner flled for lLs dlsmlssal, clalmlng LhaL she was Lhe sole survlvlng helr of Lhe
decedenL belng hls wlfe, and LhaL Lhe decedenL was a resldenL of uavao ClLy and noL
CoLabaLo ClLy, whlch means LhaL Lhe sald courL was noL Lhe proper forum Lo seLLle sald
maLLers.
1he peLlLloner falled Lo submlL Lhe orlglnal copy of Lhe marrlage conLracL and Lhe
evldences LhaL she used were: a phoLocopy of sald marrlage conLracL, 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of
1lLle lssued ln Lhe name of 8oberLo L. Chua marrled Lo AnLonleLLa Carcla, and a resldenL of
uavao ClLy, 8esldence CerLlflcaLes from 1988 and 1989 lssued aL uavao ClLy lndlcaLlng LhaL he
was marrled and was born ln CoLabaLo ClLy, lncome 1ax 8eLurns for 1990 and 1991 flled ln
uavao ClLy where Lhe sLaLus of Lhe decedenL was sLaLed as marrled, passporL of Lhe decedenL
speclfylng LhaL he was marrled and hls resldence was uavao ClLy. 1he Lrlal courL ruled LhaL
she falled Lo esLabllsh Lhe valldlLy of marrlage, and even denled her peLlLlon. 1hls was laLLer
appealed Lo Lhe appellaLe courL, buL lL declded ln favor of hereln respondenLs.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe Lrlal and appellaLe courL ls correcL on Lhelr rullng on Lhe valldlLy
of marrlage of AnLonleLLa Carcla Lo 8oberLo Chua.

8ullng:
1he Supreme CourL held LhaL Lhe lower courL and Lhe appellaLe courL are correcL ln
holdlng LhaL peLlLloner hereln falled Lo esLabllsh Lhe LruLh of her allegaLlon LhaL she was Lhe
lawful wlfe of Lhe decedenL. 1he besL evldence ls a valld marrlage conLracL whlch Lhe
peLlLloner falled Lo produce. 1ransfer CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle, 8esldence CerLlflcaLes, passporLs
and oLher slmllar documenLs cannoL prove marrlage especlally so when Lhe peLlLloner has
submlLLed a cerLlflcaLlon from Lhe Local Clvll 8eglsLrar concerned LhaL Lhe alleged marrlage
was noL reglsLered and a leLLer from Lhe [udge alleged Lo have solemnlzed Lhe marrlage LhaL
he has noL solemnlzed sald alleged marrlage. 1he lower courL correcLly dlsregarded Lhe
hoLosLaL copy of Lhe marrlage cerLlflcaLe whlch she presenLed, Lhls belng a vlolaLlon of Lhe
besL evldence rule, LogeLher wlLh oLher worLhless pleces of evldence. A valld, orlglnal
marrlage conLracL would be Lhe besL evldence LhaL Lhe peLlLloner should have presenLed.
lallure Lo presenL lL as evldence would make Lhe marrlage dublous.




kepub||c of the h|||pp|nes vs. CA and Castro
G.k. No. 103047 September 12, 1994

lacLs:
Cn !une 24, 1970, Angellna M. CasLro and Ldwln l. Cardenas were marrled ln a clvll
ceremony performed by !udge ablo M. Malvar, ClLy CourL !udge of asay ClLy. 1he marrlage
was celebraLed wlLhouL Lhe knowledge of CasLro's parenLs. uefendanL Cardenas personally
aLLended Lo Lhe processlng of Lhe documenLs requlred for Lhe celebraLlon of Lhe marrlage,
lncludlng Lhe procuremenL of Lhe marrlage llcense. ln facL, Lhe marrlage conLracL lLself sLaLes
LhaL marrlage llcense no. 3196182 was lssued ln Lhe name of Lhe conLracLlng parLles on !une
24, 1970 ln aslg, MeLro Manlla.
1he couple dld noL lmmedlaLely llve LogeLher as husband and wlfe slnce Lhe
marrlage was unknown Lo CasLro's parenLs. 1hus, lL was only ln March 1971, when CasLro
dlscovered she was pregnanL, LhaL Lhe couple declded Lo llve LogeLher. Powever, Lhelr
cohablLaLlon lasLed only for four (4) monLhs. 1hereafLer, Lhe couple parLed ways. Cn CcLober
19, 1971, CasLro gave blrLh. 1he baby was adopLed by CasLro's broLher, wlLh Lhe consenL of
Cardenas.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe documenLary and LesLlmonlal evldences presenLed by prlvaLe
respondenL are sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh LhaL no marrlage llcense was lssued by Lhe Clvll
8eglsLrar of aslg prlor Lo Lhe celebraLlon of Lhe marrlage of prlvaLe respondenL Lo Ldwln l.
Cardenas.

8ullng:
1he law provldes LhaL no marrlage shall be solemnlzed wlLhouL a marrlage llcense
flrsL lssued by a local reglsLrar. 8elng one of Lhe essenLlal requlslLes of a valld marrlage,
absence Lo Lhe parLles ls noL adequaLe Lo prove lLs non-lssuance. 1he above rule auLhorlzed
Lhe cusLodlan of documenLs Lo cerLlfy LhaL desplLe dlllgenL search, a parLlcular documenL
does noL exlsL ln hls offlce or LhaL a parLlcular enLry of a speclfled Lenor was noL belng found
ln a reglsLrar. As cusLodlans of publlc documenLs, clvll reglsLrars are publlc offlcers charged
wlLh Lhe duLy, lnLer alla, of malnLalnlng a reglsLer book where Lhey are requlred Lo enLer all
appllcaLlons for marrlage llcense, lncludlng Lhe names of Lhe appllcanLs, Lhe daLe Lhe
marrlage llcense was lssued and such oLher relevanL daLa.
1he cerLlflcaLlon of due search and lnablllLy Lo flnd lssued by Lhe clvll reglsLrar of
aslg en[oys probaLlve value, he belng Lhe offlcer charged under Lhe law Lo keep a record of
all daLa relaLlve Lo Lhe lssuance of a marrlage llcense. unaccompanled by any clrcumsLance of
susplclon and pursuanL Lo SecLlon 29, 8ule 132 of Lhe 8ules of CourL, a cerLlflcaLe of due
search and lnablllLy Lo flnd sufflclenLly proved LhaL hls offlce dld noL lssue marrlage llcense
no. 1396182 Lo Lhe conLracLlng parLles. 1here belng no marrlage llcense, Lhe marrlage of
Angellna and Ldwln ls vold ab lnlLlo.






Garc|a vs. kec|o
G.k. No. 138322 Cctober 2, 2001

lacLs:
ArLlcle 26, 1he respondenL, 8ederlck 8eclo, a llllplno was marrled Lo LdlLha
Samson, an AusLrallan clLlzen, ln 8lzal ln 1987. 1hey llved LogeLher as husband and wlfe ln
AusLralla. ln 1989, Lhe AusLrallan famlly courL lssued a decree of dlvorce supposedly
dlssolvlng Lhe marrlage. ln 1992, respondenL acqulred AusLrallan clLlzenshlp. ln 1994, he
marrled Crace Carcla, a llllplna, hereln peLlLloner, ln CabanaLuan ClLy. ln Lhelr appllcaLlon for
marrlage llcense, respondenL was declared as slngle" and llllplno." Slnce CcLober 1993,
Lhey llved separaLely, and ln 1996 whlle ln AusLralla, Lhelr con[ugal asseLs were dlvlded.
ln 1998, peLlLloner flled ComplalnL for ueclaraLlon of nulllLy of Marrlage on Lhe
ground of blgamy, clalmlng LhaL she learned of Lhe respondenL's former marrlage only ln
november. Cn Lhe oLher hand, respondenL clalms LhaL he Lold peLlLloner of hls prlor
marrlage ln 1993, before Lhey were marrled. 8espondenL also conLended LhaL hls flrsL
marrlage was dlssolved by a dlvorce a decree obLalned ln AusLralla ln 1989 and hence, he was
legally capaclLaLed Lo marry peLlLloner ln 1994. 1he Lrlal courL declared LhaL Lhe flrsL marrlage
was dlssolved on Lhe ground of Lhe dlvorce lssued ln AusLralla as valld and recognlzed ln Lhe
hlllpplnes. Pence, Lhls peLlLlon was forwarded before Lhe Supreme CourL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL has legal capaclLy Lo marry Crace Carcla.

8ullng:
ln mlxed marrlages lnvolvlng a llllplno and a forelgner, ArLlcle 26 of Lhe lamlly
Code allows Lhe former Lo conLracL a subsequenL marrlage ln case Lhe dlvorce ls valldly
obLalned abroad by Lhe allen spouse capaclLaLlng hlm or her Lo remarry." A dlvorce obLalned
abroad by Lwo allens, may be recognlzed ln Lhe hlllpplnes, provlded lL ls conslsLenL wlLh
Lhelr respecLlve laws. 1herefore, before our courLs can recognlze a forelgn dlvorce, Lhe parLy
pleadlng lL musL prove Lhe dlvorce as a facL and demonsLraLe lLs conformlLy Lo Lhe forelgn
law allowlng lL.
ln Lhls case, Lhe dlvorce decree beLween Lhe respondenL and Samson appears Lo be
auLhenLlc, lssued by an AusLrallan famlly courL. AlLhough, appearance ls noL sufflclenL, and
compllance wlLh Lhe rules on evldence regardlng alleged forelgn laws musL be demonsLraLed,
Lhe decree was admlLLed on accounL of peLlLloner's fallure Lo ob[ecL properly because he
ob[ecLed Lo Lhe facL LhaL lL was noL reglsLered ln Lhe Local Clvll 8eglsLry of CabanaLuan ClLy,
noL Lo lLs admlsslblllLy.
8espondenL clalms LhaL Lhe AusLrallan dlvorce decree, whlch was valldly admlLLed
as evldence, adequaLely esLabllshed hls legal capaclLy Lo marry under AusLrallan law. Lven
afLer Lhe dlvorce becomes absoluLe, Lhe courL may under some forelgn sLaLuLes, sLlll resLrlcL
remarrlage. 8espondenL also falled Lo produce sufflclenL evldence showlng Lhe forelgn law
governlng hls sLaLus. 1ogeLher wlLh oLher evldences submlLLed, Lhey don'L absoluLely
esLabllsh hls legal capaclLy Lo remarry.




||ap|| vs. Ibay-Somera
174 SCkA 6S3

lacLs:
ArLlcle 26, Cn SepLember 7, 1979, peLlLloner lmelda llapll, a llllplno clLlzen, and
prlvaLe respondenL Lrlch Celllng, a Cerman naLlonal, were marrled ln Lhe lederal 8epubllc of
Cermany. 1he marrlage sLarLed ausplclously enough, and Lhe couple llved LogeLher for some
Llme ln MalaLe, Manlla. 1hereafLer, marlLal dlscord seL ln, followed by a separaLlon de facLo
beLween Lhem. AfLer abouL Lhree and a half years of marrlage, prlvaLe respondenL lnlLlaLlng a
dlvorce proceedlng agalnsL peLlLloner ln Cermany. Pe clalmed LhaL Lhere was fallure of Lhelr
marrlage and LhaL Lhey had been llvlng aparL slnce Aprll 1982. Cn !anuary 13, 1986,
Schoneberg Local CourL promulgaLed a decree of dlvorce on Lhe ground of fallure of marrlage
of Lhe spouses. 1he cusLody of Lhe chlld was granLed Lo peLlLloner. eLlLloner, on Lhe oLher
hand, flled an acLlon for legal separaLlon, supporL and separaLlon of properLy before Lhe
8eglonal 1rlal CourL of Manlla on !anuary 23, 1983.
More Lhan flve monLhs afLer Lhe lssuance of Lhe dlvorce decree, prlvaLe respondenL
flled Lwo complalnLs for adulLery before Lhe ClLy llscal of Manlla alleglng LhaL, whlle sLlll
marrled Lo sald respondenL, peLlLloner "had an affalr wlLh a cerLaln Wllllam Chla as early as
1982 and wlLh yeL anoLher man named !ames Chua someLlme ln 1983". Cn CcLober 27,
1987, peLlLloner flled Lhls speclal clvll acLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon, wlLh a prayer for a
Lemporary resLralnlng order, seeklng Lhe annulmenL of Lhe order of Lhe lower courL denylng
her moLlon Lo quash.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe crlmlnal cases flled by Lhe Cerman ex-spouse may prosper.

8ullng:
under ArLlcle 344 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code, Lhe crlme of adulLery cannoL be
prosecuLed excepL upon a sworn wrlLLen complalnL flled by Lhe offended spouse. Corollary Lo
such excluslve granL of power Lo Lhe offended spouse Lo lnsLlLuLe Lhe acLlon, lL necessarlly
follows LhaL such lnlLlaLor musL have Lhe sLaLus, capaclLy or legal represenLaLlon Lo do so aL
Lhe Llme of Lhe flllng of Lhe crlmlnal acLlon. Pence, ArLlcle 344 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code Lhus
presupposes LhaL Lhe marlLal relaLlonshlp ls sLlll subslsLlng aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of Lhe
crlmlnal acLlon for adulLery.
ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe facL LhaL prlvaLe respondenL obLalned a valld dlvorce ln hls
counLry, Lhe lederal 8epubllc of Cermany, ls admlLLed. Sald dlvorce and lLs legal effecLs may
be recognlzed ln Lhe hlllpplnes lnsofar as prlvaLe respondenL ls concerned ln vlew of Lhe
naLlonallLy prlnclple ln our clvll law on Lhe maLLer of sLaLus of persons. rlvaLe respondenL,
belng no longer Lhe husband of peLlLloner, had no legal sLandlng Lo commence Lhe adulLery
case under Lhe lmposLure LhaL he was Lhe offended spouse aL Lhe Llme he flled sulL.







Van Dorn vs. kom|||o Ir.
139 SCkA 139

lacLs:
Allce 8eyes, a llllplna, marrled 8lchard upLon, an Amerlcan, ln Pongkong ln 1972.
1hey esLabllshed resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes and had Lwo chlldren. ln 1982, Lhe wlfe sued for
dlvorce ln nevada, u.S.A., on Lhe ground of lncompaLlblllLy. She laLer marrled 1heodore van
uorn ln nevada ln 1983. upLon sued her before 81C, 8ranch Lxv ln asay ClLy asklng LhaL she
be ordered Lo render an accounLlng of her buslness, whlch upLon alleged Lo be con[ugal
properLy. Pe also prayed LhaL he be declared wlLh a rlghL Lo manage Lhe con[ugal properLy.
1he defendanL wlfe moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe cause of acLlon
was barred by a prevlous [udgmenL ln Lhe dlvorce proceedlngs whereln he had acknowledged
LhaL Lhe couple had no communlLy properLy".

lssue:
WheLher or noL absoluLe dlvorce decree granLed by u.S. courL, beLween llllplna
wlfe and Amerlcan husband held blndlng upon Lhe laLLer.

8ullng:
1he plvoLal facL ln Lhls case ls Lhe nevada ulvorce of Lhe parLles. 1here can be no
quesLlon as Lo Lhe valldlLy of LhaL nevada dlvorce ln any sLaLes of Lhe u.S. 1he decree ls
blndlng on upLon as an Amerlcan clLlzen. Pence, he cannoL sue peLlLloner, as her husband, ln
any sLaLe of Lhe unlLed SLaLes. lL ls Lrue LhaL owlng Lo Lhe naLlonallLy prlnclple under arLlcle
13 of Lhe clvll code, only hlllpplne naLlonals are covered by Lhe pollcy agalnsL absoluLe
dlvorce abroad, whlch may be recognlzed ln Lhe hlllpplnes, provlded Lhey are valld
accordlng Lo Lhelr naLlonal law. ln Lhls case, Lhe dlvorce ln nevada released upLon from Lhe
marrlage from Lhe sLandards of Amerlcan law. 1hus, pursuanL Lo hls naLlonal law, he ls no
longer Lhe husband of Lhe peLlLloner. Pe would have no sLandlng Lo sue ln Lhe case as
peLlLloner husband enLlLled Lo exerclse conLrol over con[ugal asseLs. Pe ls also esLopped by
hls own represenLaLlon before Lhe nevada courL from asserLlng hls rlghL over Lhe alleged
con[ugal properLy. Pe should noL conLlnue Lo be one of her helrs wlLh posslble rlghLs Lo
con[ugal properLy.













kepub||c vs. Crbec|do
472 SCkA 114

lacLs:
Clprlano Crbecldo lll and Lady Myros M. vlllanueva were marrled wlLh Lwo
chlldren. Lady Myros Lhe lefL for Lhe unlLed SLaLes wlLh one son and 1sL became a naLurallzed
Amerlcan clLlzen, 2nd obLalned a valld dlvorce decree ln 2000 capaclLaLlng her Lo remarry,
and 3rd conLracLed a marrlage wlLh lnnocenL SLanley, an Amerlcan.
Clprlano Lhen flled a peLlLlon for auLhorlLy Lo remarry under ArLlcle 26(2) of Lhe
lamlly Code 1he Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor Ceneral conLends LhaL Lhe lnvoked arLlcle was noL
appllcable and ralses Lhls pure quesLlon of law, Lhey furLher poslL LhaL Crbecldo should flle
for Legal SeparaLlon or AnnulmenL lnsLead.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Crbecldo can remarry under ArLlcle 26(2).

8ullng:
?LS. ArLlcle 26(2) should be lnLerpreLed Lo allow a llllplno clLlzen, who has been
dlvorced by a spouse who had acqulred forelgn clLlzenshlp and remarrled, also Lo remarry. 1o
rule oLherwlse would be Lo (+-./0#- +1(2,30/4 +-3 0-52(/0.".
lor Lhe appllcaLlon of ArLlcle 26(2), Lhere musL have been (1) a valld marrlage
celebraLed beLween a llllplno and a forelgner, and LhaL (2) a valld dlvorce decree ls obLalned
by Lhe allen spouse capaclLaLlng her Lo remarry.
8efore a forelgn dlvorce decree can be recognlzed by our own courLs, Lhe followlng
musL be proven: (1) dlvorce as a facL, (2) forelgn law, (3) dlvorce decree capaclLaLed one Lo
remarry.
1he reckonlng polnL ls noL Lhe clLlzenshlp of Lhe parLles aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
celebraLlon of Lhe marrlage, buL Lhelr .0/06"-(70$ +/ /7" /08" + '+%03 30'#,." 0( #1/+0-"3 14 /7"
+%0"- ($#2(".
AnnulmenL or Legal SeparaLlon need noL be Lhe proper remedles for such would be
ln Lhe case of Lhe former, long, Ledlous, and lnfeaslble, and ln Lhe case of Lhe laLLer, ls fuLlle
Lo sever marlLal Lles.













N|a| vs. 8ayadog
328 SCkA 122

lacLs:
eplLo nlnal was marrled Lo 1eodulfa 8ellones on SepLember 26, 1974. CuL of Lhelr
marrlage were born hereln peLlLloners. eplLo resulLlng Lo her deaLh on Aprll 24, 1983 shoL
1eodulfa. Cne year and 8 monLhs LhereafLer or on uecember 24, 1986, eplLo and
respondenL norma 8ayadog goL marrled wlLhouL any marrlage llcense. ln lleu Lhereof, eplLo
and norma execuLed an affldavlL daLed uecember 11, 1986 sLaLlng LhaL Lhey had llved
LogeLher as husband and wlfe for aL leasL 3 years and were Lhus exempL from securlng a
marrlage llcense.
AfLer eplLo's deaLh on lebruary 19, 1997, peLlLloners flled a peLlLlon for
declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhe marrlage of eplLo and norma alleglng LhaL Lhe sald marrlage
was vold for lack of a marrlage llcense.

lssue:
WhaL naLure of cohablLaLlon ls conLemplaLed under ArLlcle 76 of Lhe Clvll Code
(now ArLlcle 34 of Lhe lamlly Code) Lo warranL Lhe counLlng of Lhe 3-year perlod ln order Lo
exempL Lhe fuLure spouses from securlng a marrlage llcense.

8ullng:
1he 3-year common law cohablLaLlon perlod, whlch ls counLed back from Lhe daLe
of celebraLlon of marrlage, should be a perlod of legal unlon had lL noL been for Lhe absence
of Lhe marrlage. 1hls 3-year perlod should be Lhe years lmmedlaLely before Lhe day of Lhe
marrlage and lL should be a perlod of cohablLaLlon characLerlzed by excluslvlLy-meanlng no
Lhlrd parLy was lnvolved aL any Llme wlLhln Lhe 3 years and conLlnulLy ls unbroken.
Any marrlage subsequenLly conLracLed durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe flrsL spouse shall
be lllegal and vold, sub[ecL only Lo Lhe excepLlon ln cases of absence or where Lhe prlor
marrlage was dlssolved or annulled.
ln Lhls case, aL Lhe Llme eplLo and respondenL's marrlage, lL cannoL be sald LhaL
Lhey have llved wlLh each oLher as husband and wlfe for aL leasL 3 years prlor Lo Lhelr
weddlng day. lrom Lhe Llme eplLo's flrsL marrlage was dlssolved Lo Lhe Llme of hls marrlage
wlLh respondenL, only abouL 20 monLhs had elapsed. eplLo had a subslsLlng marrlage aL Lhe
Llme when he sLarLed cohablLlng wlLh respondenL. lL ls lmmaLerlal LhaL when Lhey llved wlLh
each oLher, eplLo had already been separaLed ln facL from hls lawful spouse.
1he subslsLence of Lhe marrlage even where Lhere ls was acLual severance of Lhe
flllal companlonshlp beLween Lhe spouses cannoL make any cohablLaLlon by elLher spouse
wlLh any Lhlrd parLy as belng one as husband and wlfe".
Pavlng deLermlned LhaL Lhe second marrlage lnvolve ln Lhls case ls noL covered by
Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe requlremenL of a marrlage llcense, lL ls vold ab lnlLlo because of Lhe
absence of such elemenL.






Manzano vs. Sanchez
A.M. No. M1I-00-1329 March 8, 2001

lacLs:
ComplalnanL avers LhaL she was Lhe lawful wlfe of Lhe laLe uavld Manzano, havlng
been marrled Lo hlm ln San Cabrlel Archangel arlsh, AraneLa Avenue, Caloocan ClLy. lour
chlldren were born ouL of LhaL marrlage. Powever, her husband conLracLed anoLher marrlage
wlLh one Luzvlmlnda ayao before respondenL !udge. When respondenL !udge solemnlzed
sald marrlage, he knew or oughL Lo know LhaL Lhe same was vold and blgamous, as Lhe
marrlage conLracL clearly sLaLed LhaL boLh conLracLlng parLles were "separaLed."
8espondenL !udge, on Lhe oLher hand, clalms LhaL when he offlclaLed Lhe marrlage
beLween Manzano and ayao he dld noL know LhaL Manzano was legally marrled. WhaL he
knew was LhaL Lhe Lwo had been llvlng LogeLher as husband and wlfe for seven years already
wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of marrlage, as manlfesLed ln Lhelr [olnL affldavlL. Accordlng Lo hlm, had
he known LhaL Lhe laLe Manzano was marrled, he would have advlsed Lhe laLLer noL Lo marry
agaln, oLherwlse, he (Manzano) could be charged wlLh blgamy. Pe Lhen prayed LhaL Lhe
complalnL be dlsmlssed for lack of merlL and for belng deslgned merely Lo harass hlm.
AfLer an evaluaLlon of Lhe ComplalnL and Lhe CommenL, Lhe CourL AdmlnlsLraLor
recommended LhaL respondenL !udge be found gullLy of gross lgnorance of Lhe law and be
ordered Lo pay a flne of 2,000, wlLh a warnlng LhaL a repeLlLlon of Lhe same or slmllar acL
would be dealL wlLh more severely.

lssues:
1) WheLher or noL convalldaLlon of Lhe second unlon of Lhe respondenL falls under
Lhe purvlew of ArLlcle 34 of Lhe lamlly Code.
2) WheLher or noL 8espondenL !udge ls gullLy of gross lgnorance of Lhe law.

8ullng:
lor Lhls provlslon on legal raLlflcaLlon of marlLal cohablLaLlon Lo apply, Lhe followlng
requlslLes musL concur:
!" 97" 8+- +-3 :#8+- 82(/ 7+'" 1""- %0'0-; /#;"/7", +( 72(1+-3 +-3 :0<" <#, +/ %"+(/
<0'" 4"+,( 1"<#," /7" 8+,,0+;"= 2" 97" $+,/0"( 82(/ 7+'" -# %";+% 08$"308"-/ /# 8+,,4 "+.7 #/7",=
3" 97" <+./ #< +1("-." #< %";+% 08$"308"-/ 1"/:""- /7" $+,/0"( 82(/ 1" $,"("-/ +/ /7" /08" #<
8+,,0+;"= 4" 97" $+,/0"( 82(/ ">".2/" +- +<<03+'0/ (/+/0-; /7+/ /7"4 7+'" %0'"3 /#;"/7", <#, +/ %"+(/
<0'" 4"+,( +-3 +," :0/7#2/ %";+% 08$"308"-/ /# 8+,,4 "+.7 #/7",= +-3 5" 97" (#%"8-060-; #<<0.",
82(/ ">".2/" + (:#,- (/+/"8"-/ /7+/ 7" 7+3 +(.",/+0-"3 /7" ?2+%0<0.+/0#-( #< /7" $+,/0"( +-3 /7+/
7" 7+3 <#2-3 -# %";+% 08$"308"-/ /# /7"0, 8+,,0+;")
noL all of Lhese requlremenLs are presenL ln Lhe case aL bar. lL ls slgnlflcanL Lo noLe LhaL
ln Lhelr separaLe affldavlLs execuLed on 22 March 1993 and sworn Lo before respondenL !udge
hlmself, uavld Manzano and Luzvlmlnda ayao expressly sLaLed Lhe facL of Lhelr prlor exlsLlng
marrlage. Also, ln Lhelr marrlage conLracL, lL was lndlcaLed LhaL boLh were "separaLed."
8espondenL !udge knew or oughL Lo know LhaL a subslsLlng prevlous marrlage ls a dlrlmenL
lmpedlmenL, whlch would make Lhe subsequenL marrlage null and vold.
nelLher can respondenL !udge Lake refuge on Lhe !olnL AffldavlL of uavld Manzano and
Luzvlmlnda ayao sLaLlng LhaL Lhey had been cohablLlng as husband and wlfe for seven years. !usL
llke separaLlon, free and volunLary cohablLaLlon wlLh anoLher person for aL leasL flve years does
noL severe Lhe Lle of a subslsLlng prevlous marrlage. Clearly, respondenL !udge demonsLraLed gross
lgnorance of Lhe law when he solemnlzed a vold and blgamous marrlage.

Cosca vs. a|aypayon
237 SCkA 249

lacLs:
@+8". ArLlcle 27-34, Lmphasls Lo Lhe marrlage of Abellano and Ldralln, !udge alaypayon
admlLLed LhaL he solemnlzed Lhelr marrlage, buL he clalms LhaL lL was under ArLlcle 34 of Lhe
lamlly Code, so a marrlage llcense was noL requlred. 1he conLracLlng parLles here execuLed a
[olnL affldavlL LhaL Lhey have been llvlng LogeLher as husband and wlfe for almosL slx (6) years
already.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL [udge solemnlzaLlon of such marrlage wlLh Lhe
excepLlon of a marrlage llcense under ArLlcle 34 of Lhe lamlly Code ls valld.

