GARCIA VS RECIO G.R. 138322 Oct 2 2001
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. n Ma! 18, 1989 a decree o" di#orce dissol#in$ the marria$e was issued %! the Australian Famil! &ourt. n 'une (), 199(, Recio %ecame an Australian citizen. citizen. Su%se*uentl!, Recio entered into marria$e with +race +arcia, a Filipina, on 'anuar! 1(, 199. Startin$ cto%er ((, 199-, Recio and +arcia li#ed separatel! without prior udicial dissolution o" their marria$e. n March /, 1998, +arcia "iled a complaint "or 0eclaration o" ullit! o" Marria$e on the $round o" %i$am!. Recio contended that his prior marria$e had %een #alidl! dissol#ed %! a decree o" di#orce o%tained in Australia Australia thus he is le$all! capacitated to marr ! +arcia. 2he trial court rendered the decision declarin$ the marria$e %etween +arcia and Recio dissol#ed and %oth parties can now remarr!. 3ence, this petition. ISSUE: 4hether or not the di#orce o%tained %! Recio in Australia Australia ipso "acto capacitated him to remarr!. HELD: 2he S& remanded the case to the court a *uo to recei#e e#idence. 5ased on the records, the court cannot conclude that Recio who was then a naturalized Australian citizen was le$all! capacitated to marr! +arcia. either can the court $rant +arcia6s pra!er to declare her marria$e null and #oid on the $round o" %i$am!. %i$am!. A"ter all it ma! ma ! turn out that under Australian law he was reall! capacitated to marr! +arcia as result o" the di#orce decree. 2he S& laid down the "ollowin$ %asic le$al principles a marria$e %etween two Filipino cannot %e dissol#ed e#en %! a di#orce decree o%tained a%road %ecause o" Articles 1- and 17 o" the &i#il &ode.
CANG VS CA Case Digest: G. R. No. 105308. 105308. Septembe 25! 1998 25! 1998 3er%ert &an$, petitioner, #s. &ourt o" Appeals and Spouses Ronald . . &la#ano and Maria &lara &la#ano, respondents.
Facts :etitioner and Ana Marie &la#ano were married and %e$ot three children. Ana Marie upon learnin$ o" her hus%and;s illicit liaison "ile a petition "or le$al separation with alimon! pendente lite which was appro#ed. :etitioner then le"t "or the
ssue 4hether petitioner has a%andoned his children, there%! makin$ his consent to the adoption necessar!. Rulin$ 2he law is clear that either parent ma! lose parental authorit! o#er the child onl! "or a #alid reason. o such reason was esta%lished in the le$al separation case. 0epri#ation o" parental authorit! is one o" the e""ects o" a decree o" adoption. 5ut there cannot %e a #alid decree o" adoption in this case precisel! %ecause the "indin$s "indin$s o" the lower courts courts on the issue o" a%andonment a%andonment o" "acts on record. record. 2he petition "or adoption adoption must %e denied as it was was "iled without the the re*uired consent o" their their "ather who, %! law and under the "acts o" the case at %ar, has not a%andoned them.
"e#c$a%e& "e#c$a%e& %s Esca#o 15 Sca 25'
2orts 2orts and 0ama$es ? 4hen @ia%ilit! "or uasi 0elict Arises ? n Fe%rua Fe%ruar! r! 198, 198, 2ench 2encha#e a#ezz and EscaB EscaBo o secret secretl! l! marrie married d each each other other and o" course course withou withoutt the knowled$e o" EscaBo6s parents who were o" prominent social status. 2he marria$e was cele%rated %! a militar! chaplain. 4hen EscaBo6s parents learned o" this, the! insisted a church weddin$ to %e held %ut EscaBo withdrew "rom ha#in$ a recele%ration %ecause she heard that 2encha#ez was ha#in$ an a""air with another woman. E#entuall!, their relationship went sour ( !ears later, EscaBo went to the n 19--, 19--, 2ench 2encha#e a#ezz initia initiated ted a case case "or le$al le$al separa separatio tion n and "urthe "urtherr alle$e alle$ed d that that EscaBo EscaBo6s 6s parent parentss dissuaded their dau$hter to $o a%road and causin$ her to %e estran$ed "rom him hence he6s askin$ "or dama$es in the amount o" :1,CCC,CCC.CC. 2he lower court did not $rant the le$al separation %ein$ sou$ht "or and at the sa me time awarded a :-,CCC.CC worth o" counter=claim %! the EscaBos. ISSUE: 4hether or not dama$es should %e awarded to either part! in the case at %ar HELD: Des.
n the part o" 2encha#ez 3is marria$e with EscaBo was a secret one and the "ailure o" said marria$e did not result to pu%lic humiliation that the! ne#er li#ed to$ether and he e#en consented to annullin$ the marria$e earlier %ecause EscaBo "iled "or annulment %e"ore she le"t "or the
"e#c$a%e& "e#c$a%e& %s Esca#o 15 Sca 25'
2orts 2orts and 0ama$es ? 4hen @ia%ilit! "or uasi 0elict Arises ? n Fe%rua Fe%ruar! r! 198, 198, 2ench 2encha#e a#ezz and EscaB EscaBo o secret secretl! l! marrie married d each each other other and o" course course withou withoutt the knowled$e o" EscaBo6s parents who were o" prominent social status. 2he marria$e was cele%rated %! a militar! chaplain. 4hen EscaBo6s parents learned o" this, the! insisted a church weddin$ to %e held %ut EscaBo withdrew "rom ha#in$ a recele%ration %ecause she heard that 2encha#ez was ha#in$ an a""air with another woman. E#entuall!, their relationship went sour ( !ears later, EscaBo went to the n 19--, 19--, 2ench 2encha#e a#ezz initia initiated ted a case case "or le$al le$al separa separatio tion n and "urthe "urtherr alle$e alle$ed d that that EscaBo EscaBo6s 6s parent parentss dissuaded their dau$hter to $o a%road and causin$ her to %e estran$ed "rom him hence he6s askin$ "or dama$es in the amount o" :1,CCC,CCC.CC. 2he lower court did not $rant the le$al separation %ein$ sou$ht "or and at the sa me time awarded a :-,CCC.CC worth o" counter=claim %! the EscaBos. ISSUE: 4hether or not dama$es should %e awarded to either part! in the case at %ar HELD: Des.
n the part o" 2encha#ez 3is marria$e with EscaBo was a secret one and the "ailure o" said marria$e did not result to pu%lic humiliation that the! ne#er li#ed to$ether and he e#en consented to annullin$ the marria$e earlier %ecause EscaBo "iled "or annulment %e"ore she le"t "or the
>t is true that the :1,CCC,CCC.CC "or dama$es suit %! 2encha#ez a$ainst the EscaBos is un"ounded and the same same must must ha#e ha#e wound wounded ed their their "eelin "eelin$s $s and caused caused them them anGiet! anGiet!,, the same could in no wa! ha#e ha#e seriousl! inured their reputation, or otherwise preudiced them, lawsuits ha#in$ %ecome a common occurrence in present societ!. 4hat is important, and has %een correctl! esta%lished in the decision o" the lower court, is that the! were not $uilt! o" an! improper conduct in the whole deplora%le a""air. 2he S& reduced the dama$es awarded "rom :-,CCC.CC to :-,CCC.CC :-, CCC.CC onl!.
REC"O %s (a)e# [G.R. No. L-22174. July 21, 1967.] ESPERANA P. DE HARDEN, *+ai#ti,, HARDEN, *+ai#ti,, , !. "RED #. HARDEN, E$ AL., De,e#)a#ts AL., De,e#)a#ts.. AUR%RA R. DE RE&$%, A'()*)+)/ A'()*)+)/ o0 E+ o0 &lo #. R3o, 3l)(*-ll, !. J%SE SALU#5IDES, Opposito-Appe++a#t . Rol)o # . Jl*'o*) 0o Opposito-Appe++a#t . R3o L %00)3+ 0o C+aima#t-Appe++ee. C+aima#t-Appe++ee.
SLLA5US
1. A22RED=A2=@A4 &M:ESA2> A22RED6S @>E 5AR 5D :R>R '<0+ME2 &ASE A2 5AR. H 2he de"ense o" %ar %! prior ud$ment which rests upon the lower court6s orders o" 0ecem%er 7, 19-/ and 'anuar! (, 19-) cannot prosper where said court orders were su%se*uentl! eGpressl! declared erroneous and alread! superseded and re#ersed %! the later court orders o" 0ecem%er 1, 19--, 'ul! 1, 19-7 and Fe%ruar! (1, 19-8. (. >0. >0. >0 :RES&R>:2> @A&3ES &ASE A2 5AR. H E#en i" the period "or %rin$in$ the action %e "i#e !ears as appellant su$$ests, still the same has not !et lapsed. 2he di#idends %ein$ liti$ated were declared "rom April 1-, 19-C to 'ul! (, 19--. 5ut the recei#er6s letter o" Ma! 9, 19-/ askin$ "or the di#idends and claimant6s motions o" o#em%er , 19-/, 0ecem%er 1-, 19--, April , 19-7, Fe%ruar! 1C, 19-8 and o#em%er (7, 19)1, to the same e""ect, seasona%l! interrupted the prescripti#e period. 2hese eGtraudicial and udicial demands also ne$ati#e laches on claimant6s part. /. >0. >0. >0. A&<>S>2>E :RES&R>:2> &ASE A2 5AR. H Salum%ides could not ac*uire the di#idends in *uestion %! prescription since he possessed them, not in concept o" owner, ad#erse to the 3ardens, %ut rather as attorne!=in="act o" Mr. 3arden. . >0. >0. >0. 4A>ER, &ASE A2 5AR. H Recto6s demand "or the :(C,-/1.CC cash di#idends which were declared "rom 0ecem%er 1, 19-- to 0ecem%er 1, 19-), is not a wai#er o" the pre#ious di#idends. 3e merel! wanted to satis"! his ud$ment credit "rom amon$ an! o" the 3arden assets a#aila%le. Since the later di#idends "ailed to "ull! satis"! the ud$ment, Recto could still en"orce his #alid claims a$ainst the pre#ious di#idends. As to the cash di#idend o" cto%er /, 19--, the order o" 0ecem%er 1, 19-- is #er! clear that it Ishall not constitute a precedent with respect to the disposition o" all di#idends whether alread! declared or to %e hereina"ter declared.I 2he de"ense o" wai#er, there"ore, "ails. -. >0. >0. >0. EFFE&2 F 0EA23 F A :AR2D 0+ :E0E&D F &@A>M &ASE A2 5AR. H Recto6s claim, not %ein$ a mone! claim under the Rules, need not %e made in the administration proceedin$s o" Mr. 3arden6s estate, notwithstandin$ the latter6s death durin$ the pendenc! o" these proceedin$s. Recto6s claim is neither a claim nor a ud$ment "or mone! directed a$ainst the decedent, Mr. 3arden, %ut is "ounded on a personal o%li$ation o" Mrs. 3arden. 5ut $rantin$ that Recto6s claim is a mone! claim, this &ourt has alread! ruled that a char$in$ lien esta%lished on the propert! in liti$ation to secure pa!ment o" attorne!6s "ees partakes o" the nature o" a collateral securit! or o" a lien on real propert!, the en"orcement o" which need not %e made in the administration proceedin$s.
