De Castro v De Castro, G.R. No.

160172, February 13, 2008

-Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)-

Facts:
The couple (petitioner and respondent) executed an affidavit (March 13, 1995) stating that they
had been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years. They married on the same day,
however they did not live together as a couple. Respondent gave birth to a child (Reianna) on Nov.
13, 1995. On June 4, 1998, the respondent files a complaint for support against the alleged father,
the petitioner.
The trial court ruled that the marriage was not valid because it was solemnized without a marriage
license. However, it declared that the petitioner was the natural father and he is obliged to give
support to the child.
Petitioner appealed at the CA. CA modified the ruling stating that the marriage is valid until
properly annulled; declared that the Reianna was the legitimate child of both the petitioner and
respondent.

Issue(s):
Whether or not the marriage is valid.
Whether or not the child is the daughter of the petitioner.

Ruling/Held:
The marriage is valid. The affidavit filed was by both parties was a false one rendering absence of
a valid marriage. Thus, the marriage is void under the FC, article 2 and 3.
The child is the petitioners legitimate daughter, and therefore entitled to support. The evidence of
the Certificate of Live Birth of the child lists petitioner as the father. Due to the fact that both the
petitioner and the respondent were in a relationship where both were engaged in sex compels the
court that Reianna is the daughter of the petitioner.
Eugenio v. Velez, G.R. No. 85140 May 17, 1990

-Petitions for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of RTC-Cagayan de Oro-

Facts:
On Aug. 28. 1988, unaware of the death of Vitaliana Vargas, her sibling filed for a petition for
Habeas Corpus. According to the petitioner, the corpse cannot be subjected to the petition for
Habeas Corpus and he had already obtained a burial permit. As the common law husband,
petitioner claimed legal custody of the body.

Issue:
Whether or not Eugenio should be considered the lawfully wedded spouse, therein, being the
rightful custodian of the corpse.

Ruling/Held:
Eugenio was not the lawfully wedded spouse of Vitaliana, in fact, he was not legally capacitated
to marry her in her lifetime. The Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages.
Custody of the corpse was correctly awarded to the surviving brothers and sister. (section 1103,
Revised Administrative Court)

N.B. Habeas Corpus became moot and academic due to the death of the person (Vitaliana)
allegedly restrained of liberty.
Republic v Tampus, GR 214243, March 16, 2016

-Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA-

Facts:
On Nov. 29, 1975, Nilda Tampus was married to Dante Del Munod in Cordova Cebu. On Dec. 2,
1975, as a member of the AFP, Del Mundo was designated for a mission to Jolo, Sulu. They had
no children. On April 4, 2009, after 33 years without any kind of communication from Del
Mundo, Tampus filed before the RTC a petition of Declaration of Presumptive Death, on the
same day, RTC granted her petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) file for certiorari
before the CA, however, CA denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in upholding the RTC decision declaring Del Mundo as
presumptively dead.

Ruling/Held:
The resolution of the CA was reversed. Tampus simply allowed the passage of time without
actively and diligently searching for her husband, which the Court cannot accept as a well
founded belief that Del Mundo was dead. She could have inquired from the AFP on the status
of the mission but she did not.
Castillo vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 189607, Apr. 18, 2016

Facts:
On May 25, 1972, respondent Lea De Leon-Castillo married Benjamin Bautista. In Jan. 6, 1979,
respondent married petitioner (Renato Castillo). Prior to her marriage with the petitioner, she
stated when said petitioner filed a petition for a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
May 28, 2001, that her marriage to Bautista was null and void but was unable to secure any
license of the nullity. She then secured a certificate of Finality at RTC-Paranaque dated Jan. 22,
2003 and she filed of a Demurer of Evidence in which RTC-QC denied it; moreover, the RTC
declared that their marriage was null and void.
CA, on the other hand, revered the ruling and upheld the validity of the parties marriage.
According to the CA, the Civil Code was the applicable law and not the Family Code since the
respondents marriages was solemnized in 1972 (Bautista) and 1979 (Renato). Furthermore, CA
ruled that under the Civil Code at that time, a judicial decree was not necessary to establish the
nullity of the marriage.

Issue:
Whether or not the judicial declaration is necessary to establish the nullity of marriage.

Ruling:
No. The law in for at the time Lea, the respondent, contracted both marriages was the Civil Code
and not the Family Code. And under the Civil Code at that time, void marriage differs from a
voidable marriage, in a void marriage no judicial decree to establish the invalidity is necessary,
while in voidable marriages there must be a judicial decree.

The Civil Code contained no expressed provision on the necessity of a judicial declaration of
nullity of a void marriage. Whereas, When the FC was enacted, a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity is now expressly required.

The same also applies to the children being born somewhere in 1979, 1981, and 1985.