8ullng:
ln Lhelr marrlage conLracL whlch dld noL bear any daLe elLher when lL was
solemnlzed, lL was sLaLed LhaL Abellano was only 18 years, 2 monLhs and 7 days old. lf he and
Ldralln had been llvlng LogeLher as husband and wlfe for almosL 6 years already before Lhey
goL marrled as Lhey sLaLed ln Lhelr [olnL affldavlL, Abellano musL have been less Lhan 13 years
old when he sLarLed llvlng wlLh Ldralln as hls wlfe and Lhls ls hard Lo belleve. !udge
alaypayon should have been aware of Lhls when he solemnlzed Lhelr marrlage as lL was hls
duLy Lo ascerLaln Lhe quallflcaLlon of Lhe conLracLlng parLles who mlghL have execuLed a false
[olnL affldavlL ln order Lo have an lnsLanL marrlage by avoldlng Lhe marrlage llcense
requlremenL.
1hls acL of !udge alaypayon of solemnlzlng Lhe marrlage of Abellano and Ldralln
for Lhe second Llme wlLh a marrlage llcense already only gave rlse Lo Lhe susplclon LhaL Lhe
flrsL Llme he solemnlzed Lhe marrlage lL was only made Lo appear LhaL lL was solemnlzed
under excepLlonal characLer as Lhere was noL marrlage llcense and !udge alaypayon had
already slgned Lhe marrlage cerLlflcaLe.

















Mar|ategu| vs. CA
G.k. No. L-S7062 Ianuary 24, 1992

lacLs:
Lupo MarlaLegul conLracLed Lhree marrlages durlng hls llfeLlme. Cn hls flrsL wlfe,
Lusebla MonLellano, who dled on november 8, 1904, he begoL four chlldren, 8aldomera,
Marla del 8osarlo, urbana and lreneo. WlLh hls second wlfe, llavlana MonLellano, he begoL a
daughLer named Cresenclana. And hls Lhlrd wlfe, lellpa velasco, he begoL Lhree chlldren,
namely !aclnLo, !ullan and aullna.
AL Lhe Llme of Lupo's deaLh he lefL cerLaln properLles wlLh whlch he acqulred when
he was sLlll unmarrled. Lupo dled wlLhouL a wlll. upon hls deaLh, descendanLs from hls flrsL
and second marrlages execuLed a deed of exLra[udlclal parLlLlon on LoL no. 163. Powever,
Lhe chlldren on Lupo's Lhlrd marrlage flled wlLh Lhe lower courL an amended complalnL
clalmlng LhaL Lhey were deprlve on Lhe parLlLlon of LoL no. 163 whlch were owned by Lhelr
common faLher. 1he peLlLloners, chlldren on flrsL and second marrlage, flled a counLerclalm
Lo dlsmlss Lhe sald complalnL. 1rlal courL denled Lhe moLlon Lo dlsmlss and also Lhe complalnL
by Lhe respondenLs, chlldren on Lhlrd marrlage.
8espondenLs elevaLed Lhe case on CA on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL commlLLed
an error for noL flndlng Lhe Lhlrd marrlage Lo be lawfully marrled and also ln holdlng
respondenLs are noL leglLlmaLe chlldren of Lhelr sald parenLs. CA rendered a declslon
declarlng all Lhe chlldren and descendanLs of Lupo, lncludlng Lhe respondenLs, are enLlLled Lo
equal shares of esLaLe of Lhelr faLher. Powever, peLlLloners flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon
of sald declslon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenLs were able Lo prove Lhelr successlon rlghLs over Lhe
sald esLaLe.

8ullng:
WlLh respecL Lo Lhe legal basls of prlvaLe respondenLs' demand for parLlLlon of Lhe
esLaLe of Lupo MarlaLegul, Lhe CourL of Appeals apLly held LhaL Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs are
leglLlmaLe chlldren of Lhe deceased.
Lupo MarlaLegul and lellpa velasco were alleged Lo have been lawfully marrled ln
or abouL 1930. 1hls facL ls based on Lhe declaraLlon communlcaLed by Lupo MarlaLegul Lo
!aclnLo who LesLlfled LhaL "when hls faLher was sLlll llvlng, he was able Lo menLlon Lo hlm LhaL
he and hls moLher were able Lo geL marrled before a !usLlce of Lhe eace of 1agulg, 8lzal."
1he spouses deporLed Lhemselves as husband and wlfe, and were known ln Lhe communlLy
Lo be such. AlLhough no marrlage cerLlflcaLe was lnLroduced Lo Lhls effecL, no evldence was
llkewlse offered Lo conLroverL Lhese facLs. Moreover, Lhe mere facL LhaL no record of Lhe
marrlage exlsLs does noL lnvalldaLe Lhe marrlage, provlded all requlslLes for lLs valldlLy are
presenL.
under Lhese clrcumsLances, a marrlage may be presumed Lo have Laken place
beLween Lupo and lellpa. 1he laws presume LhaL a man and a woman, deporLlng Lhemselves
as husband and wlfe, have enLered lnLo a lawful conLracL of marrlage, LhaL a chlld born ln
lawful wedlock, Lhere belng no dlvorce, absoluLe or from bed and board ls leglLlmaLe, and
LhaL Lhlngs have happened accordlng Lo Lhe ordlnary course of naLure and Lhe ordlnary
hablLs of llfe.


Dom|ngo vs. CA
226 SCkA S72

lacLs:
uella uomlngo, prlvaLe respondenL, flled a peLlLlon before 81C of aslg for Lhe
declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage and separaLlon of properLy agalnsL 8oberLo uomlngo,
peLlLloner. She alleged LhaL Lhey were marrled aL Carmona, CavlLe wlLh evldences of
marrlage cerLlflcaLe and marrlage llcense, unknown Lo her, peLlLloner had a prevlous
marrlage wlLh Lmerllna dela az whlch ls sLlll valld and exlsLlng. She came Lo know Lhe prlor
marrlage when Lmerllna sued Lhem for blgamy. She prays LhaL Lhelr marrlage be declared
null and vold and, as a consequence, Lo declare LhaL she ls Lhe excluslve owner of all
properLles she acqulred durlng Lhe marrlage and Lo recover Lhem from hlm.
8oberLo moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe marrlage belng vold
ab lnlLlo, Lhe peLlLlon of declaraLlon of nulllLy ls unnecessary. lL added LhaL prlvaLe
respondenL has no properLy whlch ln hls possesslon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL may clalm for Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of marrlage and
separaLlon of properLy agalnsL peLlLloner on Lhe ground of blgamy.

8ullng:
1here ls no quesLlon LhaL Lhe marrlage of peLlLloner and prlvaLe respondenL
celebraLed whlle Lhe former's prevlous marrlage wlLh one Lmerllna de la az was sLlll
subslsLlng ls blgamous. As such, lL ls from Lhe beglnnlng. eLlLloner hlmself does noL dlspuLe
Lhe absoluLe nulllLy of Lhelr marrlage. 1he CourL had ruled LhaL no [udlclal decree ls necessary
Lo esLabllsh Lhe lnvalldlLy of a vold, blgamous marrlage.
1he lamlly Code has clearly provlded Lhe effecLs of Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of
marrlage, one of whlch ls Lhe separaLlon of properLy accordlng Lo Lhe reglme of properLy
relaLlons governlng Lhem. lL sLands Lo reason LhaL Lhe lower courL before whom Lhe lssue of
nulllLy of a flrsL marrlage ls broughL ls llkewlse cloLhed wlLh [urlsdlcLlon Lo declde Lhe
lncldenLal quesLlons regardlng Lhe couple's properLles.















N|a| vs. 8ayadog
328 SCkA 122

lacLs:
@+8". ArLlcle 33

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe second marrlage of plalnLlffs' deceased faLher wlLh defendanL
ls null and vold +1 0-0/0#.

8ullng:
Any marrlage subsequenLly conLracLed durlng Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe flrsL spouse shall
be lllegal and vold, sub[ecL only Lo Lhe excepLlon ln cases of absence or where Lhe prlor
marrlage was dlssolved or annulled. 1he subslsLence of Lhe marrlage even where Lhere ls was
acLual severance of Lhe flllal companlonshlp beLween Lhe spouses cannoL make any
cohablLaLlon by elLher spouse wlLh any Lhlrd parLy as belng one as husband and wlfe".
Pavlng deLermlned LhaL Lhe second marrlage lnvolve ln Lhls case ls noL covered by
Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe requlremenL of a marrlage llcense, lL ls vold ab lnlLlo because of Lhe
absence of such elemenL.
























kepub||c vs. CA and Mo||na
Iebruary 13, 1997

lacLs:
Cn Aprll 14, 1983, plalnLlff 8orldel C. Mollna marrled 8eynaldo Mollna whlch unlon
bore a son. AfLer a year of marrlage, 8eynaldo showed slgns of "lmmaLurlLy and
lrresponslblllLy" as a husband and a faLher as he preferred Lo spend more Llme wlLh hls peers
and frlends, depended on hls parenLs for ald and asslsLance, and was never honesL wlLh hls
wlfe ln regard Lo Lhelr flnances, resulLlng ln frequenL quarrels beLween Lhem. 1he 81C
granLed 8orldel peLlLlon for declaraLlon of nulllLy of her marrlage whlch was afflrmed by Lhe
CA.

lssue:
WheLher or noL lrreconcllable dlfferences and confllcLlng personallLles consLlLuLe
psychologlcal lncapaclLy.

8ullng:
1he followlng guldellnes ln Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon and appllcaLlon of ArL. 36 of Lhe
lamlly Code are hereby handed down for Lhe guldance of Lhe bench and Lhe bar:

(1) 1he burden of proof Lo show Lhe nulllLy of Lhe marrlage belongs Lo Lhe plalnLlff.
Any doubL should be resolved ln favor of Lhe exlsLence and conLlnuaLlon of Lhe marrlage and
agalnsL lLs dlssoluLlon and nulllLy.
(2) 1he rooL cause of Lhe psychologlcal lncapaclLy musL be (a) medlcally or cllnlcally
ldenLlfled, (b) alleged ln Lhe complalnL, (c) sufflclenLly proven by experLs and (d) clearly
explalned ln Lhe declslon.
(3) 1he lncapaclLy musL be proven Lo be exlsLlng aL "Lhe Llme of Lhe celebraLlon" of
Lhe marrlage.
(4) Such lncapaclLy musL also be shown Lo be medlcally or cllnlcally permanenL or
0-.2,+1%". (3) Such lllness musL be ;,+'" enough Lo brlng abouL Lhe dlsablllLy of Lhe parLy Lo
assume Lhe essenLlal obllgaLlons of marrlage.
(6) 1he essenLlal marlLal obllgaLlons musL be Lhose embraced by ArLlcles 68 up Lo
71 of Lhe lamlly Code as regards Lhe husband and wlfe as well as ArLlcles 220, 221 and 223 of
Lhe same Code ln regard Lo parenLs and Lhelr chlldren.
(7) lnLerpreLaLlons glven by Lhe naLlonal AppellaLe MaLrlmonlal 1rlbunal of Lhe
CaLhollc Church ln Lhe hlllpplnes, whlle noL conLrolllng or declslve, should be glven greaL
respecL by our courLs.
(8) 1he Lrlal courL musL order Lhe prosecuLlng aLLorney or flscal and Lhe SollclLor
Ceneral Lo appear as counsel for Lhe sLaLe.





Leoue| Santos vs. CA
G.k. No. 112019 Ianuary 4, 199S

lacLs:
Leouel flrsL meL !ulla ln llollo ClLy. 1he meeLlng laLer proved Lo be an evenLful day
for boLh of Lhem for Lhey goL marrled on SepLember 20, 1986. Leouel and !ulla llved wlLh Lhe
laLLer's parenLs. 1he ecsLasy, however, dld noL lasL long. lL was bound Lo happen, Leouel
averred, because of Lhe frequenL lnLerference by !ulla's parenLs lnLo Lhe young spouses'
famlly affalrs. Cccaslonally, Lhe couple would also sLarL a quarrel" over a number of Lhlngs
llke when and where Lhe couple should sLarL llvlng lndependenLly from !ulla's parenLs or
whenever !ulla would express resenLmenL on Leouel's spendlng a few days wlLh hls own
parenLs.
Cn May 18, 1988, !ulla flnally lefL for Lhe u.S. Lo work as a nurse desplLe hls
husband's pleas Lo so dlssuade her. Seven monLhs afLer her deparLure, !ulla called Leouel for
Lhe flrsL Llme. She promlsed Lo reLurn home upon Lhe explraLlon of her conLracL buL she
never dld. When Leouel goL a chance Lo vlslL Lhe u.S., where he underwenL a Lralnlng
program under Lhe ausplces of Lhe Armed lorces of Lhe hlllpplnes he desperaLely Lrled Lo
locaLe, or Lo somehow geL ln Louch wlLh !ulla, buL all hls efforLs were of no avall.
Leouel argues LhaL Lhe fallure of !ulla Lo reLurn home, or aL Lhe very leasL Lo
communlcaLe wlLh hlm, for more Lhan flve years are clrcumsLances LhaL clearly show her
belng psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo enLer lnLo marrled llfe.

lssue:
WheLher or noL !ulla ls psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed under ArLlcle 36 of Lhe lC.

8ullng:
1he use of Lhe phrase psychologlcal lncapaclLy" under ArLlcle 36 of Lhe Code has
noL been meanL Lo comprehend all such posslble cases of psychoses as, llkewlse menLloned
by some eccleslasLlcal auLhorlLles, exLremely low lnLelllgence, lmmaLurlLy and llke
clrcumsLances. ArLlcle 36 of Lhe lamlly Code cannoL be consLrued lndependenLly of buL musL
sLand ln con[uncLlon wlLh exlsLlng precepLs ln our law on marrlage. 1hus, correlaLed,
psychologlcal lncapaclLy should refer Lo no less Lhan a menLal (noL physlcal) lncapaclLy LhaL
causes a parLy Lo be Lruly lncognlLlve of Lhe baslc marlLal covenanLs LhaL concomlLanLly musL
be assumed and dlscharged by Lhe parLles Lo Lhe marrlage whlch, as so expressed by ArLlcle
68 of Lhe lamlly Code, lnclude Lhelr muLual obllgaLlons Lo llve LogeLher, observe love, respecL
and fldellLy and render help and supporL. 1here ls hardly any doubL LhaL Lhe lnLendmenL of
Lhe law has been Lo conflne Lhe meanlng of psychologlcal lncapaclLy Lo Lhe mosL serlous
cases of personallLy dlsorders clearly demonsLraLlve of an uLLer lnsenslLlvlLy or lnablllLy Lo
glve meanlng and slgnlflcance Lo Lhe marrlage. 1hls psychologlcal condlLlon musL exlsL aL Lhe
Llme Lhe marrlage ls celebraLed.






kepub||c vs. u|ntero-namano
G.k. No. 149498 May 20, 2004

lacLs:
8espondenL LollLa CulnLero-Pamano flled a complalnL for declaraLlon of nulllLy of
her marrlage Lo her husband 1oshlo Pamano, a !apanese naLlonal, on Lhe ground of
psychologlcal lncapaclLy. 8espondenL alleged LhaL she and 1oshlo sLarLed a common-law
relaLlonshlp ln !apan. 1hey laLer llved ln Lhe hlllpplnes for a monLh. 1hereafLer, 1oshlo wenL
back Lo !apan and sLayed Lhere for half of 1987. Cn november 16, 1987, she gave blrLh Lo
Lhelr chlld.
Cn !anuary 14, 1988, she and 1oshlo were marrled by !udge lsauro M. 8alderla of
Lhe Munlclpal 1rlal CourL of 8acoor, CavlLe. unknown Lo respondenL, 1oshlo was
psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo assume hls marlLal responslblllLles, whlch lncapaclLy became
manlfesL only afLer Lhe marrlage. Cne monLh afLer Lhelr marrlage, 1oshlo reLurned Lo !apan
and promlsed Lo reLurn by ChrlsLmas Lo celebraLe Lhe holldays wlLh hls famlly. AfLer sendlng
money Lo respondenL for Lwo monLhs, 1oshlo sLopped glvlng flnanclal supporL. She wroLe
hlm several Llmes buL he never responded. SomeLlme ln 1991, respondenL learned from her
frlends LhaL 1oshlo vlslLed Lhe hlllpplnes buL he dld noL boLher Lo see her and Lhelr chlld.

lssue:
WheLher or noL abandonmenL by one spouse LanLamounL Lo psychologlcal
lncapaclLy.

8ullng:
1he courL flnd LhaL Lhe LoLallLy of evldence presenLed fell shorL of provlng LhaL
1oshlo was psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo assume hls marlLal responslblllLles. 1oshlo's acL
of abandonmenL was doubLlessly lrresponslble buL lL was never alleged nor proven Lo be due
Lo some klnd of psychologlcal lllness. AfLer respondenL LesLlfled on how 1oshlo abandoned
hls famlly, no oLher evldence was presenLed showlng LhaL hls behavlor was caused by a
psychologlcal dlsorder.
AbandonmenL ls also a ground for legal separaLlon. 1here was no showlng LhaL Lhe
case aL bar was noL [usL an lnsLance of abandonmenL ln Lhe conLexL of legal separaLlon. lL
cannoL presume psychologlcal defecL from Lhe mere facL LhaL 1oshlo abandoned hls famlly
lmmedlaLely afLer Lhe celebraLlon of Lhe marrlage. lL ls noL enough Lo prove LhaL a spouse
falled Lo meeL hls responslblllLy and duLy as a marrled person, lL ls essenLlal LhaL he musL be
shown Lo be lncapable of dolng so due Lo some psychologlcal, noL physlcal, lllness. 1here was
no proof of a naLal or supervenlng dlsabllng facLor ln Lhe person, an adverse lnLegral elemenL
ln Lhe personallLy sLrucLure LhaL effecLlvely lncapaclLaLes a person from accepLlng and
complylng wlLh Lhe obllgaLlons essenLlal Lo marrlage.
ln provlng psychologlcal lncapaclLy, Lhe courL flnds no dlsLlncLlon beLween an allen
spouse and a llllplno spouse. lL cannoL be lenlenL ln Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe rules merely
because Lhe spouse alleged Lo be psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed happens Lo be a forelgn
naLlonal. 1he medlcal and cllnlcal rules Lo deLermlne psychologlcal lncapaclLy were
formulaLed on Lhe basls of sLudles of human behavlor ln general. Pence, Lhe norms used for
deLermlnlng psychologlcal lncapaclLy should apply Lo any person regardless of naLlonallLy.


Choa vs. Choa
G.k. No. 143376 November 26, 2002

lacLs:
Lenl Choa, peLlLloner, and Alfonso Choa, respondenL, were marrled on March 13,
1981. CuL of Lhls unlon, Lwo chlldren were born. Cn CcLober 27, 1993, respondenL flled a
complalnL for Lhe annulmenL of hls marrlage Lo peLlLloner. Also flled an amended complalnL
for Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of hls marrlage based on her alleged psychologlcal lncapaclLy.
1he case wenL on Lrlal wlLh Lhe respondenL presenLlng hls evldence. Powever, peLlLloner flled
a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe evldence. 81C denled peLlLloner's demurrer Lo evldence on Lhe
ground LhaL peLlLloner musL conLroverL Lhe esLabllshed quanLum evldence of respondenL.
eLlLloner elevaLed Lhe case Lo CA afLer Lhe moLlon of reconslderaLlon was denled. CA held
LhaL denlal of Lhe demurrer was merely lnLerlocuLory and peLlLloner ln her defense musL
presenL evldence.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner's obllgaLed Lo presenL her evldence desplLe Lhe
lnadequaLe evldence of respondenL ln Lhe annulmenL of marrlage case grounded on
psychologlcal lncapaclLy.

8ullng:
1he peLlLlon ls merlLorlous. Powever, Lhe evldence agalnsL peLlLloner ls grossly
lnsufflclenL Lo supporL any flndlng of psychologlcal lncapaclLy LhaL would warranL a
declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhe parLles' marrlage.
8espondenL clalms LhaL Lhe flllng by peLlLloner of a serles of charges agalnsL hlm
are proof of Lhe laLLer's psychologlcal lncapaclLy Lo comply wlLh Lhe essenLlal obllgaLlons of
marrlage. 1hese charges lncluded ComplalnLs for per[ury, false LesLlmony, concublnage and
deporLaLlon.
1he documenLs presenLed by respondenL durlng Lhe Lrlal do noL ln any way show
Lhe alleged psychologlcal lncapaclLy of hls wlfe. lL ls Lhe helghL of absurdlLy and lnequlLy Lo
condemn her as psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo fulflll her marlLal obllgaLlons, slmply
because she flled cases agalnsL hlm. 1he evldence presenLed merely esLabllshes Lhe
prosecuLlon of Lhe cases agalnsL hlm. 1o rule LhaL Lhe flllngs are sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh her
psychologlcal lncapaclLy ls noL only LoLally erroneous, buL also grave abuse of dlscreLlon
borderlng on absurdlLy.
CourL clearly explalned LhaL "psychologlcal lncapaclLy musL be characLerlzed by (a)
gravlLy, (b) [urldlcal anLecedence and (c) lncurablllLy. 1he evldence adduced by respondenL
merely shows LhaL he and hls wlfe could noL geL along wlLh each oLher. 1here was absoluLely
no showlng of Lhe gravlLy or [urldlcal anLecedence or lncurablllLy of Lhe problems beseLLlng
Lhelr marlLal unlon.






Anton|o vs. keyes
G.k. No. 1SS800 March 10, 2006

lacLs:
Leonllo AnLonlo, peLlLloner, flled a peLlLlon Lo have hls marrlage Lo Marle 8eyes,
respondenL, declared null and vold. Pe anchored hls peLlLlon for nulllLy on ArLlcle 36 of Lhe
lamlly Code alleglng LhaL respondenL was psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo comply wlLh Lhe
essenLlal marlLal obllgaLlons of marrlage. Pe asserLed LhaL respondenL's lncapaclLy exlsLed aL
Lhe Llme Lhelr marrlage was celebraLed and sLlll subslsLs up Lo Lhe presenL.
As manlfesLaLlons of respondenL's alleged psychologlcal lncapaclLy, peLlLloner
clalmed LhaL respondenL perslsLenLly lled abouL herself, Lhe people around her, her
occupaLlon, lncome, educaLlonal aLLalnmenL and oLher evenLs or Lhlngs.
ln supporL of hls peLlLlon, peLlLloner presenLed ur. Abcede, a psychlaLrlsL, and ur.
Lopez, a cllnlcal psychologlsL, who sLaLed, based on Lhe LesLs Lhey conducLed, LhaL peLlLloner
was essenLlally a normal, lnLrospecLlve, shy and conservaLlve Lype of person. Cn Lhe oLher
hand, Lhey observed LhaL respondenL's perslsLenL and consLanL lylng Lo peLlLloner was
abnormal or paLhologlcal. lL undermlned Lhe baslc relaLlonshlp LhaL should be based on love,
LrusL and respecL. 1hey furLher asserLed LhaL respondenL's exLreme [ealousy was also
paLhologlcal. lL reached Lhe polnL of paranola slnce Lhere was no acLual basls for her Lo
suspecL LhaL peLlLloner was havlng an affalr wlLh anoLher woman. 1hey concluded based on
Lhe foregolng LhaL respondenL was psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo perform her essenLlal
marlLal obllgaLlons.
AfLer Lrlal, Lhe lower courL gave credence Lo peLlLloner's evldence and held LhaL
respondenL's propenslLy Lo lylng abouL almosL anyLhlng-her occupaLlon, sLaLe of healLh,
slnglng ablllLles and her lncome, among oLhers-had been duly esLabllshed. Accordlng Lo Lhe
Lrlal courL, respondenL's fanLasLlc ablllLy Lo lnvenL and fabrlcaLe sLorles and personallLles
enabled her Lo llve ln a world of make-belleve. 1hls made her psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed as
lL rendered her lncapable of glvlng meanlng and slgnlflcance Lo her marrlage. 1he Lrlal courL
Lhus declared Lhe marrlage beLween peLlLloner and respondenL null and vold.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhere ls sufflclenL basls/showlng of psychologlcal lncapaclLy as Lo
render Lhe marrlage null and vold.

8ullng:
lL should be noLed LhaL Lhe lles aLLrlbuLed Lo respondenL were noL adopLed as false
preLenses ln order Lo lnduce peLlLloner lnLo marrlage. More dlsLurblngly, Lhey lndlcaLe a fallure on
Lhe parL of respondenL Lo dlsLlngulsh LruLh from flcLlon, or aL leasL ablde by Lhe LruLh. eLlLloner's
wlLnesses and Lhe Lrlal courL were emphaLlc on respondenL's lnveLeraLe procllvlLy Lo Lelllng lles
and Lhe paLhologlc naLure of her mlsLruLhs, whlch accordlng Lo Lhem, were revelaLory of
respondenL's lnablllLy Lo undersLand and perform Lhe essenLlal obllgaLlons of marrlage. lndeed, a
person unable Lo dlsLlngulsh beLween fanLasy and reallLy would slmllarly be unable Lo comprehend
Lhe legal naLure of Lhe marlLal bond, much less lLs psychlc meanlng, and Lhe correspondlng
obllgaLlons aLLached Lo marrlage, lncludlng parenLlng. Cne unable Lo adhere Lo reallLy cannoL be
expecLed Lo adhere as well Lo any legal or emoLlonal commlLmenLs.
Clearly ln Lhls case, Lhere was no caLegorlcal avermenL from Lhe experL wlLnesses LhaL
respondenL's psychologlcal lncapaclLy was curable or lncurable. lrom Lhe LoLallLy of Lhe evldence,
however, Lhe courL ls sufflclenLly convlnced LhaL Lhe lncurablllLy of respondenL's psychologlcal
lncapaclLy has been esLabllshed by Lhe peLlLloner.
Ch| M|ng 1so| vs. CA
G.k. No. 119190 Ianuary 16, 1997

lacLs:
Chl Mlng 1sol and Clna Lao were marrled on May 22, 1988. unLll Lhelr separaLlon
on March 13, 1989, Lhere was no sexual conLacL beLween Lhem. Pence, Clna (wlfe) flled a
peLlLlon for Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhelr marrlage. Medlcal examlnaLlons showed LhaL
Lhe wlfe was healLhy, normal and sLlll a vlrgln, whlle Lhe husband was found Lo be capable of
havlng sexual lnLercourse slnce he was noL lmpoLenL.
1he wlfe clalmed LhaL her husband was lmpoLenL, and was a closeL homosexual as
he dld noL show hls penls and slnce he was uslng hls moLher's eyebrow pencll and cleanslng
cream. She also clalmed LhaL her husband marrled her, a llllplno clLlzen, ln order Lo acqulre
or malnLaln hls resldency sLaLus here ln Lhe counLry and Lo publlcly malnLaln Lhe appearance
of a normal man. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe husband clalmed LhaL lL was hls wlfe who was
psychologlcally lncapaclLaLed Lo perform baslc marlLal obllgaLlons. Pe asserLs LhaL hls wlfe
avolded hlm whenever he wanLs Lo have sexual lnLercourse wlLh her. Pe furLher clalmed LhaL
hls wlfe flled Lhe case because she was afrald LhaL she would be forced Lo reLurn Lhe pleces
of [ewelry of hls moLher, and LhaL he mlghL consummaLe Lhelr marrlage. Pe also lnslsLed LhaL
Lhelr marrlage would remaln valld because Lhey are sLlll very young and Lhere ls sLlll a chance
Lo overcome Lhelr dlfferences.
1he Lrlal courL declared Lhelr marrlage vold on accounL of psychologlcal lncapaclLy
of Lhe husband. 1he CourL of Appeals afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe Lrlal courL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe prolonged refusal of Lhe husband Lo have sexual cooperaLlon
for Lhe procreaLlon of chlldren wlLh hls wlfe ls equlvalenL Lo psychologlcal lncapaclLy.
8ullng:
?es. 1he prolonged refusal of Lhe husband Lo have sexual cooperaLlon for Lhe
procreaLlon of chlldren wlLh hls wlfe ls equlvalenL Lo psychologlcal lncapaclLy.
lf a spouse, alLhough physlcally capable buL slmply refuses Lo perform hls or her
essenLlal marrlage obllgaLlons, and Lhe refusal ls senseless and consLanL, Lhe CaLhollc
marrlage Lrlbunals aLLrlbuLe Lhe causes Lo psychologlcal lncapaclLy Lhan Lo sLubborn refusal.
1he husband's senseless and proLracLed refusal Lo fulflll hls marlLal obllgaLlons ls equlvalenL
Lo psychologlcal lncapaclLy.
Cne of Lhe essenLlal marlLal obllgaLlons under Lhe lamlly Code ls Lo procreaLe
chlldren based on Lhe unlversal prlnclple LhaL procreaLlon of chlldren Lhrough sexual
cooperaLlon ls Lhe baslc end of marrlage. ConsLanL non-fulflllmenL of Lhls obllgaLlon wlll
flnally desLroy Lhe lnLegrlLy or wholeness of Lhe marrlage. ueclslon afflrmed and peLlLlon
denled for lack of merlL.