DE&ISI% N
5ENG%N, J.P., .:
Fred 3arden, an American citizen, and Esperanza :erez were married in the :hilippines on 0ecem%er 1, 1917. 2he! li#ed to$ether, ac*uirin$ considera%le conu$al properties, until 19/8 when the! separated. >n 'ul! 191, Mrs. 3arden hired the late &laro M. Recto as her counsel in the suit she was contemplatin$ to "ile a$ainst her hus%and. >n their contract, she a$reed, inter alia, to pa! Recto (CJ o" her share in the conu$al partnership. n 'ul! 1(, 191, Mrs. 3arden, thru Recto, "iled her complaint "or administration andKor accountin$ o" the conu$al properties a$ainst Mr. 3arden, and 'ose Salum%ides, herein oppositor= appellant, as his attorne!=in="act. 2he war suspended the proceedin$s. A"ter li%eration, the records o" the
case were reconstituted and on o#em%er (C, 19), the conu$al properties o" the 3arden spouses were placed under recei#ership. n cto%er /1, 199, the lower court rendered ud$ment "or Mrs. 3arden. Mr. 3arden appealed to this &ourt 1 and then le"t the :hilippines. Mrs. 3arden must ha#e "ollowed her hus%and "or in 'anuar! (9, 19-(, an amica%le settlement was e""ected %etween them in &anada. As a conse*uence thereo", Recto was instructed %! Mrs. 3arden to discontinue the proceedin$s. n Fe%ruar! (C, 19-(, Recto "iled a motion in the Supreme &ourt to esta%lish his attorne!6s char$in$ lien. 2he 3ardens opposed. 2his &ourt, %! resolution dated 'ul! ((, 19-(, remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount o" Recto6s attorne!6s "ees. 5ut all the ancillar! writs and processes issued in the case were dissol#ed eGcept the recei#ership on the conu$al properties, which was maintained. Su%se*uentl!, the lower court, a"ter hearin$, held that Recto was entitled to :/8,11C.97 as counsel "ees. Mrs. 3arden appealed to this &ourt ( which upheld Recto %ut modi"ied the amount to :/C,11C.97 onl!. n 'anuar! ((, 19-7, Recto mo#ed "or eGecution o" the ud$ment. 2he lower court ha#in$ $ranted the motion, the 3ardens went on certiorari / to this &ourt. 4e dismissed the petition on Au$ust (, 19-7 "or lack o" merit. Recto was then a%le to secure an alias writ o" eGecution. A$ain this was *uestioned on certiorari %! the 3ardens in this &ourt. n Fe%ruar! 1C, 19-8, 4e upheld Recto once more. 2his "inall! ena%led the latter to le#! upon the stocks and other properties o" the 3ardens, the pu%lic sales o" which realized :1CC,8C-.CC. A %alance o" :(C/,/C-.97 thus remained in Recto6s "a#or. n 'ul! (, 19-8, Recto mo#ed eG parte to le#! on other shares o" stock owned %! the 3ardens %ut re$istered in the name o" Salum%ides, includin$ the 1C,)/8 shares in the Suri$ao &onsolidated Minin$ &o. nc.I Salum%ides6 motion to reconsider this order was denied. n Fe%ruar! 1C, 19-8, Recto mo#ed "or a writ o" eGecution to implement the order o" 'ul! 1, 19-7. 2his was appro#ed on Fe%ruar! (1, 19-8. Salum%ides "iled a motion to reconsider, claimin$ that he owned the di#idends pertainin$ to the 1C,)/8 shares. n 'ul! /C, 19-9, the lower court ordered Salum%ides to compl! with the order o" 'ul! 1, 19-7 %! depositin$ :(C,-/1.9C in the &ommercial 5ank N 2rust &o. 2he latter mo#ed "or reconsideration alle$in$, inter alia, that he had spent :-,9CC.99 as eGpenses "or the 3ardens "rom 19-- to 19-7 and "or which he must %e reim%ursed. 4hen this was denied, a second motion to reconsider was "iled, Salum%ides claimin$ that the :(C,-/1.9C cash di#idends had alread! %een dis%ursed "or the %ene"it o" the 3arden "amil!. n Au$ust (9, 19)1, the lower court, a"ter hearin$ and presentation o" e#idence, denied the second motion to reconsider, holdin$ that the alle$ed incurrin$ o" eGpenses %! Salum%ides was a mere a"terthou$ht concocted %! him. :reliminar! steps were taken %! Salum%ides to appeal this order. Meanwhile, on cto%er (, 19)C, Recto died and his wi"e, as his administratriG, was su%stituted as claimant. n cto%er 7, 19)1, the lower court
re*uired Salum%ides to su%mit a :(-,CCC.CC supersedeas %ond to pre#ent eGecution pendin$ appeal. 2his compelled Salum%ides to a%andon the intended appeal. n cto%er (/, 19)1, he deposited :(C,-/1.9C in the %ank in compliance with the order o" Au$ust (9, 19)1. n o#em%er (1, 19)1, Mrs. Recto, with court appro#al, withdrew :(-,CCC.CC "rom the 3arden "unds under recei#ership in the %ank, thus r educin$ the ud$ment %alance to :/C,)(.CC. n o#em%er (7, 19)1, Mrs. Recto mo#ed "or "ull compliance with the order o" 'ul! 1, 19-7 to satis"! the remainin$ ud$ment %alance, rel!in$ upon a statement ) issued %! the Suri$ao &onsolidated that "rom April 1-, 19-C to 'ul! (, 19--, Salum%ides had recei#ed all the cash di#idends on the 1C,)/8 shares, amountin$ to :)C,797.(9. Resol#in$ the motion and opposition interposed %! Salum%ides, the lower court on 0ecem%er 11, 19)( ordered Salum%ides to deposit :/C,)(.CC in the &ommercial 5ank and 2rust &ompan! "or "inal satis"action o" the ud$ment %alance in Recto6s "a#or. 2his is the incident under the present appeal, "irst taken to the &ourt o" Appeals %ut su%se*uentl! certi"ied to nc.Icralaw #irtua1aw li%rar! clearl! includes all di#idends recei#ed as o" then %! Salum%ides. 2he Suri$ao &onsolidated statement dated April -, 19-7 shows that the cash di#idends on the 1C,)/8 shares "rom April 1-, 19-C to 'ul! 19-had also %een deli#ered to and alread! recei#ed % ! Salum%ides. And the lower court "ound, in its order o" Au$ust (9, 19)1, that Salum%ides ne#er appealed the order o" 'ul! 1, 19-7. 3ence the same can no lon$er %e *uestioned now. Salum%ides would also ar$ue that those di#idends had alread! %een dis%ursed %! him "or the %ene"it o" the 3arden "amil!. 2his *uestion, howe#er, had alread! %een raised and ar$ued twice %e"ore the lower court which tried and decided it ad#ersel! in the order o" Au$ust (9, 19)1. Althou$h Salum%ides "iled his notice o" appeal and appeal %ond, the appeal was ne#er reall! pursued. >n "act, on cto%er (/, 19)1, he mani"ested to the lower court that he had alread! complied with the order o" Au$ust (9, 19)1, thus makin$ the same "inal and conclusi#e as a$ainst him. 2he de"enses o" a %ar %! prior ud$ments, % prescription, eGtincti#e and ac*uisiti#e, c laches, and d wai#er, set up %! Salum%ides, are without merit. For the "irst, he would rel! upon the lower court6s orders o" 0ecem%er 7, 19-/ and 'anuar! (, 19-), which declared that the recei#ership did not include "uture di#idends on the shares o" stock. 5ut the more recent order o" Au$ust (9, 19)1 eGpressl! declared these orders erroneous and alread! superseded and re#ersed %! the later court orders o" 0ecem%er 1, 19--, 'ul! 1, 19-7 and Fe%ruar! (1, 19-8. 2here could %e no prescription, eGtincti#e or ac*uisiti#e. E#en i" the period "or %rin$in$ the action %e "i#e !ears as appellant su$$ests, still the same has not !et lapsed. 2he di#idends %ein$ liti$ated were declared "rom April 1-, 19-C to 'ul! (, 19--. 5ut the recei#er6s letter o" Ma! 9, 19-/ 7 askin$ "or the di#idends and claimant6s motions o" o#em%er , 19-/, 0ecem%er 1-, 19--, April , 19-7, Fe%ruar! 1C, 19-8 and o#em%er (7, 19)1, to the same e""ect, seasona%l! interrupted the prescripti#e period. 2hese eGtraudicial and udicial demands also ne$ati#e laches on claimant6s part. Salum%ides could not ac*uire the di#idends in *uestion %! prescription since he possessed them, not in
concept o" owner, ad#erse to the 3ardens, %ut rather as attorne!=in="act o" Mr. 3arden. 3e "irst claimed ownership onl! in his omni%us opposition dated 'ul! 1, 19-7. 5ut two !ears later, or on Au$ust (, 19-9, in his motion to reconsider, Salum%ides admitted that these di#idends %elon$ed to the 3ardens. either is Recto6s demand "or the :(C,-/1.CC cash di#idends which were declared "rom 0ecem%er 1, 19-- to 0ecem%er 1, 19-), a wai#er o" the pre#ious di#idends. 3e merel! wanted to satis"! his ud$ment credit "rom amon$ an! o" the 3arden assets a#aila%le. Since the later di#idends "ailed to "ull! satis"! the ud$ment, Recto could still en"orce his #alid claim a$ainst the pre#ious di#idends. As to the cash di#idend o" cto%er /, 19--, the order o" 0ecem%er 1, 19-- is #er! clear that it Ishall not constitute a precedent with respect to the disposition o" all di#idends whether alread! declared or to %e hereina"ter declared.I 2he de"ense o" wai#er, there"ore, "ails. @astl!, appellant would insist that upon the death o" Mr. 3arden in &anada on Ma ! 1, 19-9, or durin$ the pendenc! o" the proceedin$s, Recto6s claim should ha#e %een "orthwith dismissed and "iled in the administration proceedin$s o" Mr. 3arden6s estate. 5ut appellant erroneousl! assumes that Recto6s claim is a Imone! claimI under the Rules 8 when it is neither a claim nor a ud$ment "or mone! directed a$ainst the decedent, Mr. 3arden. Recto6s claim is "ounded on a personal o%li$ation o" Mrs. 3arden. 5ut $rantin$ that Recto6s claim is a mone! claim a$ainst Mr. 3arden, that would not help appellant an!. 4e ha#e alread! ruled 9 that a char$in$ lien esta%lished on the propert! in liti$ation to secure pa!ment o" attorne!6s "ees partakes o" the nature o" a collateral securit! or o" a lien on real or personal propert!, the en"orcement o" which need not %e made in the administration proceedin$s. 4here"ore, the order appealed "rom is here%! a""irmed. &osts a$ainst oppositor=appellant. So ordered. Re!es, ' .5.@., Makalintal, Oaldi#ar, Sanchez, &astro, An$eles and Fernando, JJ., concur. &oncepcion, C.J. and 0izon, J., are on o""icial lea#e.
