Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
14, 2000
FACTS: Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on
September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline, Ingrid and
Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the
latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the
guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and
Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. They
instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5
years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a
car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma
alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license.
ISSUES:1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration
of the nullity of Pepitos marriage after his death?
HELD: The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the
marriage license. They cannot be exempted even though they
instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years
because from the time of Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the
time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed.
Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter
both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has
already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period
cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his
marriage to Norma is still void.
Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the
source of rights. It can be questioned even after the death of one of the
parties and any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.
almost a year after before a minister of the Gospel at the Manila City
Hall. They also had a church wedding at Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish,
Bagong Ilog, Pasig on 6 December 1990. A child was born but it died
5mos after.
Antonio filed a petition to have their marriage be declared null and
void under Art. 36 of the Family Code. This is because of the
subsequent lies said by the petitioner. These lies are:
She gave birth to an illegitimate son (She did not tell because
she does not want her husband to leave her)
Held: Yes, their marriage can be declared null and void under Art. 36.
Reyess psychological incapacity was shown by medical means. There
is proof from experts that, indeed, Reyes is suffering a
mental/personality disorder. That is why their marriage was declared
null and void.
8.Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, October 19, 2000
Facts: Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and
they had five children. Alleging that the husband failed to provide
material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for
psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void
under Art. 36 which was however reversed by CA.
She was also really insecure and always jealous. She always call the
office of her husband to know what he is doing.
Based on the tests of Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede (psychiatrist) and Dr.
Arnulfo Lopez (clinical psychologist), Reyes is essentially normal,
introspective, shy and conservative. But her constant lying and
extreme jealousy is already pathological; it already impedes her
marital obligations.
The RTC sided with Antonio but CA reversed its decision.
Issue: Whether Antonio and Reyess marriage can be declared null and
void under Art. 36?
family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only
to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally
important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable,
especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum,
this Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of
the petitioner to show that the alleged psychological incapacity is
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurabilty and for
her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and
Molina.
that she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces
of jewelry of his mother,
9. Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997
Issue on homosexuality
FACTS:
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.
Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that Erlinda
failed to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary requirements.
Erlinda failed to comply with guideline number 2 which requires that
the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or
clinically proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor
testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.
Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was
not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested
was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not
given an opportunity to present controverting evidence since the trial
courts decision was prematurely rendered.
11. Pesca v. Pesca (G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001)
FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and had four
children. Lorna Pesca filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of her
husband. She alleged that he is emotionally immature and
irresponsible. He was cruel and violent. He was a habitual drinker.
Whenever she tells him to stop or at least minimize his drinking, her
husband would hurt her. There was even a time when she was chased
by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of their
children. The children also suffered physical violence. Petitioner and
their children left the home. Two months later, they returned upon the
promise of respondent to change. But he did not. She was battered
again. Her husband was imprisoned for 11 days for slight physical
injuries. RTC declared their marriage null and void. CA reversed
RTCs ruling. Hence, CAs ruling lead to this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the case of
Republic vs CA & Molina should be taken in consideration in deciding
in this case.
HELD: Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid down by the SC
before a case would fall under the category of psychological incapacity
to declare a marriage null and void. This decision has force and effect
of a law. These guidelines are mandatory in nature. Petition denied.
The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the Civil
Code, expresses that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The rule
follows the settled legal maxim legis interpretado legis vim obtinet
that the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent
court has the force of law.
12. Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 139509, July 31, 2000
FACTS: On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage
with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said marriage having been
annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a
second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25,
1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally
Hernandez.
Based on petitioners complaint affidavit, an information for bigamy
was filed against respondent on February 25, 1998, which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 226, Quezon City.
Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action for the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it
was celebrated without a marriage license.
Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the
criminal case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of
the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case. The
trial judge granted the motion to suspend the criminal case in an Order
dated December 29, 1998. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the same was denied.
The first marriage in the case before us was void for lack of a marriage
license. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that her marriage to
respondent was exempt from the requirement of a marriage license.
More specifically, petitioner claims that prior to their marriage, they
had already attained the age of majority and had been living together
as husband and wife for at least five years.
1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that his
son had been born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home
and cut short his contract to find Janets whereabouts. He did so by
securing another seamans contract going to London. He wrote several
letters to the bar where they first met but it was all returned. Gregorio
petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of presumptive death of Janet.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Nolascos efforts to locate Janet
were not persistent to show that he has a well-founded belief that his
wife was already dead because instead of seeking assistance of local
authorities and the British Embassy, he even secured another contract.