Mor|go vs. eop|e of the h|||pp|nes
G. k. No. 14S226 Iebruary 6, 2004

lacLs:
AppellanL Luclo Morlgo and Lucla 8arreLe were boardmaLes aL Lhe house of
CaLallna 1orLor aL 1agbllaran ClLy, for a perlod of four years. AfLer school year, Luclo Morlgo
and Lucla 8arreLe losL conLacL wlLh each oLher. ln 1984, Luclo Morlgo was surprlsed Lo
recelve a card from Lucla 8arreLe from Slngapore. 1he former replled and afLer an exchange
of leLLers, Lhey became sweeLhearLs. ln 1986, Lucla reLurned Lo Lhe hlllpplnes buL lefL agaln
for Canada Lo work Lhere. Whlle ln Canada, Lhey malnLalned consLanL communlcaLlon. ln
1990, Lucla came back Lo Lhe hlllpplnes and proposed Lo peLlLlon appellanL Lo [oln her ln
Canada. 8oLh agreed Lo geL marrled. Lucla reporLed back Lo her work ln Canada leavlng
appellanL Luclo behlnd.
Cn AugusL 19, 1991, Lucla flled wlLh Lhe CnLarlo CourL a peLlLlon for dlvorce agalnsL
appellanL whlch was granLed by Lhe courL. AppellanL Luclo Morlgo marrled Marla !ececha
Lumbago aL 1agbllaran ClLy. Luclo flled a complalnL for [udlclal declaraLlon of nulllLy of
marrlage ln Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of 8ohol. 1he complalnL seeks among oLhers, Lhe
declaraLlon of nulllLy of Luclo's marrlage wlLh Lucla, on Lhe ground LhaL no marrlage
ceremony acLually Look place. AppellanL was charged wlLh 8lgamy ln lnformaLlon flled by Lhe
ClLy rosecuLor of 1agbllaran ClLy, wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of 8ohol.
Luclo Morlgo moved for suspenslon of Lhe arralgnmenL on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe clvll
case for [udlclal nulllflcaLlon of hls marrlage wlLh Lucla posed a pre[udlclal quesLlon ln Lhe
blgamy case. Pls moLlon was granLed, buL subsequenLly denled upon moLlon for
reconslderaLlon by Lhe prosecuLlon. When arralgned ln Lhe blgamy case, Luclo pleaded noL
gullLy Lo Lhe charge.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Luclo Morlgo commlLLed blgamy even wlLh hls defense of good
falLh.

8ullng:
A [udlclal declaraLlon of nulllLy of a prevlous marrlage ls necessary before a
subsequenL one can be legally conLracLed. Cne who enLers lnLo a subsequenL marrlage
wlLhouL flrsL obLalnlng such [udlclal declaraLlon ls gullLy of blgamy. 1hls prlnclple applles even
lf Lhe earller unlon ls characLerlzed by sLaLuLes as "vold."
ln Lhe lnsLanL case, however, no marrlage ceremony aL all was performed by a duly
auLhorlzed solemnlzlng offlcer. Luclo Morlgo and Lucla 8arreLe merely slgned a marrlage
conLracL on Lhelr own. 1he mere prlvaLe acL of slgnlng a marrlage conLracL bears no
semblance Lo a valld marrlage and Lhus, needs no [udlclal declaraLlon of nulllLy. Such acL
alone, wlLhouL more, cannoL be deemed Lo consLlLuLe an osLenslbly valld marrlage for whlch
Luclo mlghL be held llable for blgamy unless he flrsL secures a [udlclal declaraLlon of nulllLy
before he conLracLs a subsequenL marrlage.
1he law abhors an ln[usLlce and Lhe CourL ls mandaLed Lo llberally consLrue a penal
sLaLuLe ln favor of an accused and welgh every clrcumsLance ln favor of Lhe presumpLlon of
lnnocence Lo ensure LhaL [usLlce ls done. under Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe presenL case,
Supreme CourL held LhaL peLlLloner has noL commlLLed blgamy and LhaL lL need noL Larry on
Lhe lssue of Lhe valldlLy of hls defense of good falLh or lack of crlmlnal lnLenL, whlch ls now
mooL and academlc.

Lapuz-Sy vs. Lufem|o
43 SCkA 177

lacLs:
Carmen Lapuz-Sy flled a peLlLlon for legal separaLlon agalnsL Lufemlo, marrled
clvllly on SepLember 21, 1934 and canonlcally on SepLember 30, 1943. ln 1943, her husband
abandoned her. Carmen dlscovered Lufemlo cohablLlng wlLh a Chlnese woman, Co Plok.
Carmen prayed for Lhe lssuance of Lhe decree of legal separaLlon. Lufemlo amended answer
Lo Lhe peLlLlon and alleged afflrmaLlve.
8efore Lhe Lrlal could be compleLed, peLlLloner dled ln a vehlcular accldenL. WlLh
Lhese respondenL moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe peLlLlon for legal separaLlon on Lwo grounds, Lhe
peLlLlon was flled beyond 1-year perlod and Lhe deaLh of peLlLloner abaLed Lhe acLed for legal
separaLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe deaLh of plalnLlff ln acLlon for legal separaLlon before flnal
decree abaLed Lhe acLlon.

8ullng:
An acLlon for legal separaLlon whlch lnvolves noLhlng more Lhan Lhe bed-and-board
separaLlon of Lhe spouses ls purely personal. 1he Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes recognlzes Lhls
ln lLs ArLlcle 100, by allowlng only Lhe lnnocenL spouse and no one else Lo clalm legal
separaLlon, and ln lLs ArLlcle 108, by provldlng LhaL Lhe spouses can, by Lhelr reconclllaLlon,
sLop or abaLe Lhe proceedlngs and even resclnd a decree of legal separaLlon already
rendered. 8elng personal ln characLer, lL follows LhaL Lhe deaLh of one parLy Lo Lhe acLlon
causes Lhe deaLh of Lhe acLlon lLself +./0# $",(#-+%0( 8#,0/2, .28 $",(#-+)



















Gand|onco vs. earanda
G.k. No. L-72984 November 27, 1987

lacLs:
1ereslLa Candlonco, legal wlfe of Lhe peLlLloner, lrollan Candlonco, flled wlLh Lhe
81C of Mlsamls CrlenLal a complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner for legal separaLlon on Lhe ground of
concublnage wlLh a peLlLlon for supporL and paymenL of damages. 1ereslLa also flled a
complalnL for concublnage agalnsL peLlLloner wlLh M1C of Ceneral SanLos ClLy. And agaln for
Lhe appllcaLlon for Lhe provlslonal remedy of supporL $"-3"-/" %0/") 1he respondenL !udge
enaranda ordered Lhe paymenL of supporL $"-3"-/" %0/".
eLlLloner conLends LhaL Lhe clvll acLlon for legal separaLlon and Lhe lncldenLs
LhereLo should be suspended ln vlew of Lhe crlmlnal case for concublnage.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe clvll acLlon for legal separaLlon shall be suspended on Lhe case
of concublnage.

8ullng:
eLlLlon ls dlsmlssed. A clvll acLlon for legal separaLlon based on concublnage may
proceed ahead of or slmulLaneously wlLh a crlmlnal acLlon for concublnage for Lhe acLlon for
legal separaLlon ls noL Lo recover clvll llablllLy arlslng from Lhe offense.
Clvll acLlon ls noL one Lo enforce Lhe clvll llablllLy arlslng from Lhe offense" even lf
boLh Lhe clvll and crlmlnal acLlons arlse from or are relaLed Lo Lhe same offense. SupporL
$"-3"-/" %0/", as a remedy, can be avalled of ln an acLlon for legal separaLlon and granLed aL
Lhe dlscreLlon of Lhe [udge.

















8ugayong vs. G|nez
G.k. No. L-10033 December 28, 19S6

lacLs:
8en[amln 8ugayong, servlceman ln Lhe uS navy was marrled Lo defendanL Leonlla
Clnez ln angaslnan, whlle on furlough leave. AfLer marrlage, Lhe couples llve wlLh Lhe slsLers
of Lhe husband, before Lhe laLLer lefL Lo reporL back Lo duLy, Lhe couple came Lo an
agreemenL LhaL Leonlla would sLay wlLh 8en[amln's slsLers.
Leonlla lefL Lhe dwelllng of her slsLers-ln-law whlch she lnformed her husband by
leLLer LhaL she had gone Lo reslde wlLh her moLher ln angaslnan. Larly ln !uly 1931,
8en[amln recelve leLLers from hls slsLer valerlana olangco LhaL her wlfe lnformlng hlm of
alleged acLs of lnfldellLy. 8en[amln wenL Lo angaslnan and soughL for hls wlfe whom he meL
ln Lhe house of Leonlla's godmoLher. 1hey llved agaln as husband and wlfe and sLayed ln Lhe
house of edro 8ugayong, cousln of Lhe plalnLlff-husband. Cn Lhe second day, he Lrled Lo
verlfy from hls wlfe Lhe LruLh of Lhe lnformaLlon he recelved buL lnsLead of answerlng,
Leonlla packed up and lefL hlm whlch 8en[amln concluded as a conflrmaLlon of Lhe acLs of
lnfldellLy. AfLer he Lrled Lo locaLe her and upon falllng he wenL Lo llocos norLe. 8en[amln flled
ln Cll of angaslnan a complalnL for legal separaLlon agalnsL Leonlla, who Llmely flled an
answer vehemenLly denylng Lhe avermenLs of Lhe complalnL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe acLs charged ln llne wlLh Lhe LruLh of allegaLlons of Lhe
commlsslon of acLs of lnfldellLy amounLlng Lo adulLery have been condoned by Lhe plalnLlff-
husband.

8ullng:
CranLlng LhaL lnfldellLles amounLlng Lo adulLery were commlLed by Lhe wlfe, Lhe acL
of Lhe husband ln persuadlng her Lo come along wlLh hlm and Lhe facL LhaL she wenL wlLh
hlm and LogeLher Lhey slepL as husband and wlfe deprlves hlm as Lhe alleged offended
spouse of any acLlon for legal separaLlon agalnsL Lhe offendlng wlfe because hls sald conducL
comes wlLhln Lhe resLrlcLlon of ArLlcle 100 of Clvll Code.















acete vs. Car|aga
231 SCkA 321

lacLs:
Concepclon Alanls flled wlLh Lhe courL below a complalnL for Lhe declaraLlon of
nulllLy of Lhe marrlage beLween her ersLwhlle husband Lnrlco aceLe and one ClarlLa de la
Concepclon, as well as for legal separaLlon (beLween Alanls and aceLe), accounLlng and
separaLlon of properLy. ln her complalnL, she averred LhaL she was marrled Lo aceLe before
Lhe !usLlce of Lhe eace of CoLabaLo, LhaL Lhey had a chlld named Consuelo, LhaL aceLe
subsequenLly conLracLed ln 1948 a second marrlage wlLh ClarlLa de la Concepclon ln norLh
CoLabaLo, LhaL she learned of such marrlage only on 1979, LhaL durlng her marrlage Lo
aceLe, Lhe laLLer acqulred vasL properLy conslsLlng of large LracLs of land, flshponds and
several moLor vehlcles, LhaL he fraudulenLly placed Lhe several pleces of properLy elLher ln
hls name and ClarlLa or ln Lhe names of hls chlldren wlLh ClarlLa and oLher "dummles," LhaL
aceLe lgnored overLures for an amlcable seLLlemenL, and LhaL reconclllaLlon beLween her
and aceLe was lmposslble slnce he evldenLly preferred Lo conLlnue llvlng wlLh ClarlLa.

lssue:
WheLher or noL 81C of CoLabaLo ClLy gravely abused lLs dlscreLlon ln denylng
peLlLloners' moLlon for exLenslon of Llme Lo flle Lhelr answer on Lhe decree of legal
separaLlon.

8ullng:
eLlLlon ls granLed. 1he speclal prescrlpLlons on acLlons LhaL can puL Lhe lnLegrlLy of
marrlage Lo posslble [eopardy are lmpelled by no less Lhan Lhe SLaLe's lnLeresL ln Lhe
marrlage relaLlon and lLs avowed lnLenLlon noL Lo leave Lhe maLLer wlLhln Lhe excluslve
domaln and Lhe vagarles of Lhe parLles Lo alone dlcLaLe.
lL ls clear LhaL Lhe peLlLloner dld, ln facL, speclflcally pray for legal separaLlon. 1haL
oLher remedy, wheLher prlnclpal or lncldenLal, have llkewlse been soughL ln Lhe same acLlon
cannoL dlspense, nor excuse compllance, wlLh any of Lhe sLaLuLory requlremenLs
aforequoLed.
An acLlon for legal separaLlon musL "ln no case be Lrled before slx monLhs shall
have elapsed slnce Lhe flllng of Lhe peLlLlon," obvlously ln order Lo provlde Lhe parLles a
"coollng-off" perlod. ln Lhls lnLerlm, Lhe courL should Lake sLeps Loward geLLlng Lhe parLles Lo
reconclle.













Macadangdang vs. CA
108 SCkA 314

lacLs:
8espondenL LllzabeLh Me[las ls a marrled woman, her husband belng Crlspln
Anahaw. She allegedly had lnLercourse wlLh peLlLloner AnLonlo Macadangdang someLlme ln
March, 1967. She also alleges LhaL due Lo Lhe affalr, she and her husband separaLed ln 1967.
She gave blrLh Lo a baby boy who was named 8olando Macadangdang ln bapLlsmal rlLes.
8espondenL, Lhen plalnLlff, flled a complalnL for recognlLlon and supporL agalnsL peLlLloner,
Lhen defendanL, wlLh Lhe Cll of uavao. uefendanL, now peLlLloner, Macadangdang flled hls
answer, opposlng plalnLlff's clalm and praylng for lLs dlsmlssal.
1he lower courL ln a pre-Lrlal conference, lssued a re-Lrlal Crder formallzlng
cerLaln sLlpulaLlons, admlsslons and facLual lssues on whlch boLh parLles agreed.
Correspondlngly, upon agreemenL of Lhe parLles, an amended complalnL was flled by
plalnLlff. ln lLs declslon rendered, Lhe lower courL dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL. 1he declslon
lnvoked poslLlve provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code and 8ules of CourL and auLhorlLles.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe wlfe may lnsLlLuLe an acLlon LhaL would basLardlze her chlld
wlLhouL glvlng her husband, Lhe legally presumed faLher, an opporLunlLy Lo be heard.

8ullng:
SC flnd no merlL ln peLlLloner's submlsslon LhaL Lhe quesLloned declslon had noL
become flnal and execuLory slnce Lhe law expllclLly and clearly provldes for Lhe dlssoluLlon
and llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp as among Lhe effecLs of Lhe flnal decree of legal
separaLlon.
lL also appears LhaL her clalm agalnsL peLlLloner ls a dlsgulsed aLLempL Lo evade Lhe
responslblllLy and consequence of her reckless behavlor aL Lhe expense of her husband, her
llllclL lover and above all her own son. lor Lhls CourL Lo allow, much less consenL Lo, Lhe
basLardlzaLlon of respondenL's son would glve rlse Lo serlous and far-reachlng consequences
on socleLy. 1hls CourL wlll noL LoleraLe schemlng marrled women who would lndulge ln llllclL
affalrs wlLh marrled men and Lhen explolL Lhe chlldren born durlng such lmmoral relaLlons by
uslng Lhem Lo collecL from such moneyed paramours. 1hls would be Lhe form of wrecklng Lhe
sLablllLy of Lwo famllles. 1hls would be a severe assaulL on morallLy.












otenc|ano vs. CA
G.k. No. 139789, 139808 Iu|y 19, 2001

lacLs:
Lrllnda llusorlo, Lhe maLrlarch who was so lovlngly lnseparable from her husband
some years ago, flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe CourL of Appeals for 7+1"+( .#,$2( Lo have cusLody
of her husband ln consorLlum. Powever, Lhe CourL of Appeals promulgaLed lLs declslon
dlsmlsslng Lhe peLlLlon for lack of unlawful resLralnL or deLenLlon of Lhe sub[ecL, oLenclano
llusorlo.
Lrllnda llusorlo flled wlLh Lhe Supreme CourL an appeal '0+ .",/0#,+,0 pursulng her
deslre Lo have cusLody of her husband oLenclano llusorlo. 1hls case was consolldaLed wlLh
anoLher case flled by oLenclano llusorlo and hls chlldren, Lrllnda 8lldner and Sylvla llusorlo
appeallng from Lhe order glvlng vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo hls wlfe, asserLlng LhaL he never refused Lo
see her. 1he Supreme CourL dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon for 7+1"+( .#,$2( for lack of merlL, and
granLed Lhe peLlLlon Lo nulllfy Lhe CourL of Appeals' rullng glvlng vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo Lrllnda
llusorlo.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner can asserL ArLlcle 68 and 69 of lamlly Code Lo have
cusLody of her husband ln consorLlum.

8ullng:
1he Supreme CourL agrees LhaL as spouses, Lhey are duLy bound Lo llve LogeLher
and care for each oLher as provlded by ArLlcle 68 and 69. Powever, Lhere was absence of
empaLhy beLween spouses Lrllnda and oLenclano, havlng separaLed from bed and board
slnce 1972. Cnly Lhe moral obllgaLlon of Lhe spouses consLlLuLes Lhe moLlvaLlng facLor for
maklng Lhem observe Lhe sald duLles and obllgaLlons whlch are hlghly personal. 1herefore,
Lhey deny Lhe peLlLloner's moLlon for reconslderaLlon.
















Go|t|a vs. Campos-kueda
3S h||. 2S2

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcle 68

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner may clalm supporL from her husband ouLslde of Lhe
con[ugal domlclle.

8ullng:
1he law provldes LhaL defendanL, who ls obllged Lo supporL Lhe wlfe, may fulflll Lhls
obllgaLlon elLher by paylng her a flxed penslon or by malnLalnlng her ln hls own home aL hls
opLlon. 1he law provldes LhaL defendanL, who ls obllged Lo supporL Lhe wlfe, may fulflll Lhls
obllgaLlon elLher by paylng her a flxed penslon or by malnLalnlng her ln hls own home aL hls
opLlon.
Powever, Lhe opLlon glven by law ls noL absoluLe. 1he law wlll noL permlL Lhe
defendanL Lo evade or LermlnaLe hls obllgaLlon Lo supporL hls wlfe lf Lhe wlfe was forced Lo
leave Lhe con[ugal abode because of Lhe lewd deslgns and physlcal assaulLs of Lhe defendanL,
ArLlcle 68 emphaslze muLual love, respecL and fldellLy among husband and wlfe.























1y vs. CA
G.k. No. 127406 November 27, 2000

lacLs:
Ldgardo 8eyes, prlvaLe respondenL, marrled Lo Anna Marla vlllanueva boLh ln a
clvll and church ceremony respecLlvely. Powever, Lhe !uvenlle and uomesLlc 8elaLlons CourL
of Cuezon ClLy declared Lhelr marrlage null and vold ab lnlLlo for lack of marrlage of llcense.
8efore Lhe decree of was lssued ln nulllfylng Lhe marrlage of sald spouses, prlvaLe
respondenL wed Cfella 1y, peLlLloner, ln Lhe ClLy CourL of asay and LhereafLer ln a church
weddlng ln MakaLl. CuL of Lhelr unlon bore Lwo daughLers. unLll prlvaLe respondenL peLlLlon
LhaL Lhelr marrlage be declared null and vold for lack of marrlage of llcense and LhaL aL Lhe
Llme Lhey goL marrled, he was sLlll marrled Lo Anna Marla. Pe sLaLed LhaL aL Lhe Llme he
marrled peLlLloner Lhe decree of nulllLy of hls marrlage Lo Anna Marla had noL been lssued.
Cfella defended LhaL lack of marrlage llcense ln Lhelr marrlage ls unLrue. She
submlLLed Lhe marrlage llcense ln courL and prlvaLe respondenL dld noL quesLlon Lhe
evldence. Powever, 81C and CA afflrmed Lhelr declslon ln favor of prlvaLe respondenL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner may clalm damages for fallure Lo comply wlLh marlLal
obllgaLlons of Lhe respondenL.

8ullng:
1here can be no acLlon for damages merely because of a breach of marlLal
obllgaLlon. Supreme CourL also vlewed LhaL no damages should be awarded ln Lhe presenL
case, buL for anoLher reason. eLlLloner wanLs her marrlage Lo prlvaLe respondenL held valld
and subslsLlng. She ls sulng Lo malnLaln her sLaLus as leglLlmaLe wlfe. ln Lhe same breaLh,
she asks for damages from her husband for flllng a baseless complalnL for annulmenL of Lhelr
marrlage whlch caused her menLal angulsh, anxleLy, besmlrched repuLaLlon, soclal
humlllaLlon and allenaLlon from her parenLs.
Should Lhey granL her prayer, Lhey would have a slLuaLlon where Lhe husband pays
Lhe wlfe damages from con[ugal or common funds. 1o do so, would make Lhe appllcaLlon of
Lhe law absurd. Loglc, lf noL common sense, mlllLaLes agalnsL such lncongrulLy.
















I|usor|o vs. 8||dner
G.k. No. 139789 May 12, 2000

lacLs:
Lrllnda kalaw and oLenclano llusorlo conLracLed maLrlmony and llved LogeLher for
a perlod of LhlrLy years. CuL of Lhelr marrlage, Lhe spouses had slx chlldren. ln 1972, Lhey
separaLed from bed and board for undlsclosed reasons. oLenclano llved ln MakaLl when he
was ln Manlla and ln llusorlo penLhouse when he was ln 8agulo ClLy. Cn Lhe oLher hand,
Lrllnda llved ln AnLlpolo ClLy.
When oLenclano arrlved from unlLed SLaLes and llved wlLh Lrllnda ln AnLlpolo ClLy
for flve monLhs. 1he chlldren, Sylvla and Lln, alleged LhaL Lhelr moLher overdosed Lhelr faLher
wlLh an anLldepressanL drug whlch Lhe laLLer's healLh deLerloraLed. Lrllnda flled wlLh 81C of
AnLlpolo ClLy a peLlLlon for guardlanshlp over Lhe person and properLy of her husband due Lo
Lhe laLLer's advanced age, frall healLh, poor eyeslghL and lmpalred [udgmenL.
oLenclano dld noL reLurn Lo AnLlpolo ClLy and lnsLead llved ln a condomlnlum ln
MakaLl ClLy afLer aLLendlng a corporaLe meeLlng ln 8agulo ClLy. WlLh Lhese, Lrllnda flled wlLh
CA a peLlLlon for habeas corpus Lo have cusLody of her husband and also for Lhe reason LhaL
respondenL refused peLlLloner's demands Lo see and vlslL her husband and prohlblLlng
oLenclano from llvlng wlLh her ln AnLlpolo ClLy.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lrllnda llusorlo may secure a wrlL of habeas corpus Lo compel her
husband Lo llve wlLh her ln con[ugal bllss.

8ullng:
1he essenLlal ob[ecL and purpose of Lhe wrlL of 7+1"+( .#,$2( ls Lo lnqulre lnLo all
manner of lnvolunLary resLralnL, and Lo relleve a person Lherefrom lf such resLralnL ls lllegal.
1o [usLlfy Lhe granL of Lhe peLlLlon, Lhe resLralnL of llberLy musL be an lllegal and lnvolunLary
deprlvaLlon of freedom of acLlon. 1he lllegal resLralnL of llberLy musL be acLual and effecLlve,
noL merely nomlnal or moral.
no courL ls empowered as a [udlclal auLhorlLy Lo compel a husband Lo llve wlLh hls
wlfe. CoverLure cannoL be enforced by compulslon of a wrlL of 7+1"+( .#,$2( carrled ouL by
sherlffs or by any oLher mesne process. 1haL ls a maLLer beyond [udlclal auLhorlLy and ls besL
lefL Lo Lhe man and woman's free cholce. 1herefore, a peLlLlon for wrlL of habeas corpus ls
denled.











komua|dez-Marcos vs. CCMLLLC
248 SCkA 300

lacLs:
ArLlcle 69, lmelda 8omualdez-Marcos, flled her cerLlflcaLe of candldacy for Lhe
poslLlon of 8epresenLaLlve of LeyLe llrsL ulsLrlcL. Cn March 23, 1993, prlvaLe respondenL
Clrlllo MonLe[o, also a candldaLe for Lhe same poslLlon, flled a peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon of
Lhe peLlLloner wlLh CCMLLLC on Lhe ground LhaL peLlLloner dld noL meeL Lhe consLlLuLlonal
requlremenL for resldency.
Cn March 29, 1993, peLlLloner flled an amended cerLlflcaLe of candldacy, changlng
Lhe enLry of seven monLhs Lo slnce chlldhood" ln lLem no. 8 ln sald cerLlflcaLe. Powever, Lhe
amended cerLlflcaLe was noL recelved slnce lL was already pasL deadllne. She clalmed LhaL
she always malnLalned 1acloban ClLy as her domlclle and resldence. 1he Second ulvlslon of
Lhe CCMLLLC wlLh a voLe of 2 Lo 1 came up wlLh a resoluLlon flndlng prlvaLe respondenL's
peLlLlon for dlsquallflcaLlon merlLorlous.


lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner losL her domlclle of orlgln by operaLlon of law as a resulL
of her marrlage Lo Lhe laLe resldenL Marcos.

8ullng:
lL cannoL be correcLly argued LhaL peLlLloner losL her domlclle of orlgln by operaLlon
of law. 1he presumpLlon LhaL Lhe wlfe auLomaLlcally galns Lhe husband's domlclle by
operaLlon of law buL never auLomaLlcally loses her domlclle of orlgln.
1he rlghL of Lhe husband Lo flx Lhe acLual resldence ls ln harmony wlLh Lhe
lnLenLlon of Lhe law Lo sLrengLhen and unlfy Lhe famlly, recognlzlng Lhe facL LhaL Lhe husband
and Lhe wlfe brlng lnLo Lhe marrlage dlfferenL domlclles of orlgln. 1hls dlfference could, for
Lhe sake of famlly unlLy, be reconclled only by allowlng Lhe husband Lo flx a slngle place of
acLual resldence.



















Aya|a Investments vs. CA
G.k. No. 11830S Iebruary 12, 1998

lacLs:
ArLlcle 73, hlllpplne 8loomlng Mllls loan from peLlLloner Ayala lnvesLmenL. As an
added securlLy for Lhe credlL llne exLended Lo 8M, respondenL Alfredo Chlng - Lxec. v,
execuLed securlLy agreemenLs and maklng hlmself [olnLly and severally answerable wlLh
8M's lndebLedness Lo Ayala lnvesLmenLs.
8M falled Lo pay Lhe loan. 1hus, Ayala lnvesLmenLs flled a case for sum of money
agalnsL 8M and Alfredo Chlng. 1he lower courL lssued a wrlL of execuLlon of pendlng appeal.
1hereafLer, depuLy sherlff Magsa[o caused lssuance and servlce upon respondenLs-spouses of
a noLlce of sherlff sale on Lhree of Lhelr con[ugal properLles.
rlvaLe respondenLs, spouses Chlng, flled a case of ln[uncLlon agalnsL peLlLloners
alleglng LhaL peLlLloners cannoL enforce Lhe [udgmenL agalnsL con[ugal parLnershlp levled on
Lhe ground LhaL Lhe sub[ecL loan dld noL redound Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe sald con[ugal
parLnershlp. upon appllcaLlon of prlvaLe respondenLs, Lhe lower courL lssued a Lemporary
resLralnlng order Lo prevenL Magsa[o from proceedlng wlLh Lhe enforcemenL of Lhe wrlL of
execuLlon and wlLh Lhe sale of Lhe sald properLles aL publlc aucLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL loan acqulred by 8M from Ayala lnvesLmenLs as guaranLeed by
Alfredo Chlng be redounded Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of Lhe spouses.