Va# Do# %s Romi++o 13/ SCRA 13/
"A&$S:
:etitioner Alice Re!es Filipino and pri#ate respondent Richard
>s respondent estopped "rom la!in$ claim on the alle$ed conu$al propert! %ecause o" the representation he made in the di#orce proceedin$s that the! had no communit! propert!. HELD:
>t is true that owin$ to the nationalit! principle em%odied in Article 1- o" the &i#il &ode, onl! :hilippine nationals are co#ered %! the polic! a$ainst a%solute di#orces the same %ein$ considered contrar! to our concept o" pu%lic polic! and moralit!. 3owe#er, aliens ma! o%tain di#orces a%road, which ma! %e reco$nized in the :hilippines, pro#ided the! are #alid accordin$ to their national law. >n this case, the di#orce in e#ada released pri#ate respondent "rom the marria$e "rom the standard o" American law, under which di#orce dissol#es the marria$e. :ursuant to his national law, pri#ate respondent is no lon$er the hus%and o" petitioner. 3e would ha#e no standin$ to use in the case %elow as petitioner6s hus%and entitled to eGercise control o#er conu$al assets. As he is %ound %! the 0ecision o" his own countr!6s &ourt, which #alidl! eGercises urisdiction o#er him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped %! his own representation %e"ore said &ourt "rom assertin$ his ri$ht o#er the alle$ed conu$al propert!. 2o maintain, as pri#ate respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to %e considered still married to pri#ate respondent and still su%ect to a wi"e6s o%li$ation under Article 1C9 o" the &i#il &ode cannot %e usti"ied. :etitioner should not %e o%li$ed to li#e to$ether with, o%ser#e respect and "idelit!, and render support to pri#ate respondent. 2he latter should not continue to %e one o" her heirs with possi%le ri$hts to conu$al propert!. She should not %e discriminated a$ainst in her own countr! i" the ends o" ustice are to %e ser#ed.
*IA*I %s. (ON IA-SOERA! VIC"OR AND GEIING et a+ G.R. No. 8116 Ju* , 1989 "A&$S :etitioner >melda :ilapil, a Filipino citizen, and pri#ate respondent Erich +eilin$, a +erman national, were married in +erman!. A"ter a%out three and a hal" !ears o" marria$e, such connu%ial disharmon! e#entuated in +eilin$ initiatin$ a di#orce proceedin$ a$ainst :ilapil in +erman!. 2he @ocal &ourt, Federal Repu%lic o" +erman!, promul$ated a decree o" di#orce on the $round o" "ailure o" marria$e o" the spouses.
More than "i#e months a"ter the issuance o" the di#orce decree, +eilin$ "iled two complaints "or adulter! %e"ore the &it! Fiscal o" Manila alle$in$ in one that, while still married to said +eilin$, :ilapil Qhad an a""air with a certain 4illiam &hia. 2he Assistant Fiscal, a"ter the correspondin$ in#esti$ation, recommended the dismissal o" the cases on the $round o" insu""icienc! o" e#idence. 3owe#er, upon re#iew, the respondent cit! "iscal ictor appro#ed a resolution directin$ the "ilin$ o" ( complaint "or adulter! a$ainst the petitioner. 2he case entitled Q:: :hilippines #s. :ilapil and &hia was assi$ned to the court presided %! the respondent ud$e >%a!=Somera. A motion to *uash was "iled in the same case which was denied %! the respondent. :ilapil "iled this special ci#il action "or certiorari and prohi%ition, with a pra!er "or a 2R, seekin$ the annulment o" the order o" the lower court den!in$ her motion to *uash. As co$entl! ar$ued %! :ilapil, Article / o" the R:& thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still su%sistin$ at the time o" the institution o" the criminal action "or adulter!. ISSUE 0id +eilin$ ha#e le$al capacit! at the time o" the "ilin$ o" the complaint "or adulter!, considerin$ that it was done a"ter o%tainin$ a di#orce decree HELD 43EREFRE, the *uestioned order den!in$ petitioner6s M2 is SE2 AS>0E and another one entered 0>SM>SS>+ the complaint T "or lack o" urisdiction. 2he 2R issued in this case T is here%! made permanent. N%
t has lon$ since %een esta%lished, with unwa#erin$ consistenc!, that compliance with this rule is a urisdictional, and not merel! a "ormal, re*uirement. &orollar! to such eGclusi#e $rant o" power to the o""ended spouse to institute the action, it necessaril! "ollows that such initiator must ha#e the status, capacit! or le$al representation to do so at the time o" the "ilin$ o" the criminal action. 2his is a lo$ical conse*uence since the raison d6etre o" said pro#ision o" law would %e a%sent where the supposed o""ended part! had ceased to %e the spouse o" the alle$ed o""ender at the time o" the "ilin$ o" the criminal case. Stated di""erentl!, the in*uir! would %e whether it is necessar! in the commencement o" a criminal action "or adulter! that the marital %onds %etween the complainant and the accused %e unse#ered and eGistin$ at the time o" the institution o" the action % ! the "ormer a$ainst the latter.
>n the present case, the "act that pri#ate respondent o%tained a #alid di#orce in his countr!, the Federal Repu%lic o" +erman!, is admitted. Said di#orce and its le$al e""ects ma! %e reco$nized in the :hilippines inso"ar as pri#ate respondent is concerned in #iew o" the nationalit! principle in our ci#il law on the matter o" status o" persons
Bigamy – Void Marriage 0urin$ his li"etime, Felicisimo Rodol"o6s dad contracted three marria$es. 3is "irst marria$e was with ir$inia Sulit on March 17, 19( out o" which were %orn siG children. n Au$ust 11, 19)/, ir$inia predeceased Felicisimo. Fi#e !ears later, on Ma! 1, 19)8, Felicisimo married Merr! @ee &orwin, with whom he had a son, 2o%ias. 3owe#er, on cto%er 1-, 1971, Merr! @ee, an American citizen, "iled a &omplaint "or 0i#orce %e"ore the Famil! &ourt o" the First &ircuit, State o" 3awaii, which issued a 0ecree +rantin$ A%solute 0i#orce and Awardin$ &hild &ustod! on 0ecem%er 1, 197/. n 'une (C, 197, Felicisimo married Felicidad San @uis, then surnamed Sa$alon$os. 3e had no children with respondent %ut li#ed with her "or 18 !ears "rom the time o" their marria$e up to his death on 0ecem%er 18, 199(. nGarcia v. Recio, the &ourt laid down the speci"ic $uidelines "or pleadin$ and pro#in$ "orei$n law and di#orce ud$ments. >t held that presentation solel! o" the di#orce decree is insu""icient and that proo" o" its authenticit! and due eGecution must %e presented. " the record is not kept in the :hilippines, such cop! must %e a accompanied %! a certi"icate issued %! the
proper diplomatic or consular o""icer in the :hilippine "orei$n ser#ice stationed in the "orei$n countr! in which the record is kept and % authenticated %! the seal o" his o""ice. 4ith re$ard to respondent6s marria$e to Felicisimo alle$edl! solemnized in &ali"ornia, <.S.A., she su%mitted photocopies o" the Marria$e &erti"icate and the annotated teGt o" the Famil! @aw Act o" &ali"ornia which purportedl! show that their marria$e was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, howe#er, the &ourt cannot take udicial notice o" "orei$n laws as the! must %e alle$ed and pro#ed. 2he case should %e remanded to the trial court "or "urther reception o" e#idence on the di#orce decree o%tained %! Merr! @ee and the marria$e o" respondent and Felicisimo.