More so, while he was in London, he did not even try to solicit help of
the authorities to find his wife.
14. Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay (G.R. No. 183053, Oct. 10, 2012)
Facts: Upon the death of Cristina Suntay, two of her grandchildren
(Isabel, a legitimate grandchild, and Emilio III, an illegitimate
grandchild) both sought for the issuance of Letters of Administration
in their favor with respect to the settlement of the estate of Cristina.
The trial court granted the same in favor of Emilio III. The appellate
court reversed the trial court and appointed Isabel as the administration
of the estate. On appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, Isabel and
Emilio III were both appointed to the position, the two of them being
co- administrators. Isabel filed a Motion for reconsideration of this
decision.
ISSUE: WON husband can file for legal separation based on adultery
when (1) wife confessed to the adultery (2) did not actively search for
wife when she left conjugal home HELD: YES on both instances
1. what is prohibited is using ONLY the confession as grounds for
2. not his duty to search for her to bring her home. Hers was the
obligation to return. o Wife was the one who left the husband.
- Agreed with CA - his action was not filed within one year from
March 1951 when plaintiff discovered her infidelity. But still pushed
through with proceedings and reversed CAs decision.
16. Joaquino vs Reyes
Facts: Rodolfo A. Reyes and Lourdes P. Reyes were married on
January 3, 1947 but since 1962, Rodolfo had been living with his
paramour, Milagros B. Joaquino.- As Vice President and Comptroller
of Warner Barnes & Company, - Rodolfo obtained a loan of P140k
from Commonwealth Insurance Corporation in order to purchase a
house and lot in BF Homes, Paraaque. He also mortgaged the same
(through a Special Power of Attorney) to pay the balance of the
purchase price and secured a life insurance policy from Philam Life
Insurance Corporation to guaranty the payment where he paid monthly
amortizations. The property was registered under the name of Milagros
Joaquino only even though it was purchased with the earnings, and
hence conjugal funds, of Rodolfo.
- When Rodolfo died on September 12, 1981, Milagros and their
purchased the property by his own funds. And where his salaries are
considered cp, the loan and the purchased properties were also cp. On
the other hand, Milagros only showed Affidavits and undated
Certifications to prove that she purchased the properties by her own
money, borrowing from her siblings, selling jewellery and selling a
drugstore four years prior. The registration of the properties under
Milagros name can thus be considered only as a donation that is void
under NCC 739 (1) especially where Rodolfo intended to deprive
Lourdes of ownership over the properties. In terms of the illegitimate
childrens right to Rodolfos estate, their rights must be determined in
a special proceeding instituted for that purpose. The issue was not
raised or presented in the original and supplemental complaints for
reconveyance of property and damages, in the answers of Milagros and
her memorandum. Hence, the illegitimate filiation of her children
could not have been duly established in the case at bar.
o Art 153 what are conjugal properties
o Art 144 DOESNT APPLY common law marriages are entitled to
co-ownership (50/50) laws IF COUPLES ARE NOT
INCAPACITATED TO MARRY EACH OTHER WHICH IN THIS
CASE
X) applied to adultery/concubinage
co-ownership even though the couple are not capacitated to marry each
other.
-Petitioner sought partition of real properties and a substantial amount
of personal properties consisting of motor vehicles and several pieces
of jewelry. By dismissing petitioners complaint for partition on
grounds of due process and equity, the appellate court unwittingly
denied petitioner his right to prove ownership over the claimed real
and personal properties. The amended decision of the Court of
Appeals, dated May 7, 1998, is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Makati City for
further proceedings on the merits.
20. Atienza v. De Castro
Facts:Atienza, visiting his house in Makati wherein he has two
children with De Castro, saw the respondent Judge Brillantes sleeping
in his bed. The houseboy claimed that the judge had been cohabiting
with De Castro. Atienza files charges on the judge on the ground that
the respondent is already married and has five children. Judge denies
the claim of being married stating that the alleged union wasnt valid
because it lacked a marriage license. Although upon the request of the
womans parents they held another marriage ceremony later that year,
they still didnt apply for a marriage license. The woman abandoned
the Judge nineteen years ago leaving their children to his care. He
claims that Article 40 of the Family Code does not apply to him
considering that his first marriage took place in 1965 and was thus
governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines; while the second
marriage on 1991, governed by the Family Code.