8ullng:
1he husband and Lhe wlfe can engage ln any lawful enLerprlse or professlon. Whlle
lL ls buL naLural for Lhe husband and Lhe wlfe Lo consulL each oLher, Lhe law does noL make lL
a requlremenL LhaL a spouse has Lo geL Lhe prlor consenL of Lhe oLher before enLerlng lnLo
any leglLlmaLe professlon, occupaLlon, buslness or acLlvlLy. 1he exerclse by a spouse of a
leglLlmaLe professlon, occupaLlon, buslness or acLlvlLy ls always consldered Lo redound Lo Lhe
beneflL of Lhe famlly.
8uL an lsolaLed LransacLlon of a spouse such as belng guaranLor for a Lhlrd person's
debL ls noL per se consldered as redoundlng Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly. 1herefore, Lo hold
Lhe absoluLe communlLy or Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp properLy llable for any loss resulLlng
from such lsolaLed acLlvlLy, proofs showlng a dlrecL beneflL Lo Lhe famlly musL be presenLed.












Agapay vs. a|ang
276 SCkA 341

lacLs:
ArLlcle 87, Mlguel alang conLracLed hls flrsL marrlage Lo Carllna vallesLerol ln Lhe
church aL angaslnan. A few monLhs afLer Lhe weddlng, he lefL Lo work ln Pawall. CuL Lhelr
unlon was born Permlnla alang, respondenL. Mlguel reLurned Lo Lhe hlllpplnes buL he
sLayed ln Zambales wlLh hls broLher durlng Lhe enLlre duraLlon of hls year-long so[ourn, noL
wlLh hls wlfe or chlld. Mlguel had also aLLempLed Lo dlvorce Carllna ln Pawall. When he
reLurned for good, he refused Lo llve wlLh hls wlfe and chlld.
When Mlguel was Lhen 63 yrs. old, he conLracLed hls second marrlage wlLh a
nlneLeen year old Lrllnda Agapay, peLlLloner. As evldenced by deed of sale, boLh [olnLly
purchased a parcel of agrlculLural land locaLed aL 8lnalonan. A house and loL was llkewlse
purchased allegedly by Lrllnda as Lhe sole vendee.
1o seLLle and end a case flled by Lhe flrsL wlfe, Mlguel and Cornella execuLed a
ueed of uonaLlon as a form of compromlse agreemenL. 1he parLles agreed Lo donaLe Lhelr
con[ugal properLy conslsLlng of slx parcels of land Lo Lhelr only chlld, Permlnla alang.
Mlguel and Lrllnda's cohablLaLlon produced a son and Lhen Lwo years laLer Mlguel
dled. 1hereafLer, Carllna flled a complalnL of concublnage on Lhe prevlous parLy.
8espondenLs soughL Lo geL back Lhe rlceland and Lhe house and loL allegedly purchased by
Mlguel durlng hls cohablLaLlon wlLh peLlLloner. eLlLloner conLended LhaL she had already
glven her half of Lhe rlceland properLy Lo Lhelr son and LhaL Lhe house and loL ls her sole
properLy havlng boughL wlLh her own money. 81C afflrmed ln favor of Lhe peLlLloner whlle
CA reversed Lhe sald declslon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner may own Lhe Lwo parcels of land acqulred durlng Lhe
cohablLaLlon of peLlLloner and Mlguel alang.

8ullng:
1he Supreme CourL ruled LhaL Lhe conveyance of Lhe properLy was noL by way of
sale buL was a donaLlon and Lherefore vold. 1he LransacLlon was properly a donaLlon made
by Mlguel Lo Lrllnda, buL one whlch was clearly vold and lnexlsLenL by express provlslon of
law because lL was made beLween persons gullLy of adulLery or concublnage aL Lhe Llme of
Lhe donaLlon.














Arcaba vs. 1abancura Vda. De 8atocae|
G.k. No. 146683 November 22, 2001

lacLs:
lranclsco Comllle and hls wlfe Zoslma MonLallana became Lhe reglsLered owners of
Lwo loLs ln Zamboanga del norLe. AfLer Lhe deaLh of Zoslma, lranclsco and hls moLher-ln-law
execuLed a deed of exLra[udlclal parLlLlon wlLh walver of rlghLs, ln whlch Lhe laLLer walved her
x share of Lhe properLy. 1hereafLer, lranclsco reglsLered Lhe loL ln hls name. Pavlng no
chlldren Lo Lake care of hlm afLer hls reLlremenL, lranclsco asked hls nlece LeLlcla, Lhe laLLer's
cousln Luzvlmlnda and peLlLloner Clrlla Arcaba, Lo Lake care of hls house and sLore.
ConfllcLlng LesLlmonles were offered as Lo Lhe naLure of Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween
Clrlla and lranclsco. LeLlcla sald LhaL Lhe prevlous parLy was lovers slnce Lhey slepL ln Lhe
same room whlle Lrllnda clalmed LhaL lranclsco Lold her LhaL Clrlla was hls mlsLress. Cn Lhe
oLher hand, Clrlla sald she was mere helper and LhaL lranclsco was Loo old for her.
A few monLhs before lranclsco's deaLh, he execuLed an lnsLrumenL denomlnaLed
ueed of uonaLlon A-/", B0'#(" ln whlch he ceded a porLlon of Lhe loL LogeLher wlLh ls house
Lo Clrlla, who accepLed Lhe donaLlon ln Lhe same lnsLrumenL. 1he deed sLaLed LhaL Lhe
donaLlon was belng made ln conslderaLlon of Lhe falLhful servlces she had rendered over Lhe
pasL Len years." 1hereafLer, lranclsco dled and Lhe respondenLs flled a complalnL agalnsL
Clrlla for declaraLlon of nulllLy of a deed of donaLlon lnLer vlvos, recovery of possesslon and
damages. 8espondenLs, who are nleces, nephews and helrs by lnLesLaLe successlon of
lranclsco, alleged LhaL Clrlla was Lhe common-law wlfe of lranclsco and Lhe donaLlon lnerL
vlvos ls vold under ArLlcle 87 of Lhe lamlly Code.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe deed of donaLlon 0-/", '0'#( execuLed by Lhe laLe lranclsco Comllle be
declared vold under ArLlcle 87 of Lhe lamlly Code.

8ullng:
Where lL has been esLabllshed by preponderance of evldence LhaL Lwo persons
llved LogeLher as husband and wlfe wlLhouL a valld marrlage, Lhe lnescapable concluslon ls
LhaL Lhe donaLlon made by one ln favor of Lhe oLher ls vold under ArLlcle 87 of Lhe lamlly
Code.
1herefore, respondenLs havlng proven by preponderance of evldence LhaL Clrlla
and lranclsco llved LogeLher as husband and wlfe wlLhouL a valld marrlage, Lhe donaLlon
lnLer vlvos ls consldered null and vold.













Uy vs. CA
G.k. No. 109SS7 November 29, 2000

lacLs:
1eodoro !ardeleza, peLlLloner, flled a peLlLlon ln Lhe maLLer of Lhe guardlanshlp of
ur. LrnesLo !ardeleza, Sr., upon learnlng LhaL one plece of real properLy belonglng Lo Lhe
laLLer spouses was abouL Lo be sold. 1he peLlLloner averred Lhereln LhaL Lhe presenL physlcal
and menLal lncapaclLy of ur. LrnesLo !ardeleza Sr. prevenL hlm from compeLenLly
admlnlsLerlng hls properLles, ln order Lo prevenL Lhe loss and dlsslpaLlon of Lhe !ardeleza's
real and personal asseLs, Lhere was a need for a courL-appolnLed guardlan Lo admlnlsLer sald
properLles.
Cllda !ardeleza, respondenL, flled a peLlLlon regardlng Lhe declaraLlon of lncapaclLy
of ur. LrnesLo !ardeleza Sr., assumpLlon of sole powers of admlnlsLraLlon of con[ugal
properLles and auLhorlzaLlon Lo sell Lhe properLy. She alleged LhaL her husband's medlcal
LreaLmenL and hosplLallzaLlon expenses were plllng up and LhaL she need Lo sell one plece of
real properLy and lLs lmprovemenLs. She prayed for auLhorlzaLlon from Lhe courL Lo sell sald
properLy.
81C of llollo ClLy rendered lLs declslon, flndlng LhaL lL was convlnced LhaL ur.
LrnesLo !ardeleza Sr. was Lruly lncapaclLaLed Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe
con[ugal properLles. Powever, 1eodoro flled hls opposlLlon Lo Lhe proceedlngs belng
unaware and noL knowlng LhaL a declslon has already been rendered on Lhe case. Pe also
quesLloned Lhe proprleLy of Lhe sale of Lhe loL and lLs lmprovemenLs Lhereon supposedly Lo
pay Lhe accumulaLed flnanclal obllgaLlons and hosplLallzaLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Cllda !ardeleza may assume sole powers of admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe
con[ugal properLy.

8ullng:
1he CA, whlch Lhe SC afflrmed, ruled LhaL ln Lhe condlLlon of ur. LrnesLo !ardeleza
Sr., Lhe procedural rules on summary proceedlngs ln relaLlon Lo ArLlcle 124 of Lhe lamlly
Code are noL appllcable. 8ecause he was unable Lo Lake care of hlmself and manage Lhe
con[ugal properLy due Lo lllness LhaL had rendered hlm comaLose. ln such case, Lhe proper
remedy ls a [udlclal guardlanshlp proceedlng under 8ule 93 of Lhe 1964 8evlsed 8ules of
CourL.








De La Cruz vs. De La Cruz
130 h|| 324

lacLs:
LsLrella de la Cruz, peLlLloner, was marrled Lo Severlno de la Cruz, defendanL, aL
8acolod ClLy. uurlng Lhelr coverLure Lhey acqulre seven parcels of land ln 8acolod CadasLre
and Lhree parcels of land aL Sllay CadasLre. 1hey are also engaged ln varled buslness
venLures.
1he defendanL sLarLed llvlng ln Manlla, alLhough he occaslonally reLurned Lo
8acolod ClLy, sleeplng ln hls offlce aL Lhe hlllpplne 1exboard lacLory ln Mandalagan, lnsLead
of ln Lhe con[ugal home aL 8acolod ClLy. LsLrella Lhen flled a peLlLlon on Lhe ground of
abandonmenL upon Lhe defendanL who had never vlslLed Lhelr con[ugal abode. She also
began Lo suspecL Lhe defendanL ln havlng an llllclL relaLlon whlle ln Manlla Lo a cerLaln nenlLa
Pernandez, whlch she conflrmed upon geLLlng several pleces of evldence on Lhe defendanL's
polo shlrL and lron safe.
1he defendanL denled Lhe allegaLlons of Lhe peLlLloner and LhaL Lhe reason he
Lransferred hls llvlng quarLers Lo hls offlce ln Mandalagan, 8acolod ClLy was Lo Leach her a
lesson as she was quarrelsome and exLremely [ealous of every woman. Pe declded Lo llve
aparL from hls wlfe Lemporarlly because aL home he could noL concenLraLe on hls work. 1he
defendanL, wlLh vehemence, denled LhaL he has abandoned hls wlfe and famlly, averrlng LhaL
he has never falled, even for a slngle monLh, Lo glve Lhem flnanclal supporL. ln polnL of facL,
hls wlfe and chlldren conLlnued Lo draw allowances from hls offlce and he flnanced Lhe
educaLlon of Lhelr chlldren, Lwo of whom were sLudylng ln Manlla.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL abandoned hls famlly and falled Lo comply wlLh hls
obllgaLlons.

8ullng:
1he SC have made a searchlng scruLlny of Lhe record, and lL ls consldered vlew LhaL
Lhe defendanL ls noL gullLy of abandonmenL of hls wlfe, nor of such abuse of hls powers of
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp, as Lo warranL dlvlslon of Lhe con[ugal asseLs.
1here musL be ,"+% +1+-3#-8"-/, and -#/ 8"," ("$+,+/0#-.

1he abandonmenL musL noL only
be physlcal esLrangemenL buL also amounL Lo flnanclal and moral deserLlon.
1herefore, physlcal separaLlon alone ls noL Lhe full meanlng of Lhe Lerm
"abandonmenL", lf Lhe husband, desplLe hls volunLary deparLure from Lhe socleLy of hls
spouse, nelLher neglecLs Lhe managemenL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp nor ceases Lo glve
supporL Lo hls wlfe. 1he facL LhaL Lhe defendanL never ceased Lo glve supporL Lo hls wlfe and
chlldren negaLlves any lnLenL on hls parL noL Lo reLurn Lo Lhe con[ugal abode and resume hls
marlLal duLles and rlghLs.








artosa-Io vs. CA
216 SCkA 692

lacLs:
!ose !o, respondenL, cohablLed wlLh Lhree women and faLhered flfLeen chlldren.
1he flrsL woman, peLlLloner rlma arLosa-!o clalms Lo be hls legal wlfe by whom he begoL a
daughLer.
eLlLloner flled a complalnL agalnsL !o for [udlclal separaLlon of con[ugal properLy
and an acLlon for supporL. 1he complalnL for supporL was granLed by Lhe lower courL buL Lhe
[udlclal separaLlon of con[ugal properLy was never enLerLalned. !o elevaLed Lhe declslon for
supporL Lo Lhe CA buL reLaln lLs afflrmaLlon on Lrlal courL's rullng. When Lhelr moLlons for
reconslderaLlon were denled, boLh parLles appeal Lo SC for Lhe complalnL of [udlclal
separaLlon of con[ugal properLy.
1he SC, Lhrough Lhe deflnlLe flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courL, holds LhaL Lhe peLlLloner and
respondenL were legally marrled and LhaL Lhe properLles menLloned by Lhe peLlLloner were
acqulred by !o durlng Lhelr marrlage alLhough Lhey were reglsLered ln Lhe name of an
apparenL dummy.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe [udlclal separaLlon of con[ugal properLy be granLed Lo Lhe
peLlLloner on Lhe ground of abandonmenL.

8ullng:
SC granLed Lhe peLlLlon. 1he record shows LhaL respondenL had already re[ecLed
Lhe peLlLloner. 1he facL LhaL she was noL accepLed by !o demonsLraLes all Loo clearly LhaL he
had no lnLenLlon of resumlng Lhelr con[ugal relaLlonshlp. 1he respondenL also refuses Lo glve
flnanclal supporL Lo Lhe peLlLloner.
1he physlcal separaLlon of Lhe parLles, coupled wlLh Lhe refusal by Lhe respondenL
Lo glve supporL Lo Lhe peLlLloner, sufflced Lo consLlLuLe abandonmenL as a ground for Lhe
[udlclal separaLlon of Lhelr con[ugal properLy.



















8A I|nance Corporat|on vs. CA
161 SCkA 608

lacLs:
AugusLo ?ulo, respondenL, secured a loan from Lhe peLlLloner, 8A llnance Corp., as
evldenced by hls slgnaLure on a promlssory noLe ln behalf of Lhe A & L lndusLrles. AbouL Lwo
monLhs prlor Lo Lhe loan, however, AugusLo ?ulo had already lefL Llly ?ulo and Lhelr chlldren
and had abandoned Lhelr con[ugal home. When Lhe obllgaLlon became due and demandable,
AugusLo ?ulo falled Lo pay Lhe same.
eLlLloner flled lLs amended complalnL agalnsL Lhe spouses on Lhe basls of Lhe
promlssory noLe. 1hey also prayed for Lhe lssuance of a wrlL of aLLachmenL LhaL Lhe sald
spouses were gullLy of fraud ln conLracLlng Lhe debL. 1he Lrlal courL lssued Lhe wrlL of
aLLachmenL Lhereby enabllng Lhe peLlLloner Lo aLLach Lhe properLles of A & L lndusLrles.
rlvaLe respondenL Llly ?ulo flled her answer wlLh counLerclalm, alleglng LhaL AugusLo had
already abandoned her and Lhelr chlldren flve monLhs before Lhe flllng of Lhe complalnL and
LhaL Lhey were already separaLed when Lhe promlssory noLe was execuLed. She also alleged
LhaL her slgnaLure was forged ln Lhe speclal power of aLLorney procured by AugusLo.
eLlLloner conLends LhaL even lf Lhe slgnaLure was forged or even lf Lhe aLLached
properLles were her excluslve properLy, Lhe same can be made answerable Lo Lhe obllgaLlon
because Lhe sald properLles form parL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of Lhe spouses ?ulo.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe excluslve properLy of prlvaLe respondenL forms parL of Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp of Lhe spouses and be made answerable Lo Lhe obllgaLlon.

8ullng:
SC ordered Lhe release of Lhe aLLachmenL of Lhe sald properLy. 1hough lL ls
presumed LhaL Lhe slngle proprleLorshlp esLabllshed durlng Lhe marrlage ls con[ugal and even
lf lL ls reglsLered ln Lhe name of only one of Lhe spouses. Powever, for Lhe sald properLy Lo be
held llable, Lhe obllgaLlon conLracLed by Lhe husband musL have redounded Lo Lhe beneflL of
Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp.
ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe obllgaLlon whlch Lhe peLlLloner ls seeklng Lo enforce agalnsL
Lhe con[ugal properLy managed by Lhe prlvaLe respondenL was undoubLedly conLracLed by
AugusLo ?ulo for hls own beneflL because aL Lhe Llme he lncurred Lhe obllgaLlon he had
already abandoned hls famlly and had lefL Lhelr con[ugal home.














Iohnson & Iohnson Inc. vs. CA
262 SCkA 298

lacLs:
uelllah vlnluan, defendanL and owner of vlnluan LnLerprlses, engaged ln Lhe
buslness of reLalllng !ohnson producLs lncurred an obllgaLlon Lo Lhe sald company. She lssued
checks amounLlng Lo Lhe paymenL of Lhe obllgaLlon buL Lhe checks bounced. !ohnson &
!ohnson, peLlLloner, demands for Lhe paymenL and even offered accommodaLlons Lo pay Lhe
obllgaLlon buL falled. WlLh Lhese, respondenL flled a complalnL agalnsL defendanL spouses
vlnluan for collecLlon of Lhe prlnclpal obllgaLlon plus lnLeresL wlLh damages. 81C granLed Lhe
complalnL and ordered defendanL Lo pay.
Powever, afLer meLlculously scruLlnlzlng Lhe evldence on record LhaL Lhere was no
prlvlLy of conLracL beLween respondenL and defendanL-husband regardlng Lhe obllgaLlons
lncurred by Lhe defendanL-wlfe, Lhey held LhaL defendanL-husband musL noL be legally held
llable for Lhe sald obllgaLlon. 1hus, Lhey lssued a wrlL of execuLlon agalnsL Lhe properLles of
Lhe defendanL-wlfe buL Lhe Lwo noLlces of levy on execuLlon covered also Lhe real and
personal properLles of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp.
uefendanL-husband flled a Lhlrd-parLy clalm seeklng Lhe llfLlng of Lhe levy on Lhe
con[ugal properLles. SubsequenLly, peLlLloner flled a moLlon Lo flx Lhe value of Lhe levled
properLles. uefendanL-husband moved Lo quash Lhe levy on execuLlon buL as expecLed
peLlLloner opposed Lhe moLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL defendanL-husband be held llable for Lhe debLs of hls wlfe whlch
were lncurred wlLhouL hls consenL.

8ullng:
SC denled peLlLlon based on Lhe respondenL CourL's orlglnal flndlngs whlch had
already become flnal and lndlspuLable. 1he defendanL-husband dld noL glve hls consenL
nelLher dld Lhe obllgaLlon lncurred by Lhe defendanL-wlfe redound Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe
famlly. Pence, Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp, as well as Lhe defendanL-husband cannoL be held
llable. Cnly Lhe defendanL-wlfe and her paraphernal properLy can be held llable. 1he con[ugal
properLles and Lhe caplLal of Lhe defendanL-husband cannoL be levled upon.
















Spouses Lapera| vs. Spouses kat|gbak
90 h|| 77

lacLs:
1he plalnLlffs, 8oberLo Laperal !r. and hls wlfe urlflcaclon M. Laperal sued 8amon
kaLlgbak, who acLed as an agenL ln Lhe sale on Lhe commlsslon of [ewels, and hls wlfe Lvellna
kaLlgbak Lo recover Lhe LoLal sum 113,300 plus lnLeresL and cosLs. 1he defendanL Lvellna
moved Lo dlsmlss, on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe complalnL falled Lo sLaLe sufflclenL facLs Lo
consLlLuLe a cause of acLlon agalnsL her. 1he plalnLlff opposed Lhe moLlon buL Lhe courL
rendered [udgmenL dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL. Pence Lhls appeal.
1wo causes of acLlon were seL forLh ln Lhe complalnL. 1he flrsL Lranscrlbed four
promlssory noLes for varlous sums and Lhe noLes are noL slgned by Lvellna. 1he only
allegaLlons LhaL may affecL her llablllLy lf any, are LhaL 8amon slgned Lhe noLes for value
recelved "whlle marrled Lo her", and LhaL boLh defendanLs refused Lo pay Lhe noLes.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lvellna may be held llable for Lhe debLs of her husband agalnsL Lhe
spouses Laperal.

8ullng:
1he defendanL Lvellna ls noL personally llable. 8amon was noL her agenL, and he
dld noL conLracL for her. lor Lhe repaymenL of Lhe sums borrowed by hlm, 8amon kaLlgbak
was personally responslble wlLh hls own prlvaLe funds, and +/ 8#(/ Lhe asseLs of Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp. 1o reach boLh klnds of properLy lL ls unnecessary for plalnLlffs Lo lmplead Lhe
wlfe Lvellna kaLlgbak. "Where Lhe husband ls alone llable, no acLlon lles agalnsL Lhe wlfe, and
she ls noL a necessary parLy defendanL."
1he husband cannoL by hls conLracL blnd Lhe paraphernal properLy unless lLs
admlnlsLraLlon has been Lransferred Lo hlm, whlch ls noL Lhe case. nelLher can Lhe
paraphernal properLy be made Lo answer for debLs lncurred by Lhe husband.




















V|||anueva vs. IAC
192 SCkA 21

lacLs:
Spouses Craclano Aranas and nlcolasa 8unsa owned a parcel of land ln Caplz. AfLer
Lhey dled, Lhelr survlvlng chlldren, ModesLo and lederlco Aranas ad[udlcaLed Lhe land Lo
Lhemselves under a deed of exLra[udlclal parLlLlon.
ModesLo Aranas obLalned a 1orrens LlLle ln hls name from Lhe Caplz 8eglsLry of
roperLy. ModesLo was marrled Lo vlcLorla Comorro buL Lhey had no chlldren. AfLer Lhe
deaLh of ModesLo, hls Lwo survlvlng llleglLlmaLe chlldren named uoroLhea and 1eodoro
borrowed 18,000 from !esus 8ernas. As a securlLy Lhey morLgaged Lo 8ernas Lhelr faLher's
properLy. ln Lhe loan agreemenL execuLed beLween Lhe parLles, a relaLlve 8aymundo Aranas,
slgned Lhe agreemenL as a wlLness.
uoroLhea and 1eodoro falled Lo pay Lhelr loan. As a resulL, 8ernas caused Lhe
exLra[udlclal foreclosure of Lhe morLgage and acqulred Lhe land aL Lhe aucLlon sale as Lhe
hlghesL bldder. AbouL a monLh laLer, Consolaclon vlllanueva and 8aymundo Aranas flled a
complalnL agalnsL spouses 8ernas praylng LhaL Lhe properLy enLered ln Lhe loan agreemenL
be cancelled and Lhey be declared co-owners of Lhe land. 1hey ground Lhelr cause of acLlon
upon Lhelr alleged dlscovery on Lwo wllls execuLed by ModesLo Aranas and hls wlfe vlcLorla.
vlcLorla's wlll sLaLed LhaL her lnLeresLs, rlghLs and properLles, real and personal as her share
from Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp be bequeaLhed Lo Consolaclon and 8aymundo and also Lo
uoroLhea and 1eodoro ln equal shares. ModesLo's wlll, on Lhe oLher hand, bequeaLhed Lo hls
Lwo llleglLlmaLe chlldren all hls lnLeresL ln hls con[ugal parLnershlp wlLh vlcLorla as well as hls
own caplLal properLy broughL by hlm Lo hls marrlage.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe properLy morLgaged be a con[ugal properLy of Lhe spouses
ModesLo and vlcLorla.

8ullng:
Lven lf lL be assumed LhaL Lhe husband's acqulslLlon by successlon of Lhe loL ln
quesLlon Look place durlng hls marrlage, Lhe loL would noneLheless be hls excluslve
properLy" because lL was acqulred by hlm durlng Lhe marrlage by lucraLlve LlLle".
CerLaln lL ls LhaL Lhe land lLself, whlch ModesLo had lnherlLed from hls parenLs,
Craclano and nlcolasa, ls hls excluslve and prlvaLe properLy. 1he properLy should be regarded
as hls own excluslvely, as a maLLer of law.




8I vs. osadas
S6 h|| 21S

lacLs:
1he esLaLe of Adolphe Cscar SchueLze ls Lhe sole beneflclary named ln Lhe llfe-
lnsurance pollcy for $10,000, lssued by Lhe Sun Llfe Assurance Company of Canada. uurlng
Lhe followlng flve years Lhe lnsured pald Lhe premlums aL Lhe Manlla branch of Lhe company.
1he deceased Adolphe Cscar SchueLze marrled Lhe plalnLlff-appellanL 8osarlo Celano.
1he plalnLlff-appellanL, Lhe 8ank of Lhe hlllpplne lslands, was appolnLed
admlnlsLraLor of Lhe laLe Adolphe Cscar SchueLze's LesLamenLary esLaLe by an order, enLered
by Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla. 1he Sun Llfe Assurance Company of Canada, whose
maln offlce ls ln MonLreal, Canada, pald 8osarlo Celano vda. de SchueLze upon her arrlval aL
Manlla, Lhe sum of 20,130, whlch was Lhe amounL of Lhe lnsurance pollcy on Lhe llfe of sald
deceased, payable Lo Lhe laLLer's esLaLe. Cn Lhe same daLe 8osarlo Celano vda. de SchueLze
dellvered Lhe money Lo sald 8ank of Lhe hlllpplne lslands, as admlnlsLraLor of Lhe deceased's
esLaLe, whlch enLered lL ln Lhe lnvenLory of Lhe LesLamenLary esLaLe, and Lhen reLurned Lhe
money Lo sald wldow. 1he appellee alleges LhaL lL ls a fundamenLal prlnclple LhaL a llfe-
lnsurance pollcy belongs excluslvely Lo Lhe beneflclary upon Lhe deaLh of Lhe person lnsured.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe llfe lnsurance pollcy belongs Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp.

8ullng:
SC holds, (1) LhaL Lhe proceeds of a llfe-lnsurance pollcy payable Lo Lhe lnsured's
esLaLe, on whlch Lhe premlums were pald by Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp, consLlLuLe communlLy
properLy, and belong one-half Lo Lhe husband and Lhe oLher half Lo Lhe wlfe, excluslvely, and
(2) LhaL lf Lhe premlums were pald parLly wlLh paraphernal and parLly con[ugal funds, Lhe
proceeds are llkewlse ln llke proporLlon paraphernal ln parL and con[ugal ln parL.
1haL Lhe proceeds of a llfe-lnsurance pollcy payable Lo Lhe lnsured's esLaLe as Lhe
beneflclary, lf dellvered Lo Lhe LesLamenLary admlnlsLraLor of Lhe former as parL of Lhe asseLs
of sald esLaLe under probaLe admlnlsLraLlon, are sub[ecL Lo Lhe lnherlLance Lax accordlng Lo
Lhe law on Lhe maLLer, lf Lhey belong Lo Lhe assured excluslvely, and lL ls lmmaLerlal LhaL Lhe
lnsured was domlclled ln Lhese lslands or ouLslde.