9I"A %s Ca 300 S 60'
ioe#ie Vs CA GR 12631 11723700
ationalit! :rinciple @orenzo and petitioner :aula @lorente was married %e"ore a parish priest. 5e"ore the out%reak o" war, @orenzo departed "or the n an 0orn #s Ramillo 'r. the Supreme &ourt held that owin$ to the nationalit! principle em%odied in Article 1- o" the &i#il &ode, onl! :hilippine nationals are co#ered %! the polic! a$ainst a%solute di#orce. >n the same case, the &ourt ruled that aliens ma! o%tain di#orce a%road pro#ided that the! are #alid accordin$ to their national law. 2he Supreme &ourt held that di#orce o%tained %! @orenzo "rom his "irst wi"e :aula was #alid and reco$nized in this urisdiction as a matter o" comit!.
2he Supreme &ourt remanded the case to the court o" ori$in "or the determination o" the intrinsic #alidit! o" @orenzo6s will and determine the successional ri$hts allowin$ proo" o" "orei$n law. 2he deceased is not co#ered %! our laws on “family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity since he was a "orei$ner.
aot Vs CA G.R. No. 155'35 No%embe ! 2008
"A&$S: n April (C, 1979, icente, a Filipino, and Re%ecca, an American, were married in Muntinlupa. 2he! had a child name AliG, %orn in o#em%er (7, 198( in &ali"ornia.
>n Fe%ruar! ((, 199), Re%ecca initiated di#orce proceedin$s in 0ominican Repu%lic, which was docketed as &i#il 0ecree o. /)(K9) orderin$ the dissolution o" the marria$e. 2he same court also issued &i#il 0ecree o. C)K97 settlin$ the couple;s conu$al propert! in Muntinlupa in March , 1997.
She then "iled a declaration o" a%solute nullit! o" marria$e on the $round o" icente;s alle$ed ps!cholo$ical incapacit!,
docketed as &i#il &ase o. C1=C9. She sou$ht dissolution o" the conu$al partnerships o" $ains with application "or support pendente lite "or her and AliG. She also pra!ed that icente %e ordered to pa! a permanent monthl! support "or their dau$hter AliG in the amount o" : ((C,CCC.CC.
n 'une 8, (CC1, icente "iled a Motion to 0ismiss on the $rounds o" lack o" cause o" action and that the petition is %arred %! the prior ud$ment o" di#orce.
R2& denied icente;s motion to dismiss. &A dismissed &i#il &ase o. C1=C9 and set aside R2&;s incidental orders. Accordin$ the the &A, R2& ou$ht to ha#e $ranted icente;s motion to dismiss, since the marria$e %etween the spouses is alread! dissol#ed when the di#orce decree was $ranted since Re%ecca was an American citizen when she applied "or the decree.
I++u: 4hether or not the di#orce decree o%tained %! Re%ecca in 0ominican Repu%lic is #alid.
Rulin$
Des. &i#il 0ecrees o. /)(K9) and C)K97 are #alid.
Re%ecca at that time she applied and o%tained her di#orce was an American citizen and remains to %e one, %ein$ %orn to American parents in +uam, an American territor! which "ollows the principle o" us soli $rantin$ American citizenship to those who are %orn there. She was, and still ma! %e, a holder o" American passport.
She had consistentl! pro"essed, asserted and represented hersel" as an American citizen, as shown in her marria$e certi"icate, in AliG;s %irth certi"icate, when she secured di#orce in 0ominican Repu%lic.
5ein$ an American citizen, Re%ecca was %ound %! the national laws o" the
2he &i#il 0ecree o. C)K97 issued %! the 0ominican Repu%lic court properl! adudicated the eG= couple;s propert! relations.
2he &ourt said, in order that a "orei$n di#orce can %e reco$nized here, the di#orce decree must %e pro#en as a "act and as #alid under the national law o" the alien spouse.
2he "act that Re%ecca was clearl ! an American citizen when she secured the di#orce and that di#orce is reco$nized and allowed in an! o" the States o" the
2hus the "orei$n decrees rendered and issued %! the 0ominican Repu%lic court are #alid, and conse*uentl!, %ind %oth Re%ecca and icente. 2he "act that Re%ecca ma! ha#e %een dul! reco$nised as a Filipino citizen %! "orce o" the 'une 8, (CCC a""irmation %! the 0' Secretar! o" the cto%er ), 199- 5ureau rder o" Reco$nition will not, stand alone, work to nulli"! or in#alidate the "orei$n di#orce secured %! Re%ecca as an American citizen in 199). >n determinin$ whether or not a di#orce is secured a%road would come within the pale o" the countr!;s polic! a$ainst a%solute di#orce, the reckonin$ point is the citizenship o" the parties at the time a #alid di#orce is o%tained. &ate$ories 'udicial 0eclaration o" A%solute ullit! o" Marria$e , :ersons and Famil! Relations
R* %s )aot GR 15581 3728708
!rticle "# – $rescription 'ose was introduced to Felisa in 198). 3e later came to li#e as a %oarder in Felisa6s house, the latter %ein$ his landlad!. @ater, Felisa re*uested him to accompan! her to the :asa! &it! 3all, so she could claim a packa$e sent to her %! her %rother "rom Saudi. At the :&3, upon a pre=arran$ed si$nal "rom Felisa, a man %earin$ three "olded pieces o" paper approached them. 2he! were told that 'ose needed to si$n the papers so that the packa$e could %e released to Felisa. 3e initiall! re"used to do so. 3owe#er, Felisa caoled him, and told him that his re"usal could $et %oth o" them killed %! her %rother who had learned a%out their relationship. Reluctantl!, he si$ned the pieces o" paper, and $a#e them to the man who immediatel! le"t. >t was in Fe%ruar! 1987 when he disco#ered that he had contracted marria$e with Felisa. 3e alle$ed that he saw a piece o" paper l!in$ on top o" the ta%le at the sala o" Felisa6s house. 4hen he perused the same, he disco#ered that it was a cop! o" his marria$e contract with Felisa. 4hen he con"ronted Felisa, she said she does not know o" such. Felisa denied 'ose6s alle$ations and de"ended the #alidit! o" their marria$e. She declared that the! had maintained their relationship as man and wi"e a%sent the le$alit! o" marria$e in the earl! part o" 198C, %ut that she had de"erred contractin$ marria$e with him on account o" their a$e di""erence. >n her pre=trial %rie", Felisa eGpounded that while her marria$e to 'ose was su%sistin$, the latter contracted marria$e with a certain Ru"ina :ascual Ru"ina on /1 Au$ust 199C. n / 'une 199/, Felisa "iled an action "or %i$am! a$ainst 'ose. Su%se*uentl!, she "iled an administrati#e complaint a$ainst 'ose with the ""ice o" the m%udsman, since 'ose and Ru"ina were %oth emplo!ees o" the ational Statistics and &oordinatin$ 5oard. 2he m%udsman "ound 'ose administrati#el! lia%le "or dis$race"ul and immoral conduct, and meted out to him the penalt! o" suspension "rom ser#ice "or one !ear without emolument. 2he R2& ruled a$ainst 'ose claimin$ that his stor! is impossi%le and that his action o" "raud has alread! prescri%ed. >t cited Article 87 o" the ew &i#il &ode which re*uires that the action "or annulment o" marria$e must %e commenced %! the inured part! within "our !ears a"ter the disco#er! o" the "raud.