Issue:
WON the judge can contract a second marriage without a judicial
declaration of nullity.
Held/Ratio:
No. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the
effectivity of the Family Code in 1988 regardless of the date of the
first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the FC, said Article is
expenses
23. Abbas v. Abbas (G.R. No. 183896, Jan. 30, 2013)
Facts: The case stems from a supposed marriage ceremony between
Pakistani SyedAzhar Abbas and Filipina Gloria Goo on January 9,
1993. The marriage contract stated that the couple was issued a
marriage license from Carmona, Cavite on January 8, 1993. The copy
of marriage license was apparently presented to the solemnizing
officer during the marriage ceremony.
In July 2003, Syed went to the Office of the Civil Registrar to secure a
copy of the marriage license in relation to a bigamy case filed by
Gloria. However, the Municipal Civil Registrar issued a certification
declaring that the office has not issued a marriage license to Syed and
Gloria. It further verified that the marriage license indicated in Syed
and Glorias marriage contract was issued to a different couple.
Syed filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gloria.
He argued that there was no actual marriage license issued to them
prior to the supposed marriage in January 1993. Gloria maintained, on
the other hand, that a valid marriage license existed. She presented
their marriage contract, photographs and testimonies of people present
during the marriage ceremony to negate the certification from the
municipal civil registrar. She countered that a certain Qualin
secured the marriage license for her and Syed. But she was not able to
present a copy of the actual marriage license.
RTC ruled that there was no valid marriage license issued by the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona. CA ruled that there was a valid
marriage license because the certification of the Municipal Civil
Registrar failed to categorically state that a diligent search for the
marriage license of Gloria and Syed was conducted, and thus held that
said certification could not be accorded probative value
Issue: WON a valid marriage license was issued to Syed and Gloria
Held: No. Contrary to the ruling of the CA, proof does exist of a
diligent search having been conducted, as Marriage License No.
996967 was indeed located and submitted to the court. The fact that
for bigamy. Yes, what makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is
when he contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage. Parties to the marriage should not be
permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the
nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long
as there is no declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists.
Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for bigamy.
26. Charles Gotardo v. Divina Buling G.R. No. 165166 August 15,
2012
FACTS: 1.On September 6, 1995, respondent Divina Buling filed a
complaint with the RTC of Maasin, Southern Leyte, for compulsory
recognition and support pendente lite, claiming that the Charles
Gotardo is the father of her child Gliffze. (answer) Petitioner denied
the paternity.
2. Parties failed to amicably settle the dispute, the RTC terminated the
pre-trial proceedings. Trial on the merits ensued.
3.Evidence for Divina (casual employee) showed that she met Charles
(accounting supervisor) on December 1, 1992 at the Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank, Maasin, Southern Leyte branch.
4. Charles courted Divina in the third week of December 1992 and
they became sweethearts in the last week of January 1993. Charles
gave the respondent greeting cards on special occasions, (Valentines
Day and her birthday); she reciprocated his love and took care of him
when he was ill.
5. In September 1993, Charles started intimate sexual relations with
the respondent in the formers rented room in the boarding house
managed by Rodulfo (Divinas uncle). Rented the room from March 1,
1993 to August 30, 1994.
6. The sexual encounters occurred twice a month and became more
frequent in June 1994;
eventually, on August 8, 1994, she got pregnant. Charles was happy
and made plans to marry
Divina. BUT, Charles backed out of the wedding plan. (Divina filed
for damages for breach of promise to marry but was amicably settled).
7. Divina gave birth to Gliffze on March 9, 1995. (When Charles did
not show up and failed to provide support to Gliffze, Divina sent him a
demand letter on July 24, 1995 for recognition and support of their
son)
8.Due to unanswered demand, Divina took her demands in Court.
9.Charles denied being Gliffzes father in Court.
RTC approved monthly child support.
RTC (appeal) reversed former decision
CA ordered Charles to recognize Gliffze and give monthly child
support
ISSUE: WON Gliffze is entitled to receive child support and to be
recognized as Charles son.
HELD: YES. One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate,
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final
judgment, an admission of filiation in a public document or a private
handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or the
open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate or
illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court
and special laws.
We explained that a prima facie case exists if a woman declaressupported by corroborative proof- that she had sexual relationship with
the putative father; at this point, the burden of evidence shifts to the
putative father. We explained further that two affirmative defenses