Wong vs. IAC
200 SCkA 792

lacLs:
rlvaLe respondenL 8omarlco Penson marrled kaLrlna lneda. 1hey had been mosL
of Lhe Llme llvlng separaLely. 1he former sLayed ln Angeles ClLy whlle Lhe laLLer llved ln
Manlla. uurlng Lhe marrlage, 8omarlco boughL parcel of land ln Angeles ClLy from hls faLher,
wlLh money borrowed from an offlcemaLe.
Meanwhlle ln Pongkong, kaLrlna enLered lnLo an agreemenL wlLh AnlLa Chan
whereby Lhe laLLer conslgned Lo kaLrlna pleces of [ewelry for sale. When kaLrlna falled Lo
reLurn Lhe pleces of [ewelry wlLhln Lhe 20-day perlod agreed upon, AnlLa Chan demanded
paymenL of Lhelr value. kaLrlna lssued ln favor of AnlLa Chan a check, however, was
dlshonored for lack of funds. Pence, kaLrlna was charged wlLh esLafa. 1rlal courL dlsmlssed
Lhe case on Lhe ground LhaL kaLrlna's llablllLy was noL crlmlnal buL clvll ln naLure.
AnlLa Chan and her husband 8lcky Wong flled agalnsL kaLrlna and her husband
8omarlco Penson, an acLlon for collecLlon of a sum of money. AfLer Lrlal, Lhe courL
promulgaLed declslons ln favor of Lhe Wong's. A wrlL of execuLlon was LhereafLer lssued,
levled upon were four loLs ln Angeles all ln Lhe name of 8omarlco Penson marrled Lo kaLrlna
Penson. 8omarlco flled an acLlon for Lhe annulmenL of Lhe declslon as well as Lhe wrlL of
execuLlon, levy on execuLlon and Lhe aucLlon. 8omarlco alleged LhaL he was "noL glven hls
day ln courL" because he was noL represenLed by counsel as ALLys. Alblno and ?umul
appeared solely for kaLrlna. 1haL he had noLhlng Lo do wlLh Lhe buslness LransacLlons of
kaLrlna as he dld noL auLhorlze her Lo enLer lnLo such LransacLlons, and LhaL Lhe properLles
levled on execuLlon and sold aL publlc aucLlon by Lhe sherlff were hls caplLal properLles.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe properLles levled on execuLlon are excluslve properLles of
8omarlco.

8ullng:
1he presumpLlon of Lhe con[ugal naLure of Lhe properLles subslsLs ln Lhe absence of
clear, saLlsfacLory and convlnclng evldence Lo overcome sald presumpLlon or Lo prove LhaL
Lhe properLles are excluslvely owned by 8omarlco. Whlle Lhere ls proof LhaL 8omarlco
acqulred Lhe properLles wlLh money he had borrowed from an offlcemaLe, lL ls unclear where
he obLalned Lhe money Lo repay Lhe loan. lf he pald lL ouL of hls salarles, Lhen Lhe money ls
parL of Lhe con[ugal asseLs and noL excluslvely hls. roof on Lhls maLLer ls of paramounL
lmporLance conslderlng LhaL ln Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhe naLure of a properLy acqulred by a
person durlng coverLure, Lhe conLrolllng facLor ls Lhe source of Lhe money uLlllzed ln Lhe
purchase.










Aya|a Investments vs. CA
G.k. No. 11830S Iebruary 12, 1998

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcle 121-122

lssue:
WheLher or noL debLs and obllgaLlons conLracLed by Lhe husband alone are
consldered for Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp.

8ullng:
1he respondenL dlrecLly recelved Lhe money or servlces Lo be used ln or for hls own
buslness or hls own professlon, LhaL conLracL falls wlLhln Lhe Lerm obllgaLlons for Lhe beneflL
of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp". Pere, no acLual beneflL may be proved. lL ls enough LhaL Lhe
beneflL Lo Lhe famlly ls apparenL aL Lhe Llme of Lhe slgnlng of Lhe conLracL. lrom Lhe very
naLure of Lhe conLracL of loan and servlces, Lhe famlly sLands Lo beneflL from Lhe loan faclllLy
or servlces Lo be rendered Lo Lhe buslness or professlon of Lhe husband. lL ls lmmaLerlal ln
Lhe, hls buslness or professlon falls or does noL succeed. Slmply sLaLed, where Lhe husband
conLracLs obllgaLlons on behalf of Lhe famlly buslness, Lhe law presumes and rlghLly so, LhaL
such obllgaLlon wlll redound Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp.





























Car|os vs. Abe|ardo
G.k. No. 146S04 Apr|| 4, 2002

lacLs:
Ponorlo Carlos averred ln hls complalnL LhaL ln CcLober 1989, respondenL and hls
wlfe Marla 1heresa Carlos-Abelardo approached hlm and requesLed hlm Lo advance Lhe
amounL of uS$23,000.00 for Lhe purchase of a house and loL. 1o enable and asslsL Lhe
spouses conducL Lhelr marrled llfe lndependenLly and on Lhelr own, peLlLloner lssued a check
ln Lhe name of a cerLaln ura valle[o, seller of Lhe properLy, who acknowledged recelpL
Lhereof. 1he amounL was ln full paymenL of Lhe properLy.
When peLlLloner lnqulred from Lhe spouses ln as Lo Lhe sLaLus of Lhe amounL he
loaned Lo Lhem, Lhe laLLer acknowledged Lhelr obllgaLlon buL pleaded LhaL Lhey were noL yeL
ln a poslLlon Lo make a deflnlLe seLLlemenL of Lhe same. 1hereafLer, respondenL expressed
vlolenL reslsLance Lo peLlLloner's lnqulrles on Lhe amounL Lo Lhe exLenL of maklng varlous
deaLh LhreaLs agalnsL peLlLloner.
eLlLloner made a formal demand for Lhe paymenL of Lhe amounL of uS$23,000.00
buL Lhe spouses falled Lo comply wlLh Lhelr obllgaLlon.

1hus, peLlLloner flled a complalnL for
collecLlon of a sum of money and damages agalnsL respondenL and hls wlfe before Lhe 81C of
valenzuela. As Lhey were separaLed ln facL for more Lhan a year prlor Lo Lhe flllng of Lhe
complalnL, respondenL and hls wlfe flled separaLe answers. Marla 1heresa Carlos-Abelardo
admlLLed securlng a loan LogeLher wlLh her husband, from peLlLloner.

She clalmed, however,
LhaL sald loan was payable on a sLaggered basls so she was surprlsed when peLlLloner
demanded lmmedlaLe paymenL of Lhe full amounL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe amounL of uS$23,000.00 was a loan obLalned by prlvaLe
respondenL and hls wlfe from peLlLloner.

8ullng:
Larly ln Llme, lL musL be noLed LhaL paymenL of personal debLs conLracLed by Lhe
husband or Lhe wlfe before or durlng Lhe marrlage shall noL be charged Lo Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp excepL lnsofar as Lhey redounded Lo Lhe beneflL of Lhe famlly. 1he defendanLs
never denled LhaL Lhe check of uS$23,000.00 was used Lo purchase Lhe sub[ecL house and
loL. 1hey do noL deny LhaL Lhe same served as Lhelr con[ugal home, Lhus beneflLlng Lhe
famlly. Pence, defendanL-husband and defendanL-wlfe are [olnLly and severally llable ln Lhe
paymenL of Lhe loan.
uefendanL-husband cannoL allege as a defense LhaL Lhe amounL of uS $23,000.00
was recelved as hls share ln Lhe lncome or proflLs of Lhe corporaLlon and noL as a loan.
uefendanL-husband does noL appear Lo be a sLockholder nor an employee nor an agenL of
Lhe corporaLlon, P. L. Carlos ConsLrucLlon, lnc. Slnce he ls noL a sLockholder, he has no rlghL
Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe lncome or proflLs Lhereof.








Ma|||||n vs. Cast|||o
G.k. No. 136803 Iune 16, 2000

lacLs:
eLlLloner LusLaqulo Mallllln, !r. flled a complalnL for "arLlLlon and/or aymenL of
Co-Cwnershlp Share, AccounLlng and uamages" agalnsL respondenL Ma. Llvlra CasLlllo. 1he
complalnL alleged LhaL peLlLloner and respondenL, boLh marrled and wlLh chlldren, buL
separaLed from Lhelr respecLlve spouses, cohablLed afLer a brlef courLshlp whlle Lhelr
respecLlve marrlages sLlll subslsLed. uurlng Lhelr unlon, Lhey seL up Lhe SuperfrelghL CusLoms
8rokerage CorporaLlon, wlLh peLlLloner as presldenL and chalrman of Lhe board of dlrecLors,
and respondenL as vlce-presldenL and Lreasurer. 1he buslness flourlshed and peLlLloner and
respondenL acqulred real and personal properLles whlch were reglsLered solely ln
respondenL's name. uue Lo lrreconcllable dlfferences, Lhe couple separaLed. eLlLloner
demanded from respondenL hls share ln Lhe sub[ecL properLles, buL respondenL refused
alleglng LhaL sald properLles had been reglsLered solely ln her name.
8espondenL admlLLed LhaL she engaged ln Lhe cusLoms brokerage buslness wlLh
peLlLloner buL alleged LhaL Lhe SuperfrelghL CusLoms 8rokerage CorporaLlon was organlzed
wlLh oLher lndlvlduals and duly reglsLered wlLh Lhe SLC. She denled LhaL she and peLlLloner
llved as husband and wlfe because Lhe facL was LhaL Lhey were sLlll legally marrled Lo Lhelr
respecLlve spouses. She clalmed Lo be Lhe excluslve owner of all real personal properLles
lnvolved ln peLlLloner's acLlon for parLlLlon on Lhe ground LhaL Lhey were acqulred enLlrely
ouL of her own money and reglsLered solely ln her name.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe parLles are consldered as co-owners of Lhe properLles.

8ullng:
A co-ownershlp exlsLs beLween a man and a woman who llve LogeLher as husband
and wlfe wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of marrlage, llkewlse provldes LhaL, lf Lhe parLles are
lncapaclLaLed Lo marry each oLher, properLles acqulred by Lhem Lhrough Lhelr [olnL
conLrlbuLlon of money, properLy or lndusLry shall be owned by Lhem ln common ln
proporLlon Lo Lhelr conLrlbuLlons whlch, ln Lhe absence of proof Lo Lhe conLrary, ls presumed
Lo be equal. 1here ls Lhus co-ownershlp evenLhough Lhe couple are noL capaclLaLed Lo marry
each oLher.















Va|dez vs. k1C
260 SCkA 211

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcle 147, Lmphasls Lo Lhe 81C's [udgmenL on llquldaLlon of properLles ln
connecLlon wlLh Lhe provlslon of properLy reglme w/o unlons of marrlage.

lssue:
WheLher or noL ArLlcle 147 correcLly applled on Lhe sLaLus of Lhe parLles ln Lhe
llquldaLlon of Lhelr properLles.

8ullng:
1he Supreme CourL sLaLed LhaL, ln avold marrlage, Lhe properLy reglmes are Lhose
provlded for ln ArLlcle 147 or 148as, Lhe case may be. 1he llquldaLlon of Lhe co-ownershlp
shall be ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslons on co-ownershlp under Lhe Clvll Code whlch are
noL ln confllcL wlLh ArLlcle 147 or 148.
1he con[ugal home shall equally be co-owned by Lhe couple and shall be dlvlded
equally durlng llquldaLlon ln accordance wlLh Lhe rules on co-ownershlp. Powever, Lhe frulLs
of couple's separaLe properLy are noL lncluded ln Lhe co-ownershlp.






























Iranc|sco vs. Master Iron Works Construct|on Corp.
G.k. No. 1S1967 Iebruary 16, 200S

lacLs:
!oseflna CasLlllo was only 23 years old when she and Lduardo C. lranclsco were
marrled. Lduardo was Lhen employed as Lhe vlce presldenL ln a prlvaLe corporaLlon. 1he lmus
8ural 8ank, lnc. execuLed a deed of absoluLe sale ln favor of !oseflna CasLlllo lranclsco,
marrled Lo Lduardo lranclsco, coverlng Lwo parcels of resldenLlal land wlLh a house. 1he
8eglsLer of ueeds made of record aL Lhe dorsal porLlon of Lhe sald LlLles. !oseflna morLgaged
Lhe sald properLy Lo Leonlla Cando for a loan.

lL appears LhaL Lduardo afflxed hls marlLal
conformlLy Lo Lhe deed.
Lduardo, who was Lhen Lhe Ceneral Manager and resldenL of 8each CuL 1radlng
lnLernaLlonal, boughL 7,300 bags of cemenL from MlWCC buL falled Lo pay for Lhe same.
MlWCC flled a complalnL agalnsL hlm ln Lhe 81C of MakaLl ClLy for Lhe reLurn of Lhe sald
commodlLles, or Lhe value Lhereof. 1he Lrlal courL rendered [udgmenL ln favor of MlWCC and
agalnsL Lduardo. !oseflna flled Lhe sald AffldavlL of 1hlrd arLy Clalm ln Lhe Lrlal courL and
served a copy Lhereof Lo Lhe sherlff. MlWCC Lhen submlLLed an lndemnlLy bond lssued by Lhe
rudenLlal CuaranLee and Assurance, lnc. 1he sale aL publlc aucLlon proceeded. MlWCC
made a bld for Lhe properLy.
!oseflna flled a ComplalnL agalnsL MlWCC and Sherlff Ale[o ln Lhe 81C of aranaque
for damages wlLh a prayer for a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon or Lemporary resLralnlng order.
She alleged Lhen LhaL she was Lhe sole owner of Lhe properLy levled on execuLlon by Sherlff
Ale[o. Pence, Lhe levy on execuLlon of Lhe properLy was null and vold.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe sub[ecL properLy ls Lhe con[ugal properLy of !oseflna CasLlllo
and Lduardo lranclsco.

8ullng:
1he peLlLloner falled Lo prove LhaL she acqulred Lhe properLy wlLh her personal
funds before her cohablLaLlon wlLh Lduardo and LhaL she ls Lhe sole owner of Lhe properLy.
1he evldence on record shows LhaL Lhe lmus 8ank execuLed a deed of absoluLe sale over Lhe
properLy Lo Lhe peLlLloner and LlLles over Lhe properLy were, LhereafLer, lssued Lo Lhe laLLer
as vendee afLer her marrlage Lo Lduardo.
lL ls Lo be noLed LhaL plalnLlff-appellee goL marrled aL Lhe age of 23. AL LhaL age, lL ls
doubLful lf she had enough funds of her own Lo purchase Lhe sub[ecL properLles as she
clalmed ln her AffldavlL of 1hlrd arLy Clalm. ConfronLed wlLh Lhls reallLy, she laLer clalmed
LhaL Lhe funds were provlded by her moLher and slsLer, clearly an afLerLhoughL ln a desperaLe
efforL Lo shleld Lhe sub[ecL properLles from appellanL MasLer lron as [udgmenL credlLor.










Agapay vs. a|ang
276 SCkA 341

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcle 148.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner ls co-owner of Lhe rlceland acqulred by cohablLaLlon
beLween her and Mlguel.

8ullng:
1he sale of Lhe rlceland was made ln favor of Mlguel and Lrllnda. 1he provlslon of
law appllcable here ls ArLlcle 148 of Lhe lamlly Code provldlng for cases of cohablLaLlon when
a man and woman who are noL capaclLaLed Lo marry each oLher llve excluslvely wlLh each
oLher as husband and wlfe wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of marrlage or under a vold marrlage. Whlle
Mlguel and Lrllnda conLracLed marrlage, sald unlon was paLenLly vold because earller
marrlage of Mlguel and Carllna was sLlll subslsLlng and unaffecLed by Lhe laLLer's de facLo
separaLlon.
Lrllnda Lrled Lo esLabllsh by her LesLlmony LhaL she ls engaged ln Lhe buslness of
buy-and-sell and had a sarl-sarl sLore buL falled Lo persuade Lhe SC LhaL she acLually
conLrlbuLed money Lo buy Lhe rlceland. Slnce peLlLloner falled Lo prove LhaL she conLrlbuLed
money Lo Lhe purchase prlce of Lhe rlceland, SC flnds no basls Lo [usLlfy her co-ownershlp
wlLh Mlguel over Lhe same.


























Iuan|za vs. Iose
89 SCkA 306

lacLs:
Lugenlo !ose was Lhe reglsLered owner and operaLor of Lhe passenger [eepney
lnvolved ln an accldenL of colllslon wlLh a frelghL Lraln of Lhe hlllpplne naLlonal 8allways LhaL
Look place on november 23, 1969 whlch resulLed ln Lhe deaLh Lo seven (7) and physlcal
ln[urles Lo flve (3) of lLs passengers. AL Lhe Llme of Lhe accldenL, Lugenlo !ose was legally
marrled Lo Socorro 8amos buL had been cohablLlng wlLh defendanL-appellanL, 8osalla
Arroyo, for slxLeen (16) years ln a relaLlonshlp akln Lo LhaL of husband and wlfe.
MoLlon for reconslderaLlon was flled by 8osalla Arroyo praylng LhaL Lhe declslon be
reconsldered lnsofar as lL condemns her Lo pay damages [olnLly and severally wlLh her co-
defendanL, buL was denled.

lssue:
WheLher or noL ArLlcle 144 of Lhe Clvll Code (now ArLlcle 148 of lC) ls appllcable ln
a case where one of Lhe parLles ln a common-law relaLlonshlp ls lncapaclLaLed Lo marry.

8ullng:
lL has been conslsLenLly ruled by Lhls CourL LhaL Lhe co-ownershlp conLemplaLed ln
ArLlcle 144 of Lhe Clvll Code requlres LhaL Lhe man and Lhe woman llvlng LogeLher musL noL ln
any way be lncapaclLaLed Lo conLracL marrlage. Slnce Lugenlo !ose ls legally marrled Lo
Socorro 8amos, Lhere ls an lmpedlmenL for hlm Lo conLracL marrlage wlLh 8osalla Arroyo.
under Lhe aforeclLed provlslon of Lhe Clvll Code, Arroyo cannoL be a co-owner of Lhe
[eepney. 1he [eepney belongs Lo Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp of !ose and hls legal wlfe. 1here ls
Lherefore no basls for Lhe llablllLy of Arroyo for damages arlslng from Lhe deaLh of, and
physlcal ln[urles suffered by, Lhe passengers of Lhe [eepney whlch flgured ln Lhe colllslon.






















1um|os vs. Iernandez
G.k. No. 1376S0 Apr|| 12, 2000

lacLs:
Spouses lernandez flled an acLlon of e[ecLmenL agalnsL peLlLloner Culllerma
1umlos, 1oLo 1umlos, and Clna 1umlos. ln Lhelr complalnL, Lhe sald spouses alleged LhaL Lhey
are Lhe absoluLe owners of an aparLmenL bulldlng LhaL Lhrough Lolerance Lhey had allowed
Lhe defendanLs-prlvaLe respondenLs Lo occupy Lhe aparLmenL bulldlng for Lhe lasL 7 years
wlLhouL Lhe paymenL of any renL, LhaL lL was agreed upon LhaL afLer a few monLhs, Culllerma
1umlos wlll pay 1,600.00 a monLh whlle Lhe oLher defendanLs promlsed Lo pay 1,000.00 a
monLh, boLh as renLal, whlch agreemenL was noL complled wlLh by Lhe sald defendanLs. 1hey
have demanded several Llmes LhaL Lhe defendanLs vacaLe Lhe premlses, as Lhey are ln need
of Lhe properLy for Lhe consLrucLlon of a new bulldlng.
Culllerma 1umlos was Lhe only one who flled an answer Lo Lhe complalnL. She
averred Lhereln LhaL Lhe lernandez spouses had no cause of acLlon agalnsL her, slnce she ls a
co-owner of Lhe sub[ecL premlses as evldenced by a ConLracL Lo Sell whereln lL was sLaLed
LhaL she ls a co-vendee of Lhe properLy ln quesLlon LogeLher wlLh Marlo lernandez. She Lhen
asked for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL.
upon appeal Lo Lhe 81C, peLlLloner and Lhe Lwo oLher defendanLs alleged ln Lhelr
memorandum on appeal LhaL Marlo and peLlLloner had an amorous relaLlonshlp, and LhaL
Lhey acqulred Lhe properLy ln quesLlon as Lhelr "love nesL." lL was furLher alleged LhaL Lhey
llved LogeLher ln Lhe sald aparLmenL bulldlng wlLh Lhelr 2 chlldren for around 10 years, and
LhaL Culllerma admlnlsLered Lhe properLy by collecLlng renLals from Lhe lessees of Lhe oLher
aparLmenLs, unLll she dlscovered LhaL Marlo decelved her as Lo Lhe annulmenL of hls
marrlage.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner ls Lhe co-owner of Lhe properLy 0- %0/0(.

8ullng:
eLlLloner falls Lo presenL any evldence LhaL she had made an acLual conLrlbuLlon
Lo purchase Lhe sub[ecL properLy. lndeed, she anchors her clalm of co-ownershlp merely on
her cohablLaLlon wlLh respondenL Marlo. Llkewlse, her clalm of havlng admlnlsLered Lhe
properLy durlng Lhe cohablLaLlon ls unsubsLanLlaLed. ln any evenL, Lhls facL by lLself does noL
[usLlfy her clalm, for noLhlng ln ArLlcle 148 of Lhe lamlly Code provldes LhaL Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe properLy amounLs Lo a conLrlbuLlon ln lLs acqulslLlon. Clearly, Lhere ls
no basls for peLlLloner's clalm of co-ownershlp. 1he properLy ln quesLlon belongs Lo Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp of respondenLs.











Docena vs. Lapesura
G.k. No. 1401S3 March 28, 2001

lacLs:
Caslano Pombrla flled a ComplalnL for Lhe recovery of a parcel of land agalnsL hls
lessees, peLlLloner-spouses AnLonlo and Alfreda uocena. 1he peLlLloners clalmed ownershlp
of Lhe land based on occupaLlon slnce Llme lmmemorlal. A cerLaln Culllermo Abuda
lnLervened ln Lhe case. 1he Lrlal courL ruled ln favor of Lhe peLlLloners and Lhe lnLervenor
Abuda. 1he CA reversed Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe Lrlal courL and ordered Lhe peLlLloners Lo vacaLe
Lhe land Lhey have leased from Caslano) 1he ComplalnL ln lnLervenLlon of Abuda was
dlsmlssed.
A eLlLlon for CerLlorarl and rohlblLlon was flled by Lhe peLlLloners wlLh Lhe CourL
of Appeals, alleglng grave abuse of dlscreLlon on Lhe parL of Lhe Lrlal courL [udge ln lssulng
Lhe Crders and of Lhe sherlff ln lssulng Lhe WrlL of uemollLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL [olnL managemenL or admlnlsLraLlon does requlre LhaL Lhe husband
and Lhe wlfe always acL LogeLher.

8ullng:
Lach spouse may valldly exerclse full power of managemenL alone, sub[ecL Lo Lhe
lnLervenLlon of Lhe courL ln proper cases. lL ls belleved LhaL even under Lhe provlslons of Lhe
lamlly Code, Lhe husband alone could have flled Lhe peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon Lo
conLesL Lhe wrlLs of demollLlon lssued agalnsL Lhe con[ugal properLy wlLh Lhe CourL of
Appeals wlLhouL belng [olned by hls wlfe. 1he slgnlng of Lhe aLLached cerLlflcaLe of non-forum
shopplng only by Lhe husband ls noL a faLal defecL.
1he slgnlng peLlLloner here made Lhe cerLlflcaLlon ln hls behalf and LhaL of hls wlfe.
1he husband may reasonably be presumed Lo have personal knowledge of Lhe flllng or non-
flllng by hls wlfe of any acLlon or clalm slmllar Lo Lhe peLlLlon for cerLlorarl and prohlblLlon
glven Lhe noLlces and legal processes lnvolved ln a legal proceedlng lnvolvlng real properLy.



















Mart|nez vs. Mart|nez
G.k. No. 162084 Iune 28, 200S

lacLs:
1he spouses MarLlnez were Lhe owners of a parcel of land as well as Lhe house
consLrucLed Lhereon. uanlel, Sr. execuLed a LasL Wlll and 1esLamenL dlrecLlng Lhe subdlvlslon
of Lhe properLy lnLo Lhree loLs. Pe Lhen bequeaLhed Lhe Lhree loLs Lo each of hls sons,
namely, 8odolfo, Manolo and uanlel, !r. Manolo was deslgnaLed as Lhe admlnlsLraLor of Lhe
esLaLe.
8odolfo found a deed of sale purporLedly slgned by hls faLher, where Lhe laLLer
appears Lo have sold Lo Manolo and hls wlfe Luclla. 8odolfo flled a complalnL for annulmenL
of deed of sale and cancellaLlon of 1C1 agalnsL hls broLher Manolo and hls slsLer-ln-law Luclla
before Lhe 81C. 81C dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL for annulmenL of deed of sale on Lhe ground
LhaL Lhe Lrlal courL had no [urlsdlcLlon over Lhe acLlon slnce Lhere was no allegaLlon ln Lhe
complalnL LhaL Lhe lasL wlll of uanlel MarLlnez, Sr. had been admlLLed Lo probaLe. 8odolfo
appealed Lhe order Lo Lhe CA.
ln Lhe meanLlme, Lhe spouses Manolo and Luclla MarLlnez wroLe 8odolfo,
demandlng LhaL he vacaLe Lhe properLy. 8odolfo lgnored Lhe leLLer and refused Lo do so.
1hls prompLed Lhe sald spouses Lo flle a complalnL for unlawful deLalner agalnsL 8odolfo ln
Lhe M1C of Manlla. 1hey alleged LhaL Lhey were Lhe owners of Lhe properLy. 1he spouses
MarLlnez alleged ln Lhelr poslLlon paper LhaL earnesL efforLs Loward a compromlse had been
made and/or exerLed by Lhem, buL LhaL Lhe same proved fuLlle. no amlcable seLLlemenL was,
llkewlse, reached by Lhe parLles durlng Lhe prellmlnary conference because of lrreconcllable
dlfferences.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe cerLlflcaLlon Lo flle acLlon and Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL
LhaL Lhe case passed Lhrough Lhe barangay are sufflclenL compllance Lo prove LhaL earnesL
efforLs were made.

8ullng:
1he peLlLlon was granLed. As polnLed ouL by Lhe Code Commlsslon, lL ls dlfflculL Lo
lmaglne a sadder and more Lraglc specLacle Lhan llLlgaLlon beLween members of Lhe same
famlly. lL ls necessary LhaL every efforL should be made Loward a compromlse before
llLlgaLlon ls allowed Lo breed haLe and passlon ln Lhe famlly and lL ls known LhaL a lawsulL
beLween close relaLlves generaLes deeper blLLerness Lhan beLween sLrangers.
1hus, a parLy's fallure Lo comply wlLh ArLlcle 131 of Lhe lamlly Code before flllng a
complalnL agalnsL a famlly member would render such complalnL premaLure.











nont|veros vs. k1C
G.k. No. 12S46S Iune 29, 1999

lacLs:
1he spouses AugusLo and Marla PonLlveros, flled a complalnL for damages agalnsL
prlvaLe respondenLs Cregorlo PonLlveros and 1eodora Ayson for damages due Lo uncollecLed
renLals on a land locaLed aL !amlndan, Caplz.
eLlLloners moved for a [udgmenL on Lhe pleadlngs on Lhe ground LhaL prlvaLe
respondenLs' answer dld noL Lender an lssue or LhaL lL oLherwlse admlLLed Lhe maLerlal
allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL. rlvaLe respondenLs opposed Lhe moLlon alleglng LhaL Lhey had
denled peLlLloners' clalms and Lhus Lendered cerLaln lssues of facL whlch could only be
resolved afLer Lrlal.
1he Lrlal courL denled peLlLloners' moLlon. AfLer an assessmenL of Lhe dlverglng
vlews and argumenLs presenLed by boLh parLles, pleadlngs ls lnapproprlaLe noL only for Lhe
facL LhaL Lhe defendanLs ln Lhelr answer speclflcally denled Lhe clalm of damages agalnsL
Lhem, buL also because Lhe parLy clalmlng damages musL saLlsfacLorlly prove Lhe amounL
Lhereof, however an excepLlon Lo lL, LhaL ls, LhaL when Lhe allegaLlons refer Lo Lhe amounL of
damages, Lhe allegaLlons musL sLlll be proved. 1he courL dlsmlssed Lhe case and peLlLloners
moved for a reconslderaLlon of Lhe order of dlsmlssal, buL Lhelr moLlon was denled. Pence,
Lhls peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL lL does noL allege under oaLh LhaL
earnesL efforLs Loward compromlse were made prlor Lo flllng Lhereof.