ISSUE: 4hether or not the action to "ile an action to nulli"! a marria$e due to "raud is su%ect to prescription. HELD: 2he S+ a#ers that 'ose is deemed estopped "rom assailin$ the le$alit! o" his marria$e "or lack o" a marria$e license. >t is claimed that 'ose and Felisa had li#ed to$ether "rom 198) to 199C, notwithstandin$ 'ose6s su%se*uent marria$e to Ru"ina :ascual on /1 Au$ust 199C, and that it took 'ose se#en !ears %e"ore he sou$ht the declaration o" nullit! hence, estoppel had set in. $)+ )+ o*ou+. An action "or nullit! o" marria$e is imprescripti%le. 'ose and Felisa6s marria$e was cele%rated sans a marria$e license. o other conclusion can %e reached eGcept that it is #oid a% initio. >n this case, the ri$ht to impu$n a #oid marria$e does not prescri%e, and ma! %e raised an! time De Casto %s Assi)ao GR 1'012 2713708
Void a% initio marriages Reinel and Anna%elle met and %ecame sweethearts in 1991. 2he! applied "or a marria$e license in :asi$ &it! in Septem%er 199. 2he! had their "irst seGual relation sometime in cto%er 199, and had re$ularl! en$a$ed in seG therea"ter. 4hen the couple went %ack to the ""ice o" the &i#il Re$istrar, the marria$e license had alread! eGpired. 2hus, in order to push throu$h with the plan, in lieu o" a marria$e license, the! eGecuted an a""ida#it dated 1/ March 199- statin$ that the! had %een li#in$ to$ether as hus%and and wi"e "or at least "i#e !ears. 2he couple $ot married on the same date. e#ertheless, a"ter the ceremon!, petitioner and respondent went %ack to their respecti#e homes and did not li#e to$ether as hus%and and wi"e. n 1/ o# 199-, Anna%elle $a#e %irth to a child named Reinna 2ricia A. 0e &astro. Since the child6s %irth, the mother has %een the one supportin$ her out o" her income as a $o#ernment dentist and "rom her pri#ate practice. n 'une 1998, respondent "iled a complaint "or support a$ainst petitioner %e"ore the Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" :asi$ &it! . >n her complaint, respondent alle$ed that she is married to petitioner and that the latter has Qrene$ed on his responsi%ilit!Ko%li$ation to "inanciall! support her Qas his wi"e and Reinna 2ricia as his child. Reinel denied his marria$e with Anna%elle claimin$ that the marria$e is #oid a% initio %ecause the a""ida#it the! ointl! eGecuted is a "ake. And that he was onl! "orced %! Anna%elle to marr! her to a#oid the humiliation that the pre$nanc! sans marria$e ma! %rin$ her. 2he trial court ruled that the marria$e %etween petitioner and respondent is not #alid %ecause it was solemnized without a marria$e license. 3owe#er, it declared petitioner as the natural "ather o" the child, and thus o%li$ed to $i#e her support. 2he &ourt o" Appeals denied the appeal. :rompted %! the rule that a marria$e is presumed to %e su%sistin$ until a udicial declaration o" nullit! has %een made, the appellate court declared that the child was %orn durin$ the su%sistence and #alidit! o" the parties6 marria$e. >n addition, the &ourt o" Appeals "rowned upon petitioner6s re"usal to under$o 0A testin$ to pro#e the paternit! and "iliation, as well as his re"usal to state with certaint! the last time he had carnal knowled$e with respondent, sa!in$ that petitioner6s Q"or$et"ulness should not %e used as a #ehicle to relie#e him o" his o%li$ation and reward him o" his %ein$ irresponsi%le. Moreo#er, the &ourt o" Appeals noted the a""ida#it dated 7 April 1998 eGecuted %! petitioner, wherein he #oluntaril! admitted that he is the le$itimate "ather o" the child. 2he appellate court also ruled that since this case is an action "or support, it was improper "or the trial court to declare the marria$e o" petitioner and respondent as null and #oid in the #er! same case. 2here was no participation o" the State, throu$h the prosecutin$ attorne! or "iscal, to see to it that there is no collusion %etween the parties, as re*uired %! the Famil! &ode in actions "or declaration o" nullit! o" a
marria$e. 2he %urden o" proo" to show that the marria$e is #oid rests upon petitioner, %ut it is a matter that can %e raised in an action "or declaration o" nullit!, and not in the instant proceedin$s. ISSUE: 4hether or not their marria$e is #alid. HELD: 2he S& holds that the trial court had urisdiction to determine the #alidit! o" the marria$e %etween petitioner and respondent. 2he #alidit! o" a #oid marria$e ma! %e collaterall! attacked.
n the instant case, it is clear "rom the e#idence presented that petitioner and respondent did not ha#e a marria$e license when the! contracted their marria$e. >nstead, the! presented an a""ida#it statin$ that the! had %een li#in$ to$ether "or more than "i#e !ears. 3owe#er, respondent hersel" in e""ect admitted the "alsit! o" the a""ida#it when she was asked durin$ cross=eGamination. 2he "alsit! o" the a""ida#it cannot %e considered as a mere irre$ularit! in the "ormal re*uisites o" marria$e. 2he law dispenses with the marria$e license re*uirement "or a man and a woman who ha#e li#ed to$ether and eGclusi#el! with each other as hus%and and wi"e "or a continuous and un%roken period o" at least "i#e !ears %e"ore the marria$e. 2he aim o" this pro#ision is to a#oid eGposin$ the parties to humiliation, shame and em%arrassment concomitant with the scandalous coha%itation o" persons outside a #alid marria$e due to the pu%lication o" e#er! applicant6s name "or a marria$e license. >n the instant case, there was no Qscandalous coha%itation to protect in "act, there was no coha%itation at all. 2he "alse a""ida#it which petitioner and respondent eGecuted so the! could push throu$h with the marria$e has no #alue whatsoe#er it is a mere scrap o" paper. 2he! were not eGempt "rom the marria$e license re*uirement. 2heir "ailure to o%tain and present a marria$e license renders their marria$e #oid a% initio.
a++io# %s a+ca#taa G 161528 1073170'
S&AR :. MA@@>, petitioner, #. E0>23A A@&A2ARA, respondent. +.R. o. 11-(8.
cto%er /1, (CC).
Facts n cto%er (, 199-, petitioner scar Mallion "iled with the re$ional trial court seekin$ a declaration o" nullit! o" his marria$e to respondent Editha Alcantara on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 2he trial court denied the petition. @ikewise, it was dismissed in the &ourt o" Appeals. A"ter such decision, petitioner "iled another petition "or declaration o" nullit! o" marria$e with the re$ional trial court alle$in$ that his marria$e with respondent was null and #oid due to the "act that it was cele%rated without a #alid marria$e license. Respondent "iled an answer with motion to dismiss on the $round o" res udicata and "orum shoppin$. 2he trial court $rated her petition. >ssue
>s the action o" the hus%and tena%le Rulin$ o. Section 7% o" Rule /9 o" the Rules o" &ourt pertains as Q%ar %! prior ud$ment or Qestoppels %! #erdict, which is the e""ect o" a ud$ment as a %ar to the prosecution o" the second action upon the same claim, demand or cause o" action. >n Section 7c o" the same rule, it pertains to res udicata in its concept as Qconclusi#eness o" ud$ment or the rule o" auter action pendant which ordains that issues actuall! and directl! resol#ed in a "ormer suit cannot a$ain %e raised in an! "uture case %etween the same parties in#ol#in$ a di""erent cause o" action. 2here"ore, ha#in$ eGpressl! and impliedl! concealed the #alidit! o" their marria$e cele%ration, petitioner is now deemed to ha#e wai#ed an! de"ects therein. 2he &ourt "inds then that the present action "or declaration o" nullit! o" marria$e on the $round o" lack o" marria$e license is %arred. 2he petition is denied "or lack o" merit.
C$i i#g "soi Vs CA 2'' sca 326 "A&$S:
:ri#ate respondent +ina @oi and petitioner &hi Min$ 2soi were married at the Manila &athedral on Ma! ((, 1988. &ontrar! to +ina6s eGpectations that the newl!weds were to eno! makin$ lo#e or ha#in$ seGual intercourse with each other, the de"endant ust went to %ed, slept on one side thereo", then turned his %ack and went to sleep. o seGual intercourse occurred durin$ their "irst ni$ht, second, third and "ourth ni$ht. From Ma! ((, 1988 until March 1-, 1989, the! slept to$ether in the same room and on the same %ed %ut durin$ this period, there was no attempt o" seGual intercourse %etween them. A case was then "iled to declare the annulment o" the marria$e on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. +ina alle$ed that &hi Min$ was impotent, a closet homoseGual as he did not show him his penis clinicall! "ound to %e onl! / inches and 1 cm. when erect. 0e"endant admitted that no seGual contact was e#er made and accordin$ to him e#er!time he wanted to ha#e seGual intercourse with his wi"e, she alwa!s a#oided him and whene#er he caressed her pri#ate parts she alwa!s remo#ed his hands. ISSUE:
>s the re"usal o" pri#ate respondent to ha#e seGual communion with petitioner a ps!cholo$ical incapacit! Li HELD:
>" a spouse, althou$h ph!sicall! capa%le %ut simpl! re"uses to per"orm his or her essential marria$e o%li$ations, and the re"usal is senseless and constant, &atholic marria$e tri%unals attri%ute the causes to ps!cholo$ical incapacit! than to stu%%orn re"usal. Senseless and protracted re"usal is e*ui#alent to
ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 2hus, the prolon$ed re"usal o" a spouse to ha#e seGual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a si$n o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. E#identl!, one o" the essential marital o%li$ations under the Fa mil! &ode is Q2o procreate children %ased on the uni#ersal principle that procreation o" children throu$h seGual cooperation is the %asic end o" marria$e. &onstant non="ul"illment o" this o%li$ation will "inall! destro! the inte$rit! or wholeness o" the marria$e. >n the case at %ar, the senseless and protracted re"usal o" one o" the parties to "ul"ill the a%o#e marital o%li$ation is e*ui#alent to ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 4hile the law pro#ides that the hus%and and the wi"e are o%li$ed to li#e to$ether, o%ser#e mutual lo#e, respect and "idelit!. Art. )8, Famil! &ode, the sanction there"or is actuall! the Qspontaneous, mutual a""ection %etween hus%and and wi"e and not an! le$al mandate or court order. @o#e is useless unless it is shared with another. >ndeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act o" a partner in marria$e is to sa! Q> could not ha#e cared less. 2his is so %ecause an un$i#en sel" is an un"ul"illed sel". 2he e$oist has nothin$ %ut himsel". >n the natural order, it is seGual intimac! which %rin$s spouses wholeness and oneness. SeGual intimac! is a $i"t and a participation in the m!ster! o" creation. >t is a "unction which enli#ens the hope o" procreation and ensures the continuation o" "amil! relations.
Va+)es %s R"C 2'0 sca 221 "A&$S:
Antonio aldez and &onsuelo +omez were married in 1971 and %e$otten - children. aldez "iled a petition in 199( "or a declaration o" nullit! o" their marria$e pursuant to Article /) o" the Famil! &ode, which was $ranted hence, marria$e is null and #oid on the $round o" their mutual ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. Stella and 'oa*uin are placed under the custod! o" their mother while the other / si%lin$s are "ree to choose which the! pre"er. +omez sou$ht a clari"ication o" that portion in the decision re$ardin$ the procedure "or the li*uidation o" common propert! in Qunions without marria$e. 0urin$ the hearin$ on the motion, the children "iled a oint a""ida#it eGpressin$ desire to sta! with their "ather. ISSUE: 4hether or not the propert! re$ime should %e %ased on co=ownership. HELD:
2he Supreme &ourt ruled that in a #oid marria$e, re$ardless o" the cause thereo", the propert! relations o" the parties are $o#erned %! the rules on co=ownership. An! propert! ac*uired durin$ the union is prima "acie presumed to ha#e %een o%tained throu$h their oint e""orts. A part! who did not participate in the ac*uisition o" the propert! shall %e considered as ha#in$ contri%uted thereto ointl! i" said part!6s e""orts consisted in the care and maintenance o" the "amil!.
DOINGO %. CA
Septem%er 17, 199/ +.R. o. 1C818 :AR2>ES :etitioner Ro%ert 0omin$o
Respondents &ourt o" Appeals, 0elia Soledad A#era represented %! her Attorne!=in=Fact M>SES R. AERA
FA&2S
April (-, 19)9, Ro%ert 0omin$o married Emerlina dela :az on which marria$e is #alid and still
•
eGistin$ •
•
o#em%er (9, 197), he married 0elia Soledad 'anuar! (/ 1979 up to the present, Soledad has %een workin$ in Saudi Ara%ia
•
198/, Emerlina sued "or %i$am!, respondent "ound out a%out the prior marria$e
•
Ma! (9, 1991, pri#ate respondent 0elia Soledad A. 0omin$o "iled a petition %e"ore the Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" :asi$ entitled Q0eclaration o" ullit! o" Marria$e and Separation o" :ropert! a$ainst petitioner Ro%erto 0omin$o
•
1989, respondent "ound out that the! are coha%itin$ and Ro%ert was spendin$ and disposin$ o" some o" her properties without her knowled$e or consent >SS
4hether or not a petition "or udicial declaration o" a #oid marria$e is necessar!. >" in the
a""irmati#e, whether the same should %e "iled onl! "or purposes o" remarria$e.
3E@0 Des. A declaration o" the a%solute nullit! o" a marria$e is now eGplicitl! re*uired either as a cause o" action or a $round "or de"ense. 4here the a%solute nullit! o" a pre#ious marria$e is sou$ht to %e in#oked "or purposes o" contractin$ a second marria$e, the sole %asis accepta%le in law "or said proected marria$e %e "ree "rom le$al in"irmit! is a "inal ud$ment declarin$ the pre#ious marria$e #oid
&onstitution as an Qin#iola%le social institution, is the "oundation o" the "amil! as such, it Qshall %e protected %! the State. As a matter o" polic!, there"ore, the nulli"ication o" a marria$e "or the purpose o" contractin$ another cannot %e accomplished merel! on the %asis o" the perception o" %oth parties or o" one that their union is so de"ecti#e with respect to the essential re*uisites o" a contract o" marria$e as to render it #oid ipso &ure and with no le$al e""ect
Ninal vs Bayadog
Ni#a+ %s. aa)og 328 SCRA 122
"A&$S:
:epito inal was married with 2eodul"a 5ellones on Septem%er (), 197. 2he! had / children namel! 5a%!line, >n$rid and Archie, petitioners. 0ue to the shot in"licted %! :epito to 2eodul"a, the latter died on
April (, 198- lea#in$ the children under the $uardianship o" En$race inal. 1 !ear and 8 months later, :epito and orma 5ada!o$ $ot married without an! marria$e license. 2he! instituted an a""ida#it statin$ that the! had li#ed to$ether "or at least - !ears eGemptin$ "rom securin$ the marria$e license. :epito died in a car accident on Fe%ruar! 19, 1977. A"ter his death, petitioners "iled a petition "or declaration o" nullit! o" the marria$e o" :epito and orma alle$in$ that said marria$e was #oid "or lack o" marria$e license. ISSUES:
1. 4hether or not the second marria$e o" :epito was #oid (. 4hether or not the heirs o" the deceased ma! "ile "or the declaration o" the nullit! o" :epito6s marria$e a"ter his death
HELD:
2he marria$e o" :epito and orma is #oid "or a%sence o" the marria$e license. 2he! cannot %e eGempted e#en thou$h the! instituted an a""ida#it and claimed that the! coha%it "or at least - !ears %ecause "rom the time o" :epito6s "irst marria$e was dissol#ed to the time o" his marria$e with orma, onl! a%out (C months had elapsed. Al%eit, :epito and his "irst wi"e had separated in "act, and therea"ter %oth :epito and orma had started li#in$ with each other that has alread! lasted "or "i#e !ears, the "act remains that their "i#e=!ear period coha%itation was not the coha%itation contemplated %! law. 3ence, his marria$e to orma is still #oid.
oid marria$es are deemed to ha#e not taken place and cannot %e the source o" ri$hts. >t can %e *uestioned e#en a"ter the death o" one o" the parties and an! proper interested part! ma! attack a #oid marria$e. :erez= Ferris #s "erris +R 1)(/)8 7K17KC) !rticle "'( $sychological )ncapacity Armida and 5riG are a show%iz couple. 2he couple6s relationship %e"ore the marria$e and e#en durin$ their %rie" union "or well a%out a !ear or so was not all %ad. 0urin$ that relati#el! short period o" time, Armida was happ! and contented with her li"e in the compan! o" 5riG. Armida e#en admits that 5riG was a responsi%le and lo#in$ hus%and. 2heir pro%lems %e$an when Armida started dou%tin$ 5riG6 "idelit!. >t was onl! when the! started "i$htin$ a%out the calls "rom women that 5riG %e$an to withdraw into his shell and corner, and "ailed to per"orm his so=called marital o%li$ations. 5riG could not understand Armida6s lack o" trust in him and her constant na$$in$s. 3e thou$ht her suspicions irrational. 5riG could not relate to her an$er, temper and ealous!. Armida presented a ps!cholo$ical eGpert 0r. 0a!an who "inds 5riG to %e a schizoid and a dependent and a#oidant t!pe. 2his is e#idenced %! 5riG6s Qlea#in$=the=house attitude whene#er the! *uarreled, the #iolent tendencies durin$ epileptic attacks, the seGual in"idelit!, the a%andonment and lack o" support, and his pre"erence to spend more time with his %and mates than his "amil!.
ISSUE: 4hether or not :> is attendant in the case at %ar. HELD: 2he S& upheld the decision o" the lower courts. 2he alle$ed miGed personalit! disorder, the Qlea#in$=the=house attitude whene#er the! *uarreled, the #iolent tendencies durin$ epileptic attacks, the seGual in"idelit!, the a%andonment and lack o" support, and his pre"erence to spend more time with his %and mates than his "amil!, are not rooted on some de%ilitatin$ ps!cholo$ical condition %ut a mere re"usal or unwillin$ness to assume the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e and these do not constitute :>. Further, the eGpert was not a%le to pro#e her "indin$s. ota%l!, when asked as to the root cause o" respondent6s alle$ed ps!cholo$ical incapacit!, 0r. 0a!an6s answer was #a$ue, e#asi#e and inconclusi#e. She replied that such disorder Qcan %e part o" his "amil! up%rin$in$ She stated that there was a histor! o" 5riG6s parents ha#in$ di""iculties in their relationship= this is o" course inconclusi#e "or such has no direct %earin$ to the case at %ar. 4hat is ps!cholo$ical incapacit! 2he term Qps!cholo$ical incapacit! to %e a $round "or the nullit! o" marria$e under Article /) o" the Famil! &ode, re"ers to a serious ps!cholo$ical illness a""lictin$ a part! e#en %e"ore the cele%ration o" the marria$e. >t is a malad! so $ra#e and so permanent as to depri#e one o" awareness o" the duties and responsi%ilities o" the matrimonial %ond one is a%out to assume. As all people ma! ha#e certain *uirks and idios!ncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personalit! disorders, there is hardl! an! dou%t that the intendment o" the law has %een to con"ine the meanin$ o" Qps!cholo$ical incapacit! to the most serious cases o" personalit! disorders clearl! demonstrati#e o" an utter insensiti#it! or ina%ilit! to $i#e meanin$ and si$ni"icance to the marria$e. >t is "or this reason that the &ourts rel! hea#il! on ps!cholo$ical eGperts "or its understandin$ o" the human personalit!. 3owe#er, the root cause must %e identi"ied as a ps!cholo$ical illness and its incapacitatin$ nature must %e " ull! eGplained in court.
"ONGOO VS "ONGO GR 15'10 1071/70
Sa#tos %s CA GR No. 11201/! a#4a 6! 1//5
"A&$S:
@eouel, a First @ieutenant in the :hilippine Arm!, met 'ulia in >loilo. 2he two $ot married in 198) %e"ore a municipal trial court "ollowed shortl! therea"ter, %! a church weddin$. 2he couple li#ed with 'ulia6s parents at the '. 5edia &ompound. 'ulia $a#e %irth to a %a%! %o! in 1987 and was named as @eouel Santos 'r. ccasionall!, the couple will *uarrel o#er a num%er o" thin$s aside "rom the inter"erence o" 'ulia6s parents into their "amil! a""airs. 'ulia le"t in 1988 to work in
2he intendment o" the law has %een to con"ine the meanin$ o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! to the most serious cases o" personal disorders clearl! demonstrati#e o" an utter insensiti#it! or ina%ilit! to $i#e meanin$ and si$ni"icance to the marria$e. 2his condition must eGist at the time the marria$e is cele%rated.