8ullng:
eLlLlon was granLed. 1he lncluslon of prlvaLe respondenL Ayson as defendanL and
peLlLloner Marla PonLlveros as plalnLlff Lakes Lhe case ouL of Lhe amblL of ArL. 131 of Lhe
lamlly Code. under Lhls provlslon, Lhe phrase "members of Lhe same famlly" refers Lo Lhe
husband and wlfe, parenLs and chlldren, ascendanLs and descendanLs, and broLhers and
slsLers, wheLher full or half-blood. 8ellglous relaLlonshlp and relaLlonshlp by afflnlLy are noL
glven any legal effecL ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon.
ConsequenLly, prlvaLe respondenL Ayson, who ls descrlbed ln Lhe complalnL as Lhe
spouse of respondenL PonLlveros, and peLlLloner Marla PonLlveros, who ls admlLLedly Lhe
spouse of peLlLloner AugusLo PonLlveros, are consldered sLrangers Lo Lhe PonLlveros famlly.














Mana|o vs. CA
G.k. No. 129242 Ianuary 16, 2001

lacLs:
1roadlo Manalo dled lnLesLaLe on lebruary 14, 1992. Pe was survlved by hls wlfe,
llar S. Manalo, and hls eleven chlldren, who are all of legal age. AL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh,
1roadlo Manalo lefL several real properLles locaLed ln Manlla and ln Lhe provlnce of 1arlac
lncludlng a buslness under Lhe name and sLyle Manalo's Machlne Shop.
1he elghL of Lhe survlvlng chlldren of Lhe laLe 1roadlo Manalo flled a peLlLlon

wlLh
Lhe respondenL 81C of Manlla

of Lhe [udlclal seLLlemenL of Lhe esLaLe of Lhelr laLe faLher and
for Lhe appolnLmenL of Lhelr broLher, 8omeo Manalo, as admlnlsLraLor Lhereof.
1he Lrlal courL lssued an order and seL Lhe recepLlon of evldence of Lhe peLlLloners
Lhereln. Powever, Lhe Lrlal courL upon moLlon of seL Lhls order of general defaulL aslde
hereln peLlLloners (opposlLors Lhereln) who were granLed Lhen 10 days wlLhln whlch Lo flle
Lhelr opposlLlon Lo Lhe peLlLlon. Several pleadlngs were subsequenLly flled by hereln
peLlLloners, Lhrough counsel, culmlnaLlng ln Lhe fllllng of an Cmnlbus MoLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe moLlon for Lhe ouLrlghL dlsmlssal of Lhe peLlLlon for [udlclal
seLLlemenL of esLaLe aver LhaL earnesL efforLs Loward a compromlse lnvolvlng members of
Lhe same famlly have been made.

8ullng:
1he peLlLlon was denled for lack of merlL. peLlLloners may noL valldly Lake refuge
under Lhe provlslons of 8ule 1, SecLlon 2, of Lhe 8ules of CourL Lo [usLlfy Lhe lnvocaLlon of
ArLlcle 222 of Lhe Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe peLlLlon for seLLlemenL
of Lhe esLaLe of Lhe deceased 1roadlo Manalo lnasmuch as Lhe laLLer provlslon ls clear
enough.
1hls ls clear from Lhe Lerm 'sulL' LhaL lL refers Lo an acLlon by one person or persons
agalnsL anoLher or oLher ln a courL of [usLlce ln whlch Lhe plalnLlff pursues Lhe remedy whlch
Lhe law affords hlm for Lhe redress of an ln[ury or Lhe enforcemenL of a rlghL, wheLher aL law
or ln equlLy.

















A|bano vs. Gapusan
A.M. No. 1022-MI May 7, 1976

lacLs:
8edenLor Albano ln a verlfled complalnL charged Munlclpal !udge aLroclnlo
Capusan of llocos norLe wlLh lncompeLence and lgnorance of Lhe law for havlng prepared
and noLarlzed a documenL provldlng for Llle personal separaLlon of husband and wlfe and Lhe
exLra[udlclal llquldaLlon of Lhelr con[ugal parLnershlp.
ln 1941 or flve years before hls appolnLmenL Lo Lhe bench, respondenL Capusan
noLarlzed a documenL for Lhe personal separaLlon of Lhe spouses valenLlna Andres and
Culllermo MallgLa of vlnLar, llocos norLe and for Lhe exLra[udlclal llquldaLlon of Lhelr con[ugal
parLnershlp. lL was sLlpulaLed ln LhaL documenL LhaL lf elLher spouse should commlL adulLery
or concublnage, as Lhe case may be, Lhen Lhe oLher should refraln from flllng an acLlon
agalnsL Lhe oLher.
!udge Capusan denled LhaL he drafLed Lhe agreemenL. Pe explalned LhaL Lhe
spouses had been separaLed for a long Llme when Lhey slgned Lhe separaLlon agreemenL and
LhaL Lhe wlfe had begoLLen chlldren wlLh her paramour. Pe sald LhaL Lhere was a sLlpulaLlon
ln Lhe agreemenL LhaL Lhe spouses would llve LogeLher ln case of reconclllaLlon. Pls bellef was
LhaL Lhe separaLlon agreemenL foresLalled Lhe occurrence of vlolenL lncldenLs beLween Lhe
spouses. Albano ln flllng Lhe malpracLlce charge ls ln effecL asklng Lhls CourL Lo Lake belaLed
dlsclpllnary acLlon agalnsL !udge Capusan as a member of Lhe bar or as a noLary.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL [udge commlLLed malpracLlce as a noLary.


8ullng:
1o preserve Lhe lnsLlLuLlons of marrlage and Lhe famlly, Lhe law conslders as vold
"any conLracL for personal separaLlon beLween husband and wlfe" and "every exLra[udlclal
agreemenL, durlng Lhe marrlage, for Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe con[ugal parLnershlp".
A noLary should noL faclllLaLe Lhe dlslnLegraLlon of a marrlage and Lhe famlly by
encouraglng Lhe separaLlon of Lhe spouses and exLra[udlcally dlssolvlng Lhe con[ugal
parLnershlp. noLarles were severely censured by Lhls CourL for noLarlzlng documenLs whlch
subverL Lhe lnsLlLuLlons of marrlage and Lhe famlly















Modequ|||o vs. 8reva
18S SCkA 766

lacLs:
Cn !anuary 29, 1988, a [udgmenL was rendered by Lhe CourL of Appeals enLlLled
CD,+-.0(.# @+%0-+(E "/ +%) '() F#(" G#3"?20%%#E "/ +%)H
1he sald [udgmenL havlng become flnal and execuLory, a wrlL of execuLlon was
lssued by Lhe 81C of uavao ClLy Lo saLlsfy Lhe sald [udgmenL on Lhe goods and chaLLels of Lhe
defendanLs !ose Modequlllo and 8enlLo Malubay aL uavao del Sur. 1he sherlff levled on a
parcel of resldenLlal land locaLed aL uavao del Sur reglsLered ln Lhe name of defendanL and a
parcel of agrlculLural land locaLed aL Malalag, uavao del Sur.
A moLlon Lo quash and/or Lo seL aslde levy of execuLlon was flled by defendanL !ose
Modequlllo alleglng Lhereln LhaL Lhe resldenLlal land locaLed aL oblaclon Malalag ls where
Lhe famlly home ls bullL slnce 1969 prlor Lo Lhe commencemenL of Lhls case and as such ls
exempL from execuLlon, forced sale or aLLachmenL under ArLlcles 132 and 133 of Lhe lamlly
Code excepL for llablllLles menLloned ln ArLlcle 133 Lhereof, and LhaL Lhe [udgmenL debL
soughL Lo be enforced agalnsL Lhe famlly home of defendanL ls noL one of Lhose enumeraLed
under ArLlcle 133 of Lhe lamlly Code. An opposlLlon LhereLo was flled by Lhe plalnLlffs.

lssue:
WheLher or noL a flnal [udgmenL ln an acLlon for damages may be saLlsfled by way
of execuLlon of a famlly home consLlLuLed under Lhe lamlly Code.

8ullng:
under Lhe lamlly Code, a famlly home ls deemed consLlLuLed on a house and loL
from Lhe Llme lL ls occupled as a famlly resldence. 1here ls no need Lo consLlLuLe Lhe same
[udlclally or exLra[udlclally as requlred ln Lhe Clvll Code. lf Lhe famlly acLually resldes ln Lhe
premlses, lL ls, Lherefore, a famlly home as conLemplaLed by law. 1hus, Lhe credlLors should
Lake Lhe necessary precauLlons Lo proLecL Lhelr lnLeresL before exLendlng credlL Lo Lhe
spouses or head of Lhe famlly who owns Lhe home.
ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe resldenLlal house and loL of peLlLloner was noL consLlLuLed
as a famlly home wheLher [udlclally or exLra[udlclally under Lhe Clvll Code. lL became a famlly
home by operaLlon of law only under ArLlcle 133 of Lhe lamlly Code.
















Manacop vs. CA
277 SCkA 941

lacLs:
eLlLloner lloranLe l. Manacop and hls wlfe Lulacell purchased resldenLlal loL wlLh
a bungalow.

rlvaLe 8espondenL L & L MerchanLlle, lnc. flled a complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner
and l.l. Manacop ConsLrucLlon Co., lnc. before Lhe 81C of aslg, MeLro Manlla Lo collecL
lndebLedness. lnsLead of flllng an answer, peLlLloner and hls company enLered lnLo a
compromlse agreemenL wlLh prlvaLe respondenL.

1he Lrlal courL rendered [udgmenL approvlng Lhe aforemenLloned compromlse
agreemenL. lL en[olned Lhe parLles Lo comply wlLh Lhe agreemenL ln good falLh. rlvaLe
respondenL flled a moLlon for execuLlon whlch Lhe lower courL granLed. Powever, execuLlon
of Lhe [udgmenL was delayed. LvenLually, Lhe sherlff levled on several vehlcles and oLher
personal properLles of peLlLloner. 1hese chaLLels were sold aL publlc aucLlon for whlch
cerLlflcaLes of sale were correspondlngly lssued by Lhe sherlff.
eLlLloner and hls company flled a moLlon Lo quash Lhe allas wrlLs of execuLlon and
Lo sLop Lhe sherlff from conLlnulng Lo enforce Lhem on Lhe ground LhaL Lhe [udgmenL was noL
yeL execuLory. rlvaLe respondenL opposed Lhe moLlon. 1he lower courL denled Lhe moLlon
Lo quash Lhe wrlL of execuLlon and Lhe prayers ln Lhe subsequenL pleadlngs flled by peLlLloner
and hls company. llndlng LhaL peLlLloner and hls company had noL pald Lhelr lndebLedness
even Lhough Lhey collecLed recelvables, Lhe lower courL held LhaL Lhe case had become flnal
and execuLory. lL also ruled LhaL peLlLloner's resldence was noL exempL from execuLlon as lL
was noL duly consLlLuLed as a famlly home, pursuanL Lo Lhe Clvll Code.

lssue:
WheLher or noL a wrlL of execuLlon of a flnal and execuLory [udgmenL lssued before
Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe lamlly Code be execuLed on a house and loL consLlLuLed as a famlly
home under Lhe provlslon of lamlly Code.

8ullng:
1he peLlLlon ls denled for uLLer lack of merlL. lL does noL mean LhaL ArLlcles 132 and
133 lC have a reLroacLlve effecL such LhaL all exlsLlng famlly resldences are deemed Lo have
been consLlLuLed as famlly homes aL Lhe Llme of Lhelr occupaLlon prlor Lo Lhe effecLlvlLy of
Lhe lC and are exempL from execuLlon for Lhe paymenL of obllgaLlons lncurred before Lhe
effecLlvlLy of Lhe lC. ArL. 162 slmply means LhaL all exlsLlng famlly resldences aL Lhe Llme of
Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe lC, are consldered famlly homes and are prospecLlvely enLlLled Lo Lhe
beneflLs accorded Lo a famlly home under Lhe lC.












Anda| vs. Macara|g
89 h|| 16S

lacLs:
Marlano Andal, asslsLed by hls moLher Marla uuenas, as guardlan +3 %0/"8E broughL
an acLlon ln Lhe Cll of Camarlnes Sur for Lhe recovery of Lhe ownershlp and possesslon of a
parcel of land slLuaLed ln Camarlnes Sur. 1he complalnL alleges LhaL Marlano Andal ls Lhe
survlvlng son of Lmlllano Andal and Marla uuenas and LhaL Lmlllano was Lhe owner of Lhe
parcel of land ln quesLlon havlng acqulred lL from hls moLher Lduvlgls Macaralg by vlrLue of a
donaLlon $,#$/", -2$/0+( execuLed by Lhe laLLer ln favor of Lhe former.
1he lower courL rendered [udgmenL ln favor of Lhe plalnLlffs (a) declarlng Marlano
Andal Lhe leglLlmaLe son of Lmlllano Andal and such enLlLled Lo lnherlL Lhe land ln quesLlon,
(b) declarlng Marlano Andal owner of sald land, and (c) orderlng Lhe defendanL Lo pay Lhe
cosLs of sulL. uefendanL Look Lhe case Lo Lhls CourL upon Lhe plea LhaL only quesLlon of law
are lnvolved.
Lmlllano Andal became slck of Luberculosls. SomeLlme LhereafLer, hls broLher,
lellx, wenL Lo llve ln hls house Lo help hlm work hls house Lo help hlm work hls farm. Pls
slckness became worse, he became so weak LhaL he could hardly move and geL up from hls
bed. Marla uuenas, hls wlfe, eloped wlLh lellx, and boLh wenL Lo llve ln Lhe house of Marla's
faLher. lellx and Marla had sexual lnLercourse and LreaLed each oLher as husband and wlfe.
Lmlllano dled wlLhouL Lhe presence of hls wlfe, who dld noL even aLLend hls funeral. Marla
uuenas gave blrLh Lo a boy, who was glven Lhe name of Marlano Andal.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe chlld ls consldered as Lhe leglLlmaLe son of Lmlllano.

8ullng:
Marlano ls Lhe leglLlmaLe son of Lmlllano. lL ls already seen LhaL Lmlllano and hls
wlfe were llvlng LogeLher, or aL leasL had access one Lo Lhe oLher, and Lmlllano was noL
lmpoLenL, and Lhe chlld was born wlLhln 300 days followlng Lhe dlssoluLlon of Lhe marrlage.
under Lhese facLs no oLher presumpLlon can be drawn Lhan LhaL Lhe lssue ls leglLlmaLe. lL ls
also seen LhaL Lhls presumpLlon can only be rebuLLed by clear proof LhaL lL was physlcally or
naLurally lmposslble for Lhem Lo lndulge ln carnal lnLercourse. And here Lhere ls no such
proof.















8en|tez-8adua vs. CA
G.k. No. 10S62S Ianuary 24, 1994

lacLs:
vlcenLe 8enlLez and lsabel Chlponglan owned varlous properLles, upon Lhelr deaLh
Lhe flghL for admlnlsLraLlon of vlcenLe's esLaLe ensued. vlcenLe's slsLer and nephew prayed
for Lhe lssuance of leLLers of admlnlsLraLlon of vlcenLe's esLaLe. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Marlsa
8enlLez-8adua opposed Lhe peLlLlon. She alleged LhaL she ls Lhe sole helr of Lhe deceased
spouses and ls capable of admlnlsLerlng Lhe esLaLe.
ln 81C, boLh parLles submlL Lhelr pleces of evldence. eLlLloner Marlssa, prove LhaL
she ls Lhe only leglLlmaLe chlld of Lhe spouses by submlLLlng documenLary evldence and LhaL
Lhe spouses conLlnuously LreaLed her as leglLlmaLe chlld. Cn Lhe oLher hand, respondenLs
proved by LesLlmonlal evldence LhaL spouses falled Lo begeL a chlld durlng Lhelr marrlage
because Lhe spouse lsabel was LreaLed by an obsLeLrlclan-gynecologlsL whlch prevenLed her
Lo glve blrLh. 1he older slsLer of vlcenLe also declared LhaL peLlLloner was noL Lhe blologlcal
chlld of Lhe spouses, who were unable Lo procreaLe, as she was Lhere aL Lhe Llme Lhe spouses
were havlng Lhls problem.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner was Lhe blologlcal chlld of Lhe spouses and has Lhe
rlghL Lo be Lhe sole helr.

8ullng:
eLlLloner was noL Lhe blologlcal chlld based on facLs. Llve of 8lrLh CerLlflcaLe was
repudlaLed by noLarlzed of ueed of LxLra-!udlclal SeLLlemenL of LsLaLe.
1he clalm for lnherlLance of a chlld who ls noL Lhe blologlcal or adopLed chlld of
deceased was denled, on Lhe ground LhaL ArLlcles 164, 166, 170, and 171 of Lhe lamlly Code
do noL conLemplaLe a slLuaLlon where a chlld ls alleged noL Lo be Lhe chlld by naLure or
blologlcal chlld of a cerLaln couple. 8aLher, Lhese arLlcles govern a slLuaLlon where Lhe
husband or hls helrs denles as hls own a chlld of hls wlfe.



















Concepc|on vs. CA
G.k. No. 1234S0 August 31, 200S

lacLs:
Ma. 1heresa AlmonLe marrled Cerardo Concepclon, whlch Lhey begoL a chlld
named !ose Cerardo. Cerardo Concepclon found ouL LhaL hls wlfe was sLlll marrled Lo Marlo
Coplao. Pence, he flled for annulmenL on Lhe ground of blgamy. 1heresa averred LhaL he
marrled Marlo buL LhaL was only a sham and she never llved wlLh hlm aL all. 81C ruled LhaL
1heresa's marrlage wlLh Marlo Coplao ls sLlll valld and subslsLlng Lhus Lhe marrlage wlLh
Cerardo ls blgamous and Lhe chlld born was condemned llleglLlmaLe. CusLody was Lhen glven
Lo 1heresa.
1heresa felL beLrayed and humlllaLed when Cerardo had Lhelr marrlage annulled.
She argued LhaL a puLaLlve faLher cannoL have vlslLaLlon rlghLs over Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld and
Lhe chlld's surname be changed Lo Lhe moLher's malden name. Cerardo opposed Lhe moLlon
and lnslsLed on Lhe vlslLaLlon rlghLs and reLenLlon of Lhe faLher's surname Lo Lhe chlld.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe chlld born ouL of a blgamous marrlage ls consldered leglLlmaLe.

8ullng:
!ose Cerardo ls deemed born leglLlmaLe alLhough Lhe moLher may have declared
agalnsL lLs leglLlmacy or may have been senLenced as an adulLeress. 1he facL LhaL Lhe chlld
was concelved and born aL Lhe Llme Lhe spouses had llved LogeLher.
1he law and only Lhe law deLermlne, who are Lhe leglLlmaLe or llleglLlmaLe chlldren,
for one's leglLlmacy or llleglLlmacy cannoL ever be compromlsed. noL even Lhe blrLh
cerLlflcaLe of Lhe mlnor can change hls sLaLus for Lhe lnformaLlon conLalned Lhereln ls merely
supplled by Lhe moLher and/or Lhe supposed faLher. lL should be whaL Lhe law says and noL
whaL a parenL says lL ls.





















L|yao vs. L|yao
G.k. No. 138961 March 7, 2002

lacLs:
Corazon Carcla ls legally marrled Lo buL llvlng separaLely from 8amon M. ?ulo for
more Lhan 10 years aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lnsLlLuLlon of Lhe sald clvll case. Corazon cohablLed
wlLh Lhe laLe Wllllam Llyao from 1963 up Lo Lhe Llme of Wllllam's unLlmely demlse. 1hey llved
LogeLher ln Lhe company of Corazon's Lwo chlldren from her subslsLlng marrlage.
Corazon gave blrLh Lo Wllllam Llyao, !r. uurlng her Lhree day sLay aL Lhe hosplLal,
Wllllam Llyao vlslLed and sLayed wlLh her and Lhe new born baby, Wllllam, !r. (8llly). All Lhe
medlcal and hosplLal expenses, food and cloLhlng were pald under Lhe accounL of Wllllam
Llyao. Wllllam Llyao even asked hls confldenLlal secreLary Lo secure a copy of 8llly's blrLh
cerLlflcaLe. Pe llkewlse lnsLrucLed Corazon Lo open a bank accounL for 8llly wlLh Lhe
ConsolldaLed 8ank and 1rusL Company and gave weekly amounLs Lo be deposlLed Lhereln.
Wllllam Llyao would brlng 8llly Lo Lhe offlce, lnLroduce hlm as hls good looklng son and had
Lhelr plcLures Laken LogeLher. 8espondenLs, on Lhe oLher hand, palnLed a dlfferenL plcLure of
Lhe sLory.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner may lmpugn hls own leglLlmacy Lo be able Lo clalm from
Lhe esLaLe of hls supposed faLher Wllllam Llyao.

8ullng:
SC denled Lhe peLlLlon. A chlld born and concelved durlng a valld marrlage ls
presumed Lo be leglLlmaLe. 1he presumpLlon of leglLlmacy of chlldren does noL only flow ouL
from a declaraLlon conLalned ln Lhe sLaLuLe buL ls based on Lhe broad prlnclples of naLural
[usLlce and Lhe supposed vlrLue of Lhe moLher. 1he presumpLlon ls grounded ln a pollcy Lo
proLecL lnnocenL offsprlng from Lhe odlum of llleglLlmacy.
SC flnds no reason Lo dlscuss Lhe sufflclency of Lhe evldence presenLed by boLh
parLles on Lhe peLlLloner's clalm of alleged flllaLlon wlLh Lhe laLe Wllllam Llyao. ln any evenL,
Lhere ls no clear, compeLenL and poslLlve evldence presenLed by Lhe peLlLloner LhaL hls
alleged faLher had admlLLed or recognlzed hls paLernlLy.

















Lceta vs. Lceta
G.k. No. 1S7037 May 20, 2004

lacLs:
eLlLloner 8osallna . vda. ue LceLa was marrled Lo lsaac LceLa someLlme ln 1926.
uurlng Lhe subslsLence of Lhelr marrlage, Lhey begoL a son, vlcenLe. 1he couple acqulred
several properLles, among whlch ls Lhe dlspuLed properLy. lsaac dled ln 1967 leavlng behlnd
8osallna and vlcenLe as hls compulsory helrs.
ln 1977, vlcenLe dled. uurlng hls llfeLlme, however, he slred Marla 1heresa, an
llleglLlmaLe daughLer. 1hus aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh, hls compulsory helrs were hls moLher,
8osallna, and llleglLlmaLe chlld, Marla 1heresa.
ln 1991, Marla 1heresa flled a case before Lhe 81C of Cuezon ClLy for "arLlLlon and
AccounLlng wlLh uamages"

agalnsL 8osallna alleglng LhaL by vlrLue of her faLher's deaLh, she
became 8osallna's co-helr and co-owner of Lhe properLy. ln her answer, 8osallna alleged LhaL
Lhe properLy ls paraphernal ln naLure and Lhus belonged Lo her excluslvely.

lssue:
WheLher Lhe cerLlfled xerox copy from a xerox copy of Lhe cerLlflcaLe of llve blrLh ls
compeLenL evldence Lo prove Lhe alleged flllaLlon of Lhe respondenL as an "llleglLlmaLe
daughLer" of her alleged faLher vlcenLe LceLa.

8ullng:
noLably, whaL was flled and Lrled before Lhe Lrlal courL and Lhe CourL of Appeals ls
one for parLlLlon and accounLlng wlLh damages only. 1he flllaLlon, or compulsory recognlLlon
by vlcenLe LceLa of Marla 1heresa, was never puL ln lssue. ln facL, boLh parLles have already
agreed and admlLLed, as duly noLed ln Lhe Lrlal courL's pre-Lrlal order, LhaL Marla 1heresa ls
8osallna's granddaughLer.
noLwlLhsLandlng, Marla 1heresa successfully esLabllshed her flllaLlon wlLh vlcenLe
by presenLlng a duly auLhenLlcaLed blrLh cerLlflcaLe. vlcenLe hlmself slgned Marla 1heresa's
blrLh cerLlflcaLe Lhereby acknowledglng LhaL she ls hls daughLer. 8y Lhls acL alone, vlcenLe ls
deemed Lo have acknowledged hls paLernlLy over Marla 1heresa.


















Constant|no vs. Mendez
209 SCkA 18

lacLs:
AmellLa ConsLanLlno, peLlLloner and walLress aL 1ony's 8esLauranL, meL lvan
Mendez, respondenL. Cn LhaL flrsL meeLlng, lvan lnvlLed AmellLa Lo dlne wlLh hlm aL PoLel
Lnrlco where he sLayed. Whlle dlnlng, lvan professed hls love Lo AmellLa Lhrough a promlse
of marrlage and Lhen Lhey have had a sexual lnLercourse. 8uL afLer Lhe sexual conLacL, lvan
confessed LhaL he ls a marrled man. Powever, Lhey repeaLed Lhelr sexual conLacL ln Lhe
monLhs of SepLember and november 1974 whenever lvan ls ln Manlla, whlch resulLed Lo
AmellLa's pregnancy.
AmellLa pleas for help and supporL Lo lvan buL falled. She Lhen flled for Lhe
recognlLlon of Lhe unborn chlld and paymenL for damages. Powever, lvan rebuLLed by Lhe
peLlLlon of Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL for lack of cause of acLlon. 81C ruled ln favor of
AmellLa, respondenL peLlLlon Lhe complalnL CA LhaL 81C erred ln lLs rullng. CA favored Lhe
respondenL and dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL of peLlLloner.

lssue:
WheLher or noL AmellLa was able Lo prove Lhe paLernlLy of lvan Lo her son Mlchael
Lo warranL supporL.

8ullng:
SC dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon. She was lnconslsLenL ln her response wheLher Lhey dld or
dldn'L have any sex ln Manlla ln Lhe 1sL and 2nd week of november. AL flrsL, she sald she
remembered durlng cross-examlnaLlon. LaLer ln her response, she sald she doesn'L
remember.
1hls ls relevanL because Lhe chlld Mlchael ls a luLL 1L8M baby. Pe was concelved
approxlmaLely someLlme ln Lhe 2nd week of november. She wroLe Lo lvan asklng for supporL
around lebruary sLaLlng LhaL she was four monLhs pregnanL. 1hls means, she Lhlnks she
concelved Lhe chlld on CcLober. She wroLe Lo lvan's wlfe where she revealed her aLLachmenL
Lo lvan who possessed cerLaln LralLs noL possessed by her boyfrlend. Moreover, she conflded
LhaL she had a quarrel wlLh her boyfrlend resulLlng Lo her leavlng work.

















8ernabe vs. A|e[o
G.k. No. 140S00 Ianuary 21, 2002

lacLs:
llscal LrnesLo 8ernabe allegedly faLhered a son wlLh hls secreLary, Carollna Ale[o.
1he son was born and was named Adrlan 8ernabe. llscal dled as well as hls leglLlmaLe wlfe,
leavlng LrnesLlna 8ernabe Lhe sole survlvlng helr.
Carollna, ln behalf of her son, flled a complalnL praylng LhaL Adrlan be declared an
acknowledged chlld of Lhe deceased and also be glven Lhe share of 8ernabe's esLaLe. 81C
dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL and LhaL Lhe deaLh of Lhe puLaLlve faLher had barred Lhe acLlon. CA
ruled LhaL Adrlan be allowed Lo prove LhaL he was Lhe llleglLlmaLe son of llscal 8ernabe.
eLlLloner LrnesLlna averred CA's rullng Lo be of error due Lo 81C's rullng based on ArLlcle
173.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL has a cause of acLlon Lo flle a case agalnsL peLlLloner
for recognlLlon and parLlLlon wlLh accounLlng afLer Lhe puLaLlve faLher's deaLh ln Lhe absence
of any wrlLLen acknowledgmenL of paLernlLy by Lhe laLLer.