Antonio vs Reyes A#to#io %s. Rees GR No. 155800! ac$ 10! 200' "A&$S:
@eonilo Antonio, () !ears o" a$e, and Marie >#onne Re!es, /) !ears o" a$e met in 1989. 5arel! a !ear a"ter their "irst meetin$, the! $ot married at Manila &it! 3all and then a su%se*uent church weddin$ at :asi$ in 0ecem%er 199C. A child was %orn %ut died - months later. Re!es persistentl! lied a%out hersel", the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other e#ents or thin$s. She e#en did not conceal %earin$ an ille$itimate child, which she represented to her hus%and as adopted child o" their "amil!. 2he! were separated in Au$ust 1991 and a"ter attempt "or reconciliation, he "inall! le"t her "or $ood in o#em%er 1991. :etitioner then "iled in 199/ a petition to ha#e his marria$e with Re!es declared null and #oid anchored in Article /) o" the Famil! &ode. ISSUE: 4hether Antonio can impose Article /) o" the Famil! &ode as %asis "or declarin$ their marria$e null and #oid. HELD:
:s!cholo$ical incapacit! pertains to the ina%ilit! to understand the o%li$ations o" marria$e as opposed to a mere ina%ilit! to compl! with them. 2he petitioner, aside "rom his own testimon! presented a ps!chiatrist and clinical ps!cholo$ist who attested that constant l!in$ and eGtreme ealous! o" Re!es is a%normal and patholo$ical and corro%orated his alle$ations on his wi"e6s %eha#ior, which amounts to ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. Respondent6s "antastic a%ilit! to in#ent, "a%ricate stories and letters o" "ictitious characters ena%led her to li#e in a world o" make=%elie#e that made her ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated as it rendered her incapa%le o" $i#in$ meanin$ and si$ni"icance to her marria$e. 2he root causes o" Re!es6 ps!cholo$ical incapacit! ha#e %een medicall! or clinicall! identi"ied that was su""icientl! pro#en %! eGperts. 2he $ra#it! o" respondent6s ps!cholo$ical incapacit! was considered so $ra#e that a restricti#e clause was appended to the sentence o" nullit! prohi%ited %! the ational Appellate Matrimonial 2ri%unal "rom contractin$ marria$e without their consent. >t would %e di""icult "or an in#eterate patholo$ical liar to commit the %asic tenets o" relationship %etween spouses %ased on lo#e, trust and respect. Furthermore, Re!es6 case is incura%le considerin$ that petitioner tried to reconcile with her %ut her %eha#ior remain unchan$ed.
Republic vs Quintero-Hamano Rep4b+ic %s. 4i#teo-(ama#o GR No. 16/6/8! a 20! 2006
"A&$S:
@olita uintero=3amano "iled a complaint in 199) "or declaration o" nullit! o" her marria$e with 2oshio 3amano, a 'apanese national, on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. She and 2oshio started a common=law relationship in 'apan and li#ed in the :hilippines "or a month. 2herea"ter, 2oshio went %ack to 'apan and sta!ed there "or hal" o" 1987. @olita then $a#e %irth on o#em%er 1), 1987.
>n 1988, @olita and 2oshio $ot married in M2&=5acoor, &a#ite. A"ter a month o" their marria$e, 2oshio returned to 'apan and promised to return %! &hristmas to cele%rate the holida!s with his "amil!. 2oshio sent mone! "or two months and a"ter that he stopped $i#in$ "inancial support. She wrote him se#eral times %ut ne#er respondent. >n 1991, she learned "rom her "riend that 2oshio #isited the countr! %ut did not %other to see her nor their child.
2oshio was no lon$er residin$ at his $i#en address thus summons issued to him remained unser#ed. &onse*uentl!, in 199), @olita "iled an eG parte motion "or lea#e to e""ect ser#ice o" summons %! pu%lication. 2he motion was $ranted and the summons, accompanied %! a cop! o" the petition, was pu%lished in a newspaper o" $eneral circulation $i#in$ 2oshio 1- da!s to "ile his answer. 2oshio "iled to respond a"ter the lapse o" )C da!s "rom pu%lication, thus, @olita "iled a motion to re"er the case to the prosecutor "or in#esti$ation. ISSUE: 4hether 2oshio was ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated to per"orm his marital o%li$ation. HELD:
2he &ourt is mind"ul o" the 1987 &onstitution to protect and stren$then the "amil! as %asic autonomous social institution and marria$e as the "oundation o" the "amil!. 2hus, an! dou%t should %e resol#ed in "a#or o" the #alidit! o" the marria$e. 2oshio6s act o" a%andonment was dou%tlessl! irresponsi%le %ut it was ne#er alle$ed nor pro#en to %e due to some kind o" ps!cholo$ical illness. Althou$h as rule, actual medical eGaminations are not needed, it would ha#e $reatl! helped @olita had she presented e#idence that medicall! or clinicall! identi"ied 2oshio6s illness. 2his could ha#e %een done throu$h an eGpert witness. >t is essential that a person show incapa%ilit! o" doin$ marital o%li$ation due to some ps!cholo$ical, not ph!sical illness. 3ence, 2oshio was not considered as ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated. 5>ER S 5>ER +R no 17/(9 (K(7KC8
AA@ES #s AA@ES +R 1)7-(/ )K(7KC8 !rticle "'( $sychological )ncapacity >n 198), ilda and Re!naldo met in a local %ar where ilda was a waitress. 5ecause o" his "ear that ilda ma! %e wed to an American, Re!naldo proposed to ilda and the! $ot married in 1988. Re!naldo is aware that ilda has an ille$itimate child out o" wedlock. 2he 1st !ear o" their marria$e went well until ilda %e$an to work when she ne$lected some o" her duties as a wi"e. She later worked as a $!m instructor and accordin$ to Re!naldo6s alle$ations her o% makes her "lirt with her male clients. She also dri#es home with other $u!s e#en thou$h Re!naldo would %e there to "etch her. She also proected hersel" as sin$le. And she re"used to ha#e a child with Re!naldo %ecause that would onl! destro! her "i$ure. Re!naldo then "iled a petition to ha#e their marria$e %e annulled. 3e presented her cousin as a witness that attested that ilda was "lirtin$ with other $u!s e#en with Re!naldo6s presence. Re!naldo also presented the "indin$s o" a ps!cholo$ist who concluded that %ased on ilda6s acts, ilda is a n!mphomaniac, who has a %orderline personalit!, a social de#iant, an alcoholic, and su""erin$ "rom anti= social personalit! disorder, amon$ others, which illnesses are incura%le and are the causes o" ilda6s ps!cholo$ical incapacit! to per"orm her marital role as wi"e to Re!naldo. ilda on her part attacked Re!naldo6s alle$ations. She said that it is actuall! Re!naldo who is a womanizer and that in "act she has "iled a case o" concu%ina$e a$ainst him which was still pendin$. She also said that she onl! needs the o% in order to support hersel" %ecause Re!naldo is not supportin$ her. She also showed proo" that she proected hersel" as a married woman and that she handles an aero%ics class which is eGclusi#e to "emales onl!. 2he R2& and the &A ruled in "a#or o" Re!naldo. ISSUE: 4hether the marria$e %etween Re!naldo and ilda is null and #oid on the $round o" ilda6s ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. HELD: 2he petition must %e $ranted %ecause the State6s participation in this case is wantin$. 2here were no other pleadin$s, motions, or position papers "iled %! the :u%lic :rosecutor or S+ and no contro#ertin$ e#idence presented %! them %e"ore the ud$ment was rendered. And e#en i" the S& would consider the case %ased on the merits, the petition would still %e $ranted. 2he acts presented %! Re!naldo %! themsel#es are insu""icient to esta%lish a ps!cholo$ical or mental de"ect that is serious, incura%le or $ra#e as contemplated %! Article /) o" the Famil! &ode. Article /) contemplates downri$ht incapacit! or ina%ilit! to take co$nizance o" and to assume %asic marital o%li$ations. Mere Qdi""icult!, Qre"usal or
Qne$lect in the per"ormance o" marital o%li$ations or Qill will on the part o" the spouse is di""erent "rom Qincapacit! rooted on some de%ilitatin$ ps!cholo$ical condition or illness. >ndeed, irreconcila%le di""erences, seGual in"idelit! or per#ersion, emotional immaturit! and irresponsi%ilit!, and the like, do not %! themsel#es warrant a "indin$ o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! under Article /), as the same ma! onl! %e due to a person6s re"usal or unwillin$ness to assume the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e and not due to some ps!cholo$ical illness that is contemplated %! said rule. 2he S& also "inds the "indin$ o" the ps!cholo$ical eGpert to %e insu""icient to pro#e the :> o" ilda. 2he testimonies presented %! people the eGpert inter#iewed were not concretel! esta%lished as the "act as to how those people came up with their respecti#e in"ormation was not as well shown. 2here is no proo" as well that ilda had had seG with di""erent $u!s ? a condition "or n!mphomia. 2here %ein$ dou%t as to ilda6s :> the S& ruled that this case %e resol#ed in "a#or o" the #alidit! o" marria$e.
ASPILLAGA !. ASPILLAGA G.R. No. 1792; %3o< 26, 29 =u)+u(<)*, J. Do3)*
*he fact that certain psychological conditions +ill hamper their performance of their marital o%ligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological incapacity as contemplated under !rticle "' of the amily Code. $sychological disorders do not manifest that %oth parties are truly incapacitated to perform the %asic marital covenants. Mere difficulty is not synonymous to incapacity. $sychological incapacity is reserved to the most serious cases of personality disorder. "3+
Rodol"o Aspilla$a "iled a petition "or annulment o" marria$e on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! on the part o" Aurora Aspilla$a. Aurora alle$ed upon her return to Manila, she disco#ered that while she was in 'apan, Rodol"o %rou$ht into their conu$al home her cousin, @ecita Rose A. 5esina, as his concu%ine. Aurora alle$ed that Rodol"o6s coha%itation with her cousin led to the disinte$ration o" their marria$e and their e#entual separation. 0urin$ trial, eGpert witness 0r. Eduardo Maa%a eGplained that %oth parties are ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated. 2he R2& "ound the parties ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated to enter into marria$e. 2he &A re#ersed the R2& decision and declared the marria$e o" Rodol"o and Aurora Aspilla$a #alid. :etitioner "iled a motion "or reconsideration, %ut the motion was also denied. 3ence this petition.
I++u
4hether or not the marria$e is #oid on the $round o" the parties6 ps!cholo$ical incapacit! Hl'
o. As earl! as 199-, in -antos v. Court of !ppeals G.R. /o. 00120#, January 3, 0##45 , it has %een cate$oricall! ruled that :s!cholo$ical incapacit! re*uired %! Art. /) must %e characterized %! a $ra#it!, % uridical antecedence, and c incura%ilit!. 2he incapacit! must %e $ra#e or serious such that the part! would %e incapa%le o" carr!in$ out the ordinar! duties re*uired in marria$e it must %e rooted in the histor! o" the part! antedatin$ the marria$e, althou$h the o#ert mani"estations ma! emer$e onl! a"ter the marria$e and it must %e incura%le or, e#en i" it were otherwise, the cure would %e %e!ond the means o" the part! in#ol#ed. >n the instant case, 0r. Maa%a "ailed to re#eal that the ps!cholo$ical conditions were $ra#e or serious enou$h to %rin$ a%out an incapacit! to assume the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e. >ndeed, 0r. Maa%a was a%le to esta%lish the parties6 personalit! disorder howe#er, he "ailed to link the parties6 ps!cholo$ical disorders to his conclusion that the! are ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated to per"orm their o%li$ations as hus%and and wi"e. 2he "act that these ps!cholo$ical conditions will hamper their per"ormance o" their marital o%li$ations does not mean that the! su""er "rom ps!cholo$ical incapacit! as contemplated under Article /) o" the Famil! &ode. Mere di""icult! is not s!non!mous to incapacit!. >t must %e stressed that ps!cholo$ical incapacit! must %e more than ust a Qdi""icult!, Qre"usal or Qne$lect in the per"ormance o" some marital o%li$ations Repu%lic v. C!. 2he intention o" the law is to con"ine the meanin$ o" Qps!cholo$ical incapacit! to the most serious cases o" personalit! disorders clearl! demonstrati#e o" an utter insensiti#it! or ina%ilit! to $i#e meanin$ and si$ni"icance to the marria$e *ongol v. *ongol, G.R. /o. 046'02, 7cto%er 0#, 1226 . :s!cholo$ical disorders do not mani"est that %oth parties are trul! incapacitated to per"orm the %asic marital co#enants. Moreo#er, there is nothin$ that shows incura%ilit! o" these disorders. >ncompati%ilit! and irreconcila%le di""erences cannot %e e*uated with ps!cholo$ical incapacit! as understood uristicall!. As to Rodol"o6s alle$ation that Aurora was a spendthri"t, the sa me likewise "ails to con#ince. 4hile disa$reements on mone! matters would, no dou%t, a""ect the other aspects o" one6s marria$e as to make the wedlock unsatis"actor!, this is not a $round to declare a marria$e null and #oid. >n "act, the &ourt takes udicial notice o" the "act that disa$reements re$ardin$ mone! matters are a common, and e#en normal, occurrence %etween hus%ands and wi#es.
Te vs Te "e %s. "e GR No. 1'1/3! ;eb4a 13! 200/
"A&$S:
:etitioner Edward 2e "irst met respondent Rowena 2e in a $atherin$ or$anized %! the Filipino=&hinese association in their colle$e. >nitiall!, he was attracted to Rowena6s close "riend %ut, as the latter alread! had a %o!"riend, the !oun$ man decided to court Rowena, which happened in 'anuar! 199). >t was Rowena who asked that the! elope %ut Edward re"used %ickerin$ that he was !oun$ and o%less. 3er persistence, howe#er, made him relent. 2he! le"t Manila and sailed to &e%u that month he, pro#idin$ their tra#el mone! o" :8C,CCC and she, purchasin$ the %oat ticket.
2he! decided to $o %ack to Manila in April 199). Rowena proceeded to her uncle6s house and Edward to his parents6 home. E#entuall! the! $ot married %ut without a marria$e license. Edward was prohi%ited "rom $ettin$ out o" the house unaccompanied and was threatened %! Rowena and her uncle. A"ter a month, Edward escaped "rom the house, and sta!ed with his parents. Edward6s parents wanted them to sta! at their house %ut Rowena re"used and demanded that the! ha#e a separate a%ode. >n 'une 199), she said that it was %etter "or them to li#e separate li#es and the! then parted wa!s.
A"ter "our !ears in 'anuar! (CCC, Edward "iled a petition "or the annulment o" his marria$e to Rowena on the %asis o" the latter6s ps!cholo$ical incapacit!.
ISSUE: 4hether the marria$e contracted is #oid on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!.
HELD:
2he parties6 whirlwind whirlwind relationship lasted more or less siG months. 2he! met in 'anuar! 199), eloped in March, eGchan$ed marital #ows in Ma!, and parted wa!s in 'une. 2he ps!cholo$ist who pro#ided eGpert testimon! "ound %oth parties ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated. :etitioner6s %eha#ioral pattern "alls under the classi"ication o" dependent personalit! disorder, and respondent6s, respondent6s, that o" the narcissistic and antisocial personalit! disorder disorder
2here is no re*uirement that the person to %e declared ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated incapacitated %e personall! eGamined %! a ph!sician, i" the totalit! o" e#idence presented is enou$h to sustain a "indin$ o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! incapacit!.. eril!, eril!, the e#idence must must show a link, medical or the the like, %etween the acts that that mani"est ps!cholo$ical incapacit! and the ps!cholo$ical disorder itsel".
2he presentation o" eGpert proo" presupposes a thorou$h and in=depth assessment o" the parties %! the ps!cholo$ist or or eGpert, "or a conclusi#e dia$nosis dia$nosis o" a $ra#e, se#ere and incura%le incura%le presence o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! incapacit!..
>ndeed, petitioner, a""licted with dependent personalit! disorder, cannot assume the essential marital o%li$ations o" li#in$ to$ether, o%ser#in$ lo#e, respect and "idelit! and renderin$ help and support, "or he is una%le to make e#er!da! decisions without ad#ice "rom others, and allows others to make most o" his important decisions decisions such as where to li#e. As clearl! shown in this this case, petitioner "ollowed e#er!thin$ e#er!thin$ dictated to him %! the persons around him. 3e is insecure, weak and $ulli%le, has no sense o" his identit! as a person, has no cohesi#e sel" to speak o", and has no $oals and clear direction in li"e.
As "or the respondent, her %ein$ a""licted with antisocial personalit! disorder makes her una%le to assume the essent essential ial marita maritall o%li$ o%li$ati ations ons on accoun accountt "or her disre$ disre$ard ard in the ri$hts ri$hts o" other others, s, her a%use, a%use, mistreatm mistreatment ent and control o" others without without remorse, and her tendenc! tendenc! to %lame others. Moreo#er, Moreo#er, as shown shown in this this case, case, respon responden dentt is impuls impulsi#e i#e and domine domineeri erin$ n$ she had no *ualms *ualms in manipu manipulat latin$ in$ petitioner with her her threats o" %lackmail and o" committin$ suicide. suicide.
5oth parties %ein$ a""licted with $ra#e, se#ere and incura%le ps!cholo$ical incapacit!, the precipitous marria$e that the! contracted on April (/, 199) is thus, declared null and #oid.
@ester 3alili #s &hona 3alili +.R. o. 1)-( FA&2S FA&2S 2his resol#es the motion "or reconsideration o" the April 1), (CC8 resolution o" this &ourt den!in$ petitioners petition petition "or re#iew on certiorari under Rule - o" the Rules o" &ourt. 2he petition sou$ht to set aside the 'anuar! (), (CC decision and Septem%er (, (CC resolution o" the &ourt o" Appeals &A in &A=+.R. & o. )CC1C.
:etitioner @ester 5enamin S. 3alili "iled a petition to declare his marria$e to respondent &hona M. Santos=3alili null and #oid on the %asis o" his ps!cholo$ical incapacit! to per"orm the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e in the Re$ional 2rial &ourt R2&, R2&, :asi$ &it!, 5ranch 1-8.
3e alle$ed that he wed respondent in ci#il rites thinkin$ that it was a oke. A"ter the ceremonies, the! ne#er li#ed to$ether as hus%and and wi"e, %ut maintained the relationship. 3owe#er, the! started "i$htin$ constantl! a !ear later, at which point petitioner decided to stop seein$ respondent and started datin$ other women. >mmediatel! therea"ter, he recei#ed prank calls tellin$ him to stop datin$ other women as he was alread! a married man. >t was onl! upon makin$ an in*uir! that he "ound out that the marria$e was not "ake.
E#entuall!, E#entuall!, the R2& R2& "ound petitioner to %e su""erin$ "rom a miGed personalit! disorder, particularl! dependent and sel"=de"eatin$ personalit! disorder, as dia$nosed %! his eGpert witness, 0r. ati#idad 0a!an. 2he court a *uo held that petitioners personalit! personalit! disorder was serious and incura%le and directl! a""ected his capacit! to compl! with his essential marital o%li$ations to respondent. >t thus declared the marria$e null and #oid.
n appeal, the &A re#ersed and set aside the decision o" the trial court on the $round that the totalit! o" the e#idence presented "ailed to esta%lish petitioners ps!cholo$ical ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. :etitioner :etitioner mo#ed "or reconsideration. >t was denied.
2he case was ele#ated to the Supreme &ourt #ia a petition "or re#iew under Rule -. 4e a""irmed a""irmed the &