8ullng:
SC ruled ln afflrmaLlve. an acLlon for Lhe recognlLlon of an llleglLlmaLe chlld musL be
broughL wlLhln Lhe llfeLlme of Lhe alleged parenL. 1he lC makes no dlsLlncLlon on wheLher
Lhe former was sLlll a mlnor when Lhe laLLer dled. 1hus, Lhe puLaLlve parenL ls glven by Lhe
new Code a chance Lo dlspuLe Lhe clalm, conslderlng LhaL llleglLlmaLe chlldren are usually
begoLLen and ralsed ln secrecy and wlLhouL Lhe leglLlmaLe famlly belng aware of Lhelr
exlsLence. 1he puLaLlve parenL should Lhus be glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo afflrm or deny Lhe
chlld's flllaLlon, and Lhls, he or she cannoL do lf he or she ls already dead."



















I|son vs. CA
G.k. No. 1248S3 Iebruary 24, 1998

lacLs:
Monlna alleged LhaL lranclsco had been marrled Lo a cerLaln Lllla Lopez !lson. AL
Lhe end of 1943, however, l8AnClSCC lmpregnaLed Lsperanza Amolar, who was Lhen
employed as Lhe nanny of lranclsco's daughLer. As a resulL, Monlna was born ln llollo, and
slnce chlldhood, had en[oyed Lhe conLlnuous, lmplled recognlLlon as an llleglLlmaLe chlld of
lranclsco by hls acLs and LhaL of hls famlly. Monlna furLher alleged LhaL lranclsco gave her
supporL and spenL for her educaLlon, such LhaL she obLalned a MasLer's degree, became a
CA and evenLually, a CenLral 8ank examlner. ln vlew of lranclsco's refusal Lo expressly
recognlze her, Monlna prayed for a [udlclal declaraLlon of her llleglLlmaLe sLaLus and LhaL
lranclsco supporL and LreaL her as such.
lranclsco alleged LhaL he could noL have had sexual relaLlons wlLh Lsperanza
Amolar durlng Lhe perlod speclfled ln Lhe complalnL as she had ceased Lo be ln hls employ as
early as 1944, and dld noL know of her whereabouLs slnce Lhen. lurLher, he never recognlzed
Monlna, expressly or lmplledly, as hls llleglLlmaLe chlld. As afflrmaLlve and speclal defenses,
lranclsco conLended LhaL MCnlnA had no rlghL or cause of acLlon agalnsL hlm and LhaL her
acLlon was barred by esLoppel, laches and/or prescrlpLlon. Pe Lhus prayed for dlsmlssal of
Lhe complalnL and an award of damages due Lo Lhe mallclous flllng of Lhe complalnL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Monlna !lson ls Lhe recognlzed llleglLlmaLe daughLer of lranclsco
!lson by Lhe laLLer's own acLs and Lhose of hls famlly.

8ullng:
SC afflrmed Lhe declslon of CA ln recognlzlng Monlna as llleglLlmaLe daughLer of
lranclsco. All Lold, Monlna's evldence hurdled "Lhe hlgh sLandard of proof" requlred for Lhe
success of an acLlon Lo esLabllsh one's llleglLlmaLe flllaLlon when relylng upon Lhe provlslons
regardlng "open and conLlnuous possesslon'' or "any oLher means allowed by Lhe 8ules of
CourL and speclal laws". Moreover, Monlna proved her flllaLlon by more Lhan mere
preponderance of evldence.

















Conde vs. Abaya
13 h|| 249

lacLs:
Caslano Abaya, unmarrled, Lhe son of 8omualdo Abaya and Sablna Labadla dled on
Lhe 1899. aula Conde, as Lhe moLher of Lhe naLural chlldren !ose and 1eoplsLa Conde, whom
she sLaLes she had by Caslano Abaya moved Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe lnLesLaLe successlon.
An admlnlsLraLor has been appolnLed for Lhe sald esLaLe. Powever, 8oman Abaya
broLher of Caslano, came forward and opposed sald appolnLmenL and clalmed lL for hlmself
as belng Lhe nearesL relaLlve of Lhe deceased. 1he courL declares 8oman Abaya Lo be Lhe sole
helr of Caslano Abaya and Lo be Lherefore enLlLled Lo Lake possesslon of all Lhe properLy of
sald esLaLe.
aula Conde flled a peLlLlon whereln she sLaLed LhaL she acknowledged Lhe
relaLlonshlp alleged by 8oman Abaya buL LhaL she consldered her rlghL was superlor Lo hls
and moved for a hearlng on Lhe maLLer. She prayed LhaL she be declared Lo have preferenLlal
rlghLs Lo Lhe properLy lefL by Caslano Abaya.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner may enforce an acLlon ln Lhe acknowledgmenL of Lhe naLural
chlld from Caslano Abaya.

8ullng:
1he rlghL of acLlon for leglLlmacy devolvlng upon Lhe chlld ls of a personal characLer
and generally perLalns excluslvely Lo hlm. Cnly Lhe chlld may exerclse lL aL any Llme durlng hls
llfeLlme. As excepLlon, and ln Lhree cases only, lL may be LransmlLLed Lo Lhe helrs of Lhe chlld,
Lo wlL: lf he or she dled durlng hls or her mlnorlLy, or whlle lnsane, or afLer acLlon had already
been lnsLlLuLed. lnasmuch as Lhe rlghL of acLlon accrulng Lo Lhe chlld Lo clalm hls or her
leglLlmacy lasLs durlng hls or her whole llfeLlme, he or she may exerclse lL elLher agalnsL Lhe
presumed parenLs or hls or her helrs. 1he rlghL of acLlon whlch Lhe law concedes Lo Lhe
naLural chlld ls noL LransmlLLed Lo hls ascendanLs or descendanLs.



















Marqu|no vs. IAC
G.k. No. 72078 Iune 27, 1994

lacLs:
8espondenL 8lblana 8omano-agadora flled an acLlon for !udlclal ueclaraLlon of
llllaLlon, AnnulmenL of arLlLlon, SupporL, and uamages agalnsL peLlLloner LuLlqulo
Marqulno on Lhe Cll of negros CccldenLal. Also lmpleaded as defendanLs, were Lhe wlfe of
LuLlqulo Marqulno and Lhelr leglLlmaLe chlldren all surnamed 1erenal-Marqulno.
1he records show LhaL 8lblana was born of Cregorla 8omano and allegedly of
LuLlqulo Marqulno.

AL LhaL Llme, LuLlqulo was sLlll slngle. 8lblana became personally known
Lo Lhe Marqulno famlly when she was hlred as domesLlc helper ln Lhelr household aL
uumagueLe ClLy. She always recelved flnanclal asslsLance from Lhem. 1hus, she clalmed LhaL
she en[oyed conLlnuous possesslon of Lhe sLaLus of an acknowledged naLural chlld by dlrecL
and unequlvocal acLs of her faLher and hls famlly. 1he Marqulnos, on Lhe oLher hand,
sLrongly denled her allegaLlons.
uurlng Lhe pendency of Lhe case and before respondenL 8lblana could flnlsh
presenLlng her evldence, she dled. Per helrs were ordered subsLlLuLed for her as parLles-
plalnLlffs. eLlLloners flled a MoLlon Lo ulsmlss. 1hey averred LhaL Lhe acLlon for recognlLlon ls
lnLransmlsslble Lo Lhe helrs belng a personal acL. 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe case.
8espondenLs appealed Lo Lhe respondenL lAC. LuLlqulo Marqulno dled whlle Lhe case was
pendlng appeal.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe rlghL of acLlon Lo compel recognlLlon ls lnLransmlsslble ln
characLer.

8ullng:
1he chlld can brlng Lhe acLlon durlng hls or her enLlre llfeLlme, noL durlng Lhe
llfeLlme of Lhe parenLs, and even afLer Lhe deaLh of Lhe parenLs. ln oLher words, Lhe acLlon
does noL prescrlbe as long as he llves.
ln Lhe case aL bench, lL ls evldenL LhaL 8lblana was a naLural chlld. She was born ouL
of wedlock of Cregorla 8omano and allegedly of LuLlqulo Marqulno who aL LhaL Llme was
slngle. 8lblana sued for compulsory recognlLlon whlle LuLlqulo was sLlll allve. Sadly, she dled
before she could presenL her proof of recognlLlon. Per deaLh Lolled Lhe acLlon conslderlng lLs
personal naLure and lnLransmlsslblllLy.














Abad|||a vs. 1ab|||ran
249 SCkA 447

lacLs:
ComplalnanL Abadllla, conLends LhaL respondenL had scandalously and publlcly
cohablLed wlLh a cerLaln rlscllla 8aybayan durlng Lhe exlsLence of hls leglLlmaLe marrlage
wlLh 1ereslLa 8anzuela. 8espondenL allegedly shamefacedly conLracLed marrlage wlLh Lhe
sald rlscllla 8aybayan. ComplalnanL clalms LhaL Lhls was a blgamous unlon because of Lhe
facL LhaL Lhe respondenL was Lhen sLlll very much marrled Lo 1ereslLa 8anzuela.
ln respecL of Lhe charge of decelLful conducL, complalnanL clalms LhaL respondenL
caused Lo be reglsLered as "leglLlmaLe", hls Lhree llleglLlmaLe chlldren wlLh rlscllla 8aybayan
by falsely execuLlng separaLe affldavlLs sLaLlng LhaL Lhe delayed reglsLraLlon was due Lo
lnadverLence, excusable negllgence or overslghL, when ln LruLh and ln facL, respondenL knew
LhaL Lhese chlldren cannoL be legally reglsLered as leglLlmaLe.
ComplalnanL manlfesLs LhaL Lhe commlsslon by Lhe respondenL of Lhe foregolng
acLs renders hlm unflL Lo occupy Lhe exalLed poslLlon of a dlspenser of [usLlce. 8espondenL, ln
hls commenL, declared LhaL hls cohablLaLlon wlLh rlscllla 8aybayan ls noL and was nelLher
blgamous nor lmmoral because he sLarLed llvlng wlLh rlscllla 8aybayan only afLer hls flrsL
wlfe had already lefL and abandoned Lhe famlly home and, slnce Lhen, and unLll Lhe presenL
her whereabouLs ls noL known and respondenL has had no news of her belng allve.

lssue:
WheLher or noL respondenL commlLed decelLful conducL ln leglLlmaLlng hls Lhree
llleglLlmaLe chlldren born ouL of adulLerous relaLlonshlp.

8ullng:
SC ruled LhaL respondenL commlLed decelLful conducL and orders hls dlsmlssal from
Lhe servlce. As a lawyer and a [udge, respondenL oughL Lo know LhaL, desplLe hls subsequenL
marrlage Lo rlscllla, Lhese Lhree chlldren cannoL be leglLlmaLed nor ln any way be consldered
leglLlmaLe slnce aL Lhe Llme Lhey were born, Lhere was an exlsLlng valld marrlage beLween
respondenL and hls flrsL wlfe. LeglLlmaLlon ls llmlLed Lo naLural chlldren and cannoL lnclude
Lhose born of adulLerous relaLlons.

















1eot|co vs. De| Va|
13 SCkA 406

lacLs:
8ene 1eoLlco, marrled Lo Lhe LesLaLrlx's nlece named !oseflna MorLera. 1he
LesLaLrlx !oseflna MorLera as her sole and unlversal helr Lo all Lhe remalnder of her properLles
noL oLherwlse dlsposed of ln Lhe wlll. vlcenLe 1eoLlco flled a peLlLlon for Lhe probaLe of Lhe
wlll before Lhe Cll of Manlla whlch was seL for hearlng afLer Lhe requlslLe publlcaLlon and
servlce Lo all parLles concerned.
Ana del val Chan, clalmlng Lo be an adopLed chlld of lranclsca MorLera, a deceased
slsLer of Lhe LesLaLrlx, as well as an acknowledged naLural chlld of !ose MorLera, a deceased
broLher of Lhe same LesLaLrlx, flled an opposlLlon Lo Lhe probaLe of Lhe wlll alleglng Lhe
followlng grounds. vlcenLe 8. 1eoLlco, flled a moLlon Lo dlsmlss Lhe opposlLlon alleglng LhaL
Lhe opposlLor had no legal personallLy Lo lnLervene. 1he probaLe courL, allowed Lhe opposlLor
Lo lnLervene as an adopLed chlld of lranclsca MorLera, and Lhe opposlLor amended her
opposlLlon by alleglng Lhe addlLlonal ground LhaL Lhe wlll ls lnoperaLlve as Lo Lhe share of ur.
8ene 1eoLlco.
AfLer Lhe parLles had presenLed Lhelr evldence, Lhe probaLe courL rendered lLs
declslon admlLLlng Lhe wlll Lo probaLe buL declarlng Lhe dlsposlLlon made ln favor of ur. 8ene
1eoLlco vold wlLh Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe porLlon Lo be vacaLed by Lhe annulmenL should pass
Lo Lhe LesLaLrlx's helrs by way of lnLesLaLe successlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL opposlLor Ana del val Chan has Lhe rlghL Lo lnLervene ln Lhls
proceedlng.

8ullng:
CpposlLor has no rlghL Lo lnLervene because she has no lnLeresL ln Lhe esLaLe elLher
as helr, execuLor, or admlnlsLraLor, nor does she have any clalm Lo any properLy affecLed by
Lhe wlll, because lL nowhere appears Lhereln any provlslon deslgnaLlng her as helr, legaLee or
devlsee of any porLlon of Lhe esLaLe. She has also no lnLeresL ln Lhe wlll elLher as
admlnlsLraLrlx or execuLrlx. nelLher has she any clalm agalnsL any porLlon of Lhe esLaLe
because she ls noL a co-owner Lhereof.
1he opposlLor cannoL also derlve comforL from Lhe facL LhaL she ls an adopLed chlld
of lranclsca MorLera because under our law Lhe relaLlonshlp esLabllshed by adopLlon ls
llmlLed solely Lo Lhe adopLer and Lhe adopLed and does noL exLend Lo Lhe relaLlves of Lhe
adopLlng parenLs or of Lhe adopLed chlld excepL only as expressly provlded for by law. Pence,
no relaLlonshlp ls creaLed beLween Lhe adopLed and Lhe collaLerals of Lhe adopLlng parenLs.
As a consequence, Lhe adopLed ls an helr of Lhe adopLer buL noL of Lhe relaLlves of Lhe
adopLer.









kepub||c vs. CA and 8ob||es
20S SCkA 3S6

lacLs:
ulssaLlsfled wlLh Lhe declslon of respondenL CourL of Appeals whlch afflrmed 0-
/#/# Lhe declslon of Lhe 81C of Legaspl ClLy granLlng Lhe peLlLlon of hereln prlvaLe respondenL
Lo adopL Lhe mlnor !ason CondaL, peLlLloner seeks Lhe reversal Lhereof ln Lhe presenL peLlLlon
for revlew on .",/0#,+,0.
Zenalda CorLeza 8oblles flled a peLlLlon Lo adopL !ason CondaL, Lhen slx years old
and who had been llvlng wlLh her famlly slnce he was four monLhs old. 1he courL + ?2#,
flndlng Lhe peLlLlon Lo be sufflclenL ln form and subsLance, lssued an order seLLlng Lhe
peLlLlon for hearlng. 1he order was duly publlshed, wlLh coples Lhereof seasonably served. A
copy of sald order was posLed on Lhe bulleLln board of Lhe courL and ln Lhe oLher places lL
had requlred for LhaL purpose. nobody appeared Lo oppose Lhe peLlLlon.
1he Lrlal courL rendered [udgmenL dlsposlng LhaL Lhe mlnor chlld, !ason CondaL, be
freed from all legal obllgaLlons of obedlence and malnLenance wlLh respecL Lo hls naLural
parenLs, and be, Lo all lnLenLs and purposes, Lhe chlld of Lhe spouses uloscoro and Zenalda
8oblles, and Lhe surname of Lhe chlld be changed Lo "8oblles" whlch ls Lhe surname of Lhe
peLlLloner.

lssue:
WheLher or noL CA erred ln afflrmlng Lhe Lrlal courL's declslon whlch granLed Lhe
peLlLlon Lo adopL !ason CondaL ln favor of spouses 8oblles.

8ullng:
1he rlghLs concomlLanL Lo and conferred by Lhe decree of adopLlon wlll be for Lhe
besL lnLeresLs of Lhe chlld. Pls adopLlon ls wlLh Lhe consenL of hls naLural parenLs. 1he Lrlal
courL and respondenL courL acLed correcLly ln granLlng Lhe peLlLlon for adopLlon and we flnd
no reason Lo dlsLurb Lhe same. Clven Lhe facLs and clrcumsLances of Lhe case and consldered
ln Lhe llghL of Lhe foregolng docLrlne, SC holds LhaL Lhe decree of adopLlon lssued by Lhe
courL + ?2# would go a long way Lowards promoLlng Lhe welfare of Lhe chlld and Lhe
enhancemenL of hls opporLunlLles for a useful and happy llfe.

















1amargo vs. CA
209 SCkA S18

lacLs:
uomesLlc AdopLlon AcL of 1998, AdelberLo 8undoc, Lhen a mlnor of 10 years of age,
shoL !ennlfer 1amargo wlLh an alr rlfle causlng ln[urles whlch resulLed ln her deaLh.
Accordlngly, a clvll complalnL for damages was flled wlLh Lhe 81C of llocos Sur by peLlLloner
Macarlo 1amargo, !ennlfer's adopLlng parenL and peLlLloner spouses Celso and Aurella
1amargo, !ennlfer's naLural parenLs agalnsL respondenL spouses vlcLor and Clara 8undoc,
AdelberLo's naLural parenLs wlLh whom he was llvlng aL Lhe Llme of Lhe Lraglc lncldenL.
rlor Lo Lhe lncldenL, Lhe spouses Sabas and lellsa 8aplsura had flled a peLlLlon Lo
adopL Lhe mlnor AdelberLo 8undoc ln Speclal roceedlngs before Lhe Lhen Cll of llocos Sur.
1hls peLlLlon for adopLlon was granLed LhaL ls, afLer AdelberLo had shoL and kllled !ennlfer.
8espondenL spouses 8undoc, AdelberLo's naLural parenLs, reclLlng Lhe resulL of Lhe foregolng
peLlLlon for adopLlon, clalmed LhaL noL Lhey, buL raLher Lhe adopLlng parenLs, namely Lhe
spouses Sabas and lellsa 8aplsura, were lndlspensable parLles Lo Lhe acLlon slnce parenLal
auLhorlLy had shlfLed Lo Lhe adopLlng parenLs from Lhe momenL Lhe successful peLlLlon for
adopLlon was flled.
eLlLloners ln Lhelr reply conLended LhaL slnce AdelberLo 8undoc was Lhen acLually
llvlng wlLh hls naLural parenLs, parenLal auLhorlLy had noL ceased nor been rellnqulshed by
Lhe mere flllng and granLlng of a peLlLlon for adopLlon. 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed peLlLloners'
complalnL, rullng LhaL respondenL naLural parenLs of AdelberLo lndeed were noL
lndlspensable parLles Lo Lhe acLlon.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloners, noLwlLhsLandlng loss of Lhelr rlghL Lo appeal, may sLlll
flle Lhe lnsLanL peLlLlon.
WheLher Lhe CourL may sLlll Lake cognlzance of Lhe case even Lhrough peLlLloners'
appeal had been flled ouL of Llme.

8ullng:
SC granLed Lhe peLlLlon. 8eLroacLlve affecL may perhaps be glven Lo Lhe granLlng of
Lhe peLlLlon for adopLlon where such ls essenLlal Lo permlL Lhe accrual of some beneflL or
advanLage ln favor of Lhe adopLed chlld. ln Lhe lnsLanL case, however, Lo hold LhaL parenLal
auLhorlLy had been reLroacLlvely lodged ln Lhe 8aplsura spouses so as Lo burden Lhem wlLh
llablllLy for a LorLlous acL LhaL Lhey could noL have foreseen and whlch Lhey could noL have
prevenLed would be unfalr and unconsclonable.












Iav|er vs. Lucero
94 h|| 634

lacLs:
Salud Arca, respondenL and Alfredo !avler, defendanL had Lhelr marrlage
solemnlzed aL Lhe M1C of Manlla. AL Lhe Llme of Lhelr marrlage, Lhey had already begoLLen a
son named Alfredo !avler !r.
Alfredo !avler lefL for uS on board a shlp of uS navy, for he was an enllsLed man ln
Lhe uS navy. 8ecause of defendanL's deparLure, respondenL chose Lo llve wlLh defendanL's
parenLs buL lefL due Lo frlcLlons havlng occurred beLween Lhem. She Lhen sLayed Lo her
naLlve place ln 1anza, CavlLe.
WlLh Lhe evenLs Lransplred, Lhe relaLlonshlp of Lhe spouses become sLralned and
wlLh LhaL Alfredo !avler flled an acLlon for dlvorce agalnsL Salud Arca aL Alabama, uSA.
Pavlng recelved Lhe complalnL, respondenL averred LhaL defendanL was noL a resldenL of
Alabama buL a resldenL of nalc, CavlLe. She also professed LhaL Lhe cause of Lhelr separaLlon
was noL of deserLlon on her parL buL of Lhe defendanL. And LhaL slnce hls deparLure Lo uS
navy, he had always supporLed hls spouse and hls son Lhrough alloLmenLs by uS navy
ueparLmenL of uS CovernmenL. 1hrough Lhese she prayed LhaL Lhe complalnL be dlsmlssed.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe defendanL ls sLlll obllged Lo supporL hls son even lf he reaches
Lhe age of ma[orlLy.

8ullng:
unquesLlonably, Alfredo !avler, !r. ls Lhe son of peLlLloner Alfredo !avler, and lf
flnanclal asslsLance ls Lo be rendered only aL Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe appeal hls educaLlon, or
Lhe compleLlon Lhereof, would be unduly delayed. 1haL ls good reason for lmmedlaLe
execuLlon.
SupporL also lncludes Lhe educaLlon of Lhe person Lo be supporLed "unLll he
compleLe hls educaLlon or Lralnlng for some professlon, Lrade or vocaLlon even beyond Lhe
age of ma[orlLy" and on Lhe basls of Lhls arLlcle supporL was granLed Lo Alfredo !avler !r.


















Go|t|a vs. Campos-kueda
3S h|| 2S2, 262

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcle 204. Lmphasls on Lhe opLlons of supporL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe wlfe can clalm for supporL ouLslde of Lhe con[ugal domlclle.

8ullng:
lL has been held LhaL Lhe wlfe, who ls forced Lo leave Lhe con[ugal abode by her
husband, wlLhouL faulL on her parL, may malnLaln an acLlon agalnsL Lhe husband for separaLe
malnLenance when she has no oLher remedy, noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe provlslon of Lhe law glvlng
Lhe person who ls obllged Lo furnlsh supporL Lhe opLlon Lo saLlsfy lL elLher by paylng a flxed
penslon or by recelvlng and malnLalnlng ln hls home Lhe one havlng Lhe rlghL Lo Lhe same.





























De As|s vs. De As|s
303 SCkA 176

lacLs:
rlvaLe respondenL, ln her capaclLy as Lhe legal guardlan of Lhe mlnor, Clen Camll
Andres de Asls, broughL an acLlon for malnLenance and supporL agalnsL peLlLloner before Lhe
81C of Cuezon ClLy, alleglng LhaL peLlLloner ls Lhe faLher of sub[ecL mlnor, and Lhe former
refused and/or falled Lo provlde for Lhe malnLenance of Lhe laLLer, desplLe repeaLed
demands. eLlLloner denled hls paLernlLy of Lhe sald mlnor alleged and LhaL he cannoL be
requlred Lo provlde supporL for hlm. 1he moLher's chlld senL ln a manlfesLaLlon sLaLlng LhaL
because of peLlLloner's [udlclal declaraLlons, lL was fuLlle and a useless exerclse Lo clalm
supporL from hlm. Pence, she was wlLhdrawlng her complalnL agalnsL peLlLloner sub[ecL Lo
Lhe condlLlon LhaL Lhe laLLer should noL pursue hls counLerclalm. 8y vlrLue of Lhe sald
manlfesLaLlon, Lhe parLles muLually agreed Lo move for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe complalnL. 1he
moLlon was granLed by Lhe Lrlal courL, whlch Lhen dlsmlssed Lhe case wlLh pre[udlce.
SubsequenLly, anoLher ComplalnL for malnLenance and supporL was broughL
agalnsL peLlLloner, Lhls Llme ln Lhe name of Clen Camll Andres de Asls, represenLed by her
legal guardlan, hereln prlvaLe respondenL. eLlLloner moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe complalnL on Lhe
ground of ,"( 5230.+/+) 1he Lrlal courL denled Lhe moLlon, rullng LhaL ,"( 5230.+/+ ls
lnappllcable ln an acLlon for supporL for Lhe reason LhaL renunclaLlon or walver of fuLure
supporL ls prohlblLed by law. 1he Lrlal courL llkewlse denled peLlLloner's moLlon for
reconslderaLlon. eLlLloner flled wlLh Lhe CA a peLlLlon for .",/0#,+,0) CA dlsmlssed Lhe same.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe lower courLs acLed ln grave abuse of dlscreLlon afLer Lhe flrsL
complalnL was dlsmlssed and ad[udged.

8ullng:
1he rlghL Lo recelve supporL can nelLher be renounced nor LransmlLLed Lo a Lhlrd
person. lurLhermore, fuLure supporL cannoL be Lhe sub[ecL of a compromlse. 1he
manlfesLaLlon senL by prlvaLe respondenL amounLed Lo renunclaLlon as lL severed Lhe
vlnculum LhaL glves Lhe sub[ecL mlnor, Lhe rlghL Lo clalm supporL from hls puLaLlve parenL,
Lhe peLlLloner. lurLhermore, Lhe agreemenL enLered lnLo beLween Lhe peLlLloner and prlvaLe
respondenL for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe counLerclalm was ln Lhe naLure of a compromlse, whlch
cannoL be counLenanced. lL vlolaLed Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL any compromlse of Lhe rlghL Lo
supporL.













Lsp|r|tu vs. CA
242 SCkA 362

lacLs:
eLlLloner 8eynaldo LsplrlLu and respondenL 1ereslLa Masaudlng flrsL meL ln lllgan
ClLy where 8eynaldo was employed by Lhe naLlonal SLeel CorporaLlon and 1ereslLa was
employed as a nurse ln a local hosplLal. 1ereslLa lefL for Los Angeles, Callfornla Lo work as a
nurse. 8eynaldo was senL by hls employer, Lhe naLlonal SLeel CorporaLlon, Lo lLLsburgh,
ennsylvanla as lLs llalson offlcer and 8eynaldo and 1ereslLa Lhen began Lo malnLaln a
common law relaLlonshlp of husband and wlfe. Cn 1986, Lhelr daughLer, 8osallnd 1herese,
was born. Whlle Lhey were on a brlef vacaLlon ln Lhe hlllpplnes, 8eynaldo and 1ereslLa goL
marrled, and upon Lhelr reLurn Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes, Lhelr second chlld, a son, Lhls Llme, and
glven Lhe name 8eglnald vlnce, was born on 1988.
1he relaLlonshlp of Lhe couple deLerloraLed unLll Lhey declded Lo separaLe. lnsLead
of glvlng Lhelr marrlage a second chance as allegedly pleaded by 8eynaldo, 1ereslLa lefL
8eynaldo and Lhe chlldren and wenL back Lo Callfornla. 8eynaldo broughL hls chlldren home
Lo Lhe hlllpplnes, buL because hls asslgnmenL ln lLLsburgh was noL yeL compleLed, he was
senL back by hls company Lo lLLsburgh. Pe had Lo leave hls chlldren wlLh hls slsLer, Culllerma
Layug and her famlly.
1ereslLa, meanwhlle, declded Lo reLurn Lo Lhe hlllpplnes and flled Lhe peLlLlon for
a wrlL of 7+1"+( .#,$2( agalnsL hereln Lwo peLlLloners Lo galn cusLody over Lhe chlldren, Lhus
sLarLlng Lhe whole proceedlngs now reachlng Lhls CourL. 1he Lrlal courL dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon
for 7+1"+( .#,$2(. lL suspended 1ereslLa's parenLal auLhorlLy over 8osallnd and 8eglnald and
declared 8eynaldo Lo have sole parenLal auLhorlLy over Lhem buL wlLh rlghLs of vlslLaLlon Lo
be agreed upon by Lhe parLles and Lo be approved by Lhe CourL.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLlon for a wrlL of habeas corpus Lo galn cusLody over Lhe
chlldren be granLed.

8ullng:
SC dlsmlssed Lhe wrlL of habeas corpus peLlLlon by Lhe moLher and reLaln Lhe
cusLody of Lhe chlldren Lo Lhe faLher. 1he llllclL or lmmoral acLlvlLles of Lhe moLher had
already caused emoLlonal dlsLurbances, personallLy confllcLs, and exposure Lo confllcLlng
moral values agalnsL Lhe chlldren.
1he chlldren are now boLh over seven years old. 1helr cholce of Lhe parenL wlLh
whom Lhey prefer Lo sLay ls clear from Lhe record. lrom all lndlcaLlons, 8eynaldo ls a flL
person. 1he chlldren undersLand Lhe unforLunaLe shorLcomlngs of Lhelr moLher and have
been affecLed ln Lhelr emoLlonal growLh by her behavlor.








Amadora vs. CA
160 SCkA 274

lacLs:
Llke any prospecLlve graduaLe, Alfredo Amadora was looklng forward Lo Lhe
commencemenL exerclses where he would ascend Lhe sLage and ln Lhe presence of hls
relaLlves and frlends recelve hls hlgh school dlploma. As lL Lurned ouL, Lhough, faLe would
lnLervene and deny hlm LhaL awalLed experlence. Whlle Lhey were ln Lhe audlLorlum of Lhelr
school, Lhe Coleglo de San !ose-8ecoleLos, a classmaLe, abllLo uamon, flred a gun LhaL
morLally hlL Alfredo, endlng all hls expecLaLlons and hls llfe as well.
uaffon was convlcLed of homlclde Lhru reckless lmprudence. AddlLlonally, Lhe
hereln peLlLloners, as Lhe vlcLlm's parenLs, flled a clvll acLlon for damages under ArLlcle 2180
of Lhe Clvll Code agalnsL Lhe Coleglo de San !ose-8ecoleLos, lLs recLor Lhe hlgh school
prlnclpal, Lhe dean of boys, and Lhe physlcs Leacher, LogeLher wlLh uaffon and Lwo oLher
sLudenLs, Lhrough Lhelr respecLlve parenLs. 1he complalnL agalnsL Lhe sLudenLs was laLer
dropped. AfLer Lrlal, Lhe Cll of Cebu held Lhe remalnlng defendanLs llable Lo Lhe plalnLlffs.

Cn
appeal Lo Lhe respondenL courL, however, Lhe declslon was reversed and all Lhe defendanLs
were compleLely absolved.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Leachers or heads of esLabllshmenLs of arLs and Lrades shall be
llable for Lhe deaLh of Alfredo Amadora.

8ullng:
1he CourL has come Lo Lhe concluslon LhaL Lhe provlslon ln quesLlon (ArL. 2180)
should apply Lo all schools, academlc as well as non-academlc.

lollowlng Lhe canon of ,"33"-3# (0-;2%+, (0-;2%0, where Lhe school ls academlc,
responslblllLy for Lhe LorL commlLLed by Lhe sLudenL wlll aLLach Lo Lhe Leacher ln charge of
such sLudenL. 1hls ls Lhe general rule. I"+(#-J Cld academlc schools, Lhe heads [usL supervlse
Lhe Leachers who are Lhe ones dlrecLly lnvolved wlLh Lhe sLudenLs.

Where Lhe school ls for arLs and Lrades, lL ls Lhe head and only he who shall be held
llable as an excepLlon Lo Lhe general rule. I"+(#-J Cld schools of arLs and Lrades saw Lhe
masLers or heads of Lhe school personally and dlrecLly lnsLrucLed Lhe apprenLlces.

1herefore, Lhe heads are noL llable. 1he Leacher-ln-charge ls noL also llable because
Lhere's no showlng LhaL he was negllgenL ln enforclng dlsclpllne agalnsL Lhe accused or LhaL
he walved observance of Lhe rules and regulaLlons of Lhe school, or condoned Lhelr non-
observance. Also, Lhe facL LhaL he wasn'L presenL can'L be consldered agalnsL hlm because he
wasn'L requlred Lo reporL on LhaL day. Classes had already ceased.








|arde vs. Aqu|no
163 SCkA 697

lacLs:
rlvaLe respondenL Marlano Sorlano was Lhe prlnclpal of Lhe Cabaldon rlmary
School, a publlc educaLlonal lnsLlLuLlon locaLed ln angaslnan, prlvaLe respondenL Ldgardo
Aqulno was a Leacher Lhereln. As parL of work educaLlon, prlvaLe respondenL Aqulno ordered
Lhe puplls Lo help 8anez ln Lhe burylng of Lhe sLones caused by Lhe flLLered remnanLs of
World War ll.
When Lhe depLh was rlghL enough Lo accommodaLe Lhe concreLe block, prlvaLe
respondenL Aqulno and hls four puplls goL ouL of Lhe hole. rlvaLe respondenL lefL Lhe
chlldren Lo level Lhe loose soll around Lhe open hole whlle he wenL Lo see 8anez Lo borrow
some rope. 8efore leavlng, prlvaLe respondenL Aqulno allegedly Lold Lhe chlldren "noL Lo
Louch Lhe sLone."
AfLer prlvaLe respondenL Aqulno lefL, Alonso, AlcanLara and ?larde, playfully
[umped lnLo Lhe plL. 1he remalnlng Abaga [umped on Lop of Lhe concreLe block causlng lL Lo
sllde down Lowards Lhe openlng. Alonso and AlcanLara were able Lo scramble ouL of Lhe
excavaLlon on Llme buL unforLunaLely for ?larde, Lhe concreLe block caughL hlm, plnnlng hlm
Lo Lhe wall ln a sLandlng poslLlon. ?larde susLalned ln[urles, Lhree days laLer, he dled. ?larde's
parenLs, peLlLloners ln Lhls case, flled a sulL for damages agalnsL boLh prlvaLe respondenLs
Aqulno and Sorlano.

lssue:
WheLher or noL boLh prlvaLe respondenLs can be held llable for Lhe deaLh of ?larde.

8ullng:
SC close by caLegorlcally sLaLlng LhaL a Lruly careful and cauLlous person would have
acLed ln all conLrasL Lo Lhe way prlvaLe respondenL Aqulno dld. Moreover, a Leacher who
sLands ln %#.# $+,"-/0( Lo hls puplls would have made sure LhaL Lhe chlldren are proLecLed
from all harm ln hls company. Were lL noL for hls gross negllgence, Lhe unforLunaLe lncldenL
would noL have occurred and Lhe chlld ?larde would probably be allve Loday, a grown- man
of LhlrLy-flve. uue Lo hls fallure Lo Lake Lhe necessary precauLlons Lo avold Lhe hazard,
?larde's parenLs suffered greaL angulsh all Lhese years.
















St. Mary's Academy vs. Carp|tanos
G.k. No. 143363 Iebruary 6, 2002

lacLs:
uefendanL-appellanL SL. Mary's Academy of ulpolog ClLy conducLed an enrollmenL
drlve for Lhe school year 1993-1996. A faceL of Lhe enrollmenL campalgn was Lhe vlslLaLlon of
schools from where prospecLlve enrollees were sLudylng. As a sLudenL of SL. Mary's
Academy, Sherwln CarplLanos was parL of Lhe campalgnlng group.
Accordlngly, on Lhe faLeful day, Sherwln, along wlLh oLher hlgh school sLudenLs
were rldlng ln a MlLsublshl [eep owned by defendanL vlvenclo vlllanueva on Lhelr way Lo
Larayan LlemenLary School, uaplLan ClLy. 1he [eep was drlven by !ames uanlel ll Lhen 13
years old and a sLudenL of Lhe same school. Allegedly, Lhe laLLer drove Lhe [eep ln a reckless
manner and as a resulL Lhe [eep Lurned LurLle. Sherwln CarplLanos dled as a resulL of Lhe
ln[urles he susLalned from Lhe accldenL. 1he parenLs of Sherwln flled a case agalnsL !ames
uanlel ll and hls parenLs, !ames uanlel Sr. and Cuada uanlel, Lhe vehlcle owner, vlvenclo
vlllanueva and SL. Mary's Academy before Lhe 81C of ulpolog ClLy and clalmed for damages.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe peLlLloner SL. Mary's Academy ls llable for damages for Lhe
deaLh of Sherwln CarplLanos.

8ullng:
C8An1Lu and 8LMAnuLu Lo Lhe 81C for deLermlnaLlon of any llablllLy of Lhe
school. 1he CourL held LhaL for Lhe school Lo be llable Lhere musL be a flndlng LhaL Lhe acL or
omlsslon consldered as negllgenL was Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe ln[ury caused because of
negllgence, musL have causal connecLlon Lo Lhe accldenL. 1here ls no showlng of such.
Pence, wlLh Lhe overwhelmlng evldence presenLed by peLlLloner and Lhe
respondenL uanlel spouses LhaL Lhe accldenL occurred because of Lhe deLachmenL of Lhe
sLeerlng wheel gulde of Lhe [eep, lL ls noL Lhe school, buL Lhe reglsLered owner of Lhe vehlcle
who shall be held responslble for damages for Lhe deaLh of Sherwln CarplLanos.



















1amargo vs. CA
209 SCkA S18

lacLs:
@+8") ArLlcles 220-233. Lmphasls on effecLs and suspenslon/LermlnaLlon of
parenLal auLhorlLy.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe effecLs of adopLlon, lnsofar as parenLal auLhorlLy ls concerned
may be glven reLroacLlve effecL so as Lo make Lhe adopLlng parenLs Lhe lndlspensable parLles
ln a damage case flled agalnsL Lhelr adopLed chlld, for acLs commlLLed by Lhe laLLer, when
acLual cusLody was yeL lodged wlLh Lhe blologlcal parenLs.

8ullng:
C8An1Lu. 1he naLural parenLs of AdelberLo should be held llable for damages
caused by Lhe chlld followlng Lhe docLrlne of lMu1Lu nLCLlCLnCL. 1he slmple reason ls
LhaL Lhe chlld was sLlll under Lhelr care and cusLody aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lncldenL. arenLal
llablllLy ls a consequence of A8Ln1AL Au1PC8l1?.

ALlCA8LL 8CvlSlCnS:
ArL. 2176: Cuasl-dellcL - Whoever by acL or omlsslon causes damage Lo anoLher, Lhere belng
no faulL or negllgence, ls obllged Lo pay for Lhe damage done. Such faulL or negllgence, lf
Lhere ls no pre-exlsLlng conLracLual relaLlon beLween Lhe parLles, ls called a quasl-dellcL.

ArL. 2180: lmpuLed negllgence - 1he obllgaLlon lmposed by ArL. 2176 ls demandable noL only
for one's own acLs or omlsslons, buL also for Lhose persons for whom one ls responslble.
1he faLher and, ln case of hls deaLh or lncapaclLy, Lhe moLher, are responslble for Lhe
damages caused by Lhe mlnor chlldren who llve ln Lhelr company.

1he responslblllLy LreaLed of ln Lhls ArLlcle shall cease when Lhe person hereln
menLloned prove LhaL Lhey observed all Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of a famlly Lo prevenL
damage.

















L|b| vs. IAC
214 SCkA 16

lacLs:
ueceased !ulle Ann CoLlong, 18 years old, and deceased Wendell Llbl, beLween 18
Lo 19 years old, were sweeLhearLs for Lwo years prlor Lo Lhe lncldenL. AfLer Lhe glrl declded Lo
end Lhe relaLlonshlp flndlng Lhe guy sadlsLlc and lrresponslble, Lhe boy lncessanLly pursued
her and prayed LhaL Lhey be LogeLher agaln Lhls made Lhe guy resorL Lo LhreaLs. 8uL, Lhe glrl
hold sLeadfasL Lo her declslon. ln order Lo avold Lhe guy, Lhe glrl llved wlLh her besL frlend. Cn
Lhe day of Lhe lncldenL, Lhe Lwo were found shoL dead wlLh a SmlLh and Wesson revolver.
1he parenLs of Lhe glrl lnsLlLuLed Lhls case agalnsL Lhe parenLs of Lhe guy for damages.

lssue:
WheLher or noL Lhe parenLs of Lhe Wendell Llbl ls sLlll llable for Lhe deaLh of !ulle
Ann CoLlong.

8ullng:
uLnlLu. 1he parenLs of Lhe guy are held llable for noL exerclslng due dlllgence,
dlllgenLlsslml paLrls famlllas, (ArL. 2180). 1he faLher of Lhe guy owns a gun whlch he kepL ln a
safeLy deposlL box. 1he faLher and Lhe moLher each had a key. 1he guy knew of lL. 1he key
musL have been negllgenLly lefL lylng around or he had free access Lo lL, such as Lhe bag of hls
moLher. 1he sald gun was mlsslng. 1he parenLs were also unable Lo explaln Lhe phoLograph
of Lhelr son holdlng a gun. 1he sald phoLograph was dedlcaLed Lo Lhe glrl.
Moreover, Lhey were remlss ln Lhelr duLles as parenLs as noL belng able Lo know LhaL Lhelr
son was a ConsLabulary AnLl-narcoLlcs unlLe (CAnu) agenL lnvolved ln a dangerous work of
as elLher a drug lnformer or drug user. 1he damages ls based on ArL. 2180 of Lhe Clvll Code.
ArL. 101 of 8C doesn'L apply slnce Lhe guy ls or above 18 years old already.






















Lapera| vs. kepub||c
G.k. No. L-18008 Cctober 30, 1962

lacLs:
Lllsea Laperal flled ln Lhe Cll of 8agulo a peLlLlon whlch reads:

1. 1haL peLlLloner has been a 1#-+ <03" resldenL of Lhe ClLy of 8agulo for
Lhe lasL Lhree years prlor Lo Lhe daLe of Lhe flllng of Lhls peLlLlon,
2. 1haL peLlLloner's malden name ls LLlSLA LAL8AL, she marrled Mr.
Lnrlque 8. SanLamarla, LhaL ln a parLlal declslon enLered on Lhls Ponorable CourL,
enLlLled 'Lnrlque 8. SanLamarla vs. Lllsea L. SanLamarla' Mr. Lnrlque SanLamarla
was glven a decree of legal separaLlon from her, LhaL Lhe sald parLlal declslon ls
now flnal,
3. 1haL durlng her marrlage Lo Lnrlque 8. SanLamarla, she naLurally used,
lnsLead of her malden name, LhaL of Lllsea L. SanLamarla, LhaL aslde from her legal
separaLlon from Lnrlque 8. SanLamarla, she has also ceased Lo llve wlLh hlm for
many years now,
4. 1haL ln vlew of Lhe facL LhaL she has been legally separaLed from Mr.
Lnrlque 8. SanLamarla and has llkewlse ceased Lo llve wlLh hlm for many years, lL ls
deslrable LhaL she be allowed Lo change her name and/or be permlLLed Lo resume
uslng her malden name, Lo wlL: LLlSLA LAL8AL.

eLlLloner prayed she be allowed Lo resume uslng her malden name.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner be allowed Lo resume uslng her malden name of Lllsea
Laperal.

8ullng:
1he facL of legal separaLlon alone whlch ls Lhe only basls for Lhe peLlLlon aL bar ls, ln
our oplnlon, noL a sufflclenL ground Lo [usLlfy a change of Lhe name of hereln peLlLloner. lL ls
Lrue LhaL ln Lhe second declslon whlch reconsldered Lhe flrsL lL ls sLaLed LhaL as Lhe peLlLloner
owns exLenslve buslness lnLeresLs, Lhe conLlnued used of her husband surname may cause
undue confuslon ln her flnances and Lhe evenLual llquldaLlon of Lhe con[ugal asseLs. 1hls
flndlng ls however wlLhouL basls. ln Lhe flrsL place, Lhese were noL Lhe causes upon whlch Lhe
peLlLlon was based, hence, obvlously no evldence Lo Lhls effecL had been adduced.













L|aneta vs. Agrava
G.k. No. L-32S04 May 1S, 1974

lacLs:
1ereslLa's moLher, one ALanacla LlaneLa, was once marrled Lo Serafln lerrer wlLh
whom she had buL one chlld named vlcLorlano lerrer. ln 1942 Serafln lerrer dled, and abouL
four years laLer ALanacla had relaLlons wlLh anoLher man ouL of whlch 1ereslLa was born.
ShorLly afLer 1ereslLa's blrLh, ALanacla broughL her and vlcLorlano Lo Manlla where all of
Lhem llved wlLh ALanacla's moLher-ln-law, vlcLorla vda. de lerrer. 1ereslLa was ralsed ln Lhe
household of Lhe lerrer's, uslng Lhe surname of lerrer ln all her deallngs and LhroughouL her
schoollng. When she was abouL LwenLy years old, she applled for a copy of her blrLh
cerLlflcaLe ln Sorsogon, where she was born, as she was requlred Lo presenL lL ln connecLlon
wlLh a scholarshlp granLed Lo her by Lhe CaLhollc CharlLles. lL was Lhen LhaL she dlscovered
LhaL her reglsLered surname ls LlaneLa noL lerrer and LhaL she ls Lhe llleglLlmaLe chlld of
ALanacla and an unknown faLher.
Cn Lhe ground LhaL her use LhenceforLh of Lhe surname LlaneLa, lnsLead of lerrer
whlch she had been uslng slnce she acqulred reason, would cause unLold dlfflculLles and
confuslon, 1ereslLa peLlLloned Lhe courL for change of her name from 1ereslLa LlaneLa Lo
1ereslLa LlaneLa lerrer.

lssue:
WheLher or noL peLlLloner be allowed Lo change her surname based on her alleged
facLs.

8ullng:
1he peLlLlon of 1ereslLa LlaneLa for change of her name Lo 1ereslLa LlaneLa lerrer ls
hereby granLed. 1he peLlLloner has esLabllshed LhaL she has been uslng Lhe surname lerrer
for as long as she can remember. A sudden shlfL aL Lhls Llme by Lhe peLlLloner Lo Lhe name
1ereslLa LlaneLa ln order Lo conform Lo LhaL appearlng ln her blrLh cerLlflcaLe would resulL ln
confuslon among Lhe persons and enLlLles she deals wlLh and enLall endless and vexaLlous
explanaLlons of Lhe clrcumsLances of her new surname.








kepub||c of the h|||pp|nes vs. Dayot
Gk. No. 17SS81, March 18, 2008

Iacts:
Cn 24 november 1986, !ose and lellsa were marrled aL Lhe asay
ClLy Pall. 1he marrlage was solemnlzed by 8ev. 1omas v. ALlenza. ln lleu of
a marrlage llcense, !ose and lellsa execuLed a sworn affldavlL, also daLed 24
november 1986, aLLesLlng LhaL boLh of Lhem had aLLalned Lhe age of
maLurlLy, and LhaL belng unmarrled, Lhey had llved LogeLher as husband and
wlfe for aL leasL flve years.
Cn 7 !uly 1993, !ose flled a ComplalnL for AnnulmenL and/or
ueclaraLlon of nulllLy of Marrlage wlLh Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C), 8lnan,
Laguna, 8ranch 23. Pe conLended LhaL hls marrlage wlLh lellsa was a sham,
as no marrlage ceremony was celebraLed beLween Lhe parLles, LhaL he dld
noL execuLe Lhe sworn affldavlL sLaLlng LhaL he and lellsa had llved as
husband and wlfe for aL leasL flve years, and LhaL hls consenL Lo Lhe
marrlage was secured Lhrough fraud.
ln opposlng Lhe ComplalnL, lellsa denled !ose's allegaLlons and
defended Lhe valldlLy of Lhelr marrlage. She declared LhaL Lhey had
malnLalned Lhelr relaLlonshlp as man and wlfe absenL Lhe legallLy of
marrlage ln Lhe early parL of 1980, buL LhaL she had deferred conLracLlng
marrlage wlLh hlm on accounL of Lhelr age dlfference. ln her pre-Lrlal brlef,
lellsa expounded LhaL whlle her marrlage Lo !ose was subslsLlng, Lhe laLLer
conLracLed marrlage wlLh a cerLaln 8uflna ascual (8uflna) on 31 AugusL
1990. Cn 3 !une 1993, lellsa flled an acLlon for blgamy agalnsL !ose.
SubsequenLly, she flled an admlnlsLraLlve complalnL agalnsL !ose wlLh Lhe
Cfflce of Lhe Cmbudsman, slnce !ose and 8uflna were boLh employees of
Lhe naLlonal SLaLlsLlcs and CoordlnaLlng 8oard. 1he Cmbudsman found !ose
admlnlsLraLlvely llable for dlsgraceful and lmmoral conducL, and meLed ouL
Lo hlm Lhe penalLy of suspenslon from servlce for one year wlLhouL
emolumenL.

Issue:
WheLher or noL Lhe falslLy of an affldavlL of marlLal cohablLaLlon,
where Lhe parLles have ln LruLh fallen shorL of Lhe mlnlmum flve-year
requlremenL, effecLlvely renders Lhe marrlage vold +1 0-0/0# for lack of a
marrlage llcense?

ku||ng:
Marrlages of excepLlonal characLer are, doubLless, Lhe
excepLlons Lo Lhe rule on Lhe lndlspensablllLy of Lhe formal requlslLe of a
marrlage llcense. under Lhe rules of sLaLuLory consLrucLlon, excepLlons, as a
general rule, should be sLrlcLlybuL reasonably consLrued. 1hey exLend only
so far as Lhelr language falrly warranLs, and all doubLs should be resolved ln
favor of Lhe general provlslons raLher Lhan Lhe excepLlon. Where a general
rule ls esLabllshed by sLaLuLe wlLh excepLlons, Lhe courL wlll noL curLall Lhe
former or add Lo Lhe laLLer by lmpllcaLlon. lor Lhe excepLlon ln ArLlcle 76 Lo
apply, lL ls a (0-" ?2+ -#- LhereLo LhaL Lhe man and Lhe woman musL have
aLLalned Lhe age of ma[orlLy, and LhaL, be|ng unmarr|ed, they have ||ved
together as husband and w|fe for at |east f|ve years.
lL ls lndublLably esLabllshed LhaL !ose and lellsa have noL llved
LogeLher for flve years aL Lhe Llme Lhey execuLed Lhelr sworn affldavlL and
conLracLed marrlage. We cannoL accepL Lhe lnslsLence of Lhe 8epubllc LhaL
Lhe falslLy of Lhe sLaLemenLs ln Lhe parLles' affldavlL wlll noL affecL Lhe
valldlLy of marrlage, slnce all Lhe essenLlal and formal requlslLes were
complled wlLh. 1he argumenL deserves scanL merlL. aLenLly, lL cannoL be
denled LhaL Lhe marrlage beLween !ose and lellsa was celebraLed wlLhouL
Lhe formal requlslLe of a marrlage llcense. nelLher dld !ose and lellsa meeL
Lhe expllclL legal requlremenL ln ArLlcle 76, LhaL Lhey should have llved
LogeLher as husband and wlfe for aL leasL flve years, so as Lo be excepLed
from Lhe requlremenL of a marrlage llcense.
Slmllarly, we are noL lmpressed by Lhe raLloclnaLlon of Lhe 8epubllc
LhaL as a marrlage under a llcense ls noL lnvalldaLed by Lhe facL LhaL Lhe
llcense was wrongfully obLalned, so musL a marrlage noL be lnvalldaLed by a
fabrlcaLed sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe parLles have cohablLed for aL leasL flve years
as requlred by law. 1he conLrasL ls flagranL. 1he former ls wlLh reference Lo
an lrregularlLy of Lhe marrlage llcense, and noL Lo Lhe absence of one. Pere,
Lhere ls no marrlage llcense aL all.







In re: et|t|on for Adopt|on of M|che||e L|m
Gk. No. 168992-93, 21 May 2009
Iacts:
Petitioner is an optometrist by profession. On 23 June 1974, she
married Primo Lim (Lim). They were childless. Minor children, whose
parents were unknown, were entrusted to them by a certain Lucia Ayuban
(Ayuban). Being so eager to have a child of their own, petitioner and Lim
registered the children to make it appear that they were the childrens
parents. The children were named Michelle P. Lim (Michelle) and Michael
Jude P. Lim (Michael). Michelle was barely eleven days old when brought to
the clinic of petitioner. She was born on 15 March 1977. Michael was 11
days old when Ayuban brought him to petitioners clinic. His date of birth is
1 August 1983.
The spouses reared and cared for the children as if they were their own.
They sent the children to exclusive schools. They used the surname Lim in
all their school records and documents. Unfortunately, on 28 November
1998, Lim died. On 27 December 2000, petitioner married Angel Olario
(Olario), an American citizen.
Thereafter, petitioner decided to adopt the children by availing of the
amnesty given under Republic Act No. 8552[6] (RA 8552) to those
individuals who simulated the birth of a child. Thus, on 24 April 2002,
petitioner filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle and Michael
before the trial court docketed as SPL PROC. Case Nos. 1258 and 1259,
respectively. At the time of the filing of the petitions for adoption, Michelle
was 25 years old and already married, while Michael was 18 years and seven
months old.
Michelle and her husband gave their consent to the adoption as
evidenced by their Affidavits of Consent. Michael also gave his consent to
his adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent. Petitioners husband
Olario likewise executed an Affidavit of Consent for the adoption of
Michelle and Michael.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.

Ruling:
Petitioner contends that the rule on joint adoption must be relaxed
because it is the duty of the court and the State to protect the paramount
interest and welfare of the child to be adopted. Petitioner argues that the legal
maxim dura lex sed lex is not applicable to adoption cases. She argues that
joint parental authority is not necessary in this case since, at the time the
petitions were filed, Michelle was 25 years old and already married, while
Michael was already 18 years of age. Parental authority is not anymore
necessary since they have been emancipated having attained the age of
majority. We deny the petition.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following
cases: (1) If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter
of the other; (2) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own
illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, however, that the other spouse
has signified his/her consent thereto; (3) if the spouses are legally
separated from each other. In case husband and wife jointly adopt,
or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other,
joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
Petitioner, having remarried at the time the petitions for adoption
were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption were filed
only by petitioner herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court
was correct in denying the petitions for adoption on this ground. The fact that
Olario gave his consent to the adoption as shown in his Affidavit of Consent
does not suffice. There are certain requirements that Olario must comply
being an American citizen. He must meet the qualifications set forth in
Section 7 of RA 8552 such as: (1) he must prove that his country has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines; (2) he must have
been living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior to the
filing of the application for adoption; (3) he must maintain such residency
until the adoption decree is entered; (4) he has legal capacity to adopt in his
own country; and (5) the adoptee is allowed to enter the adopters country as
the latters adopted child. None of these qualifications were shown and
proved during the trial.















kepub||c of the h|||pp|nes vs. Cagandahan
Gk. No. 166676, 12 September 2008
Iacts:
On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate[2] before the RTC,
Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.
In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981
and was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while
growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed
to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where
persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She
further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her
early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered
that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian
structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or
menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and
appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person.
Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender
be changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer
to Jeff.
To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony
of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the
Philippines!Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical
certificate stating that respondents condition is known as CAH. He
explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes
male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two
sex organs female and male. He testified that this condition is very rare,
that respondents uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female
hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that
respondents condition is permanent and recommended the change of gender
because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as
male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her.
The RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision dated January
12, 2005

Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in
the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to
male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name
from Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.


Ruling:
If we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for
a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based
on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent
to be other than female, then a change in the subjects birth certificate
entry is in order.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is
biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached
the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here
thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high
levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support
for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex
persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at
maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to
undergo treatment in order
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of
nature; and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In
other words, we respect respondents congenital condition and his mature
decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We
cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus
help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court
has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial
discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the
consequences that will follow. The trial courts grant of respondents change
of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a
masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondents change of
name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondents
change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in
his birth certificate from female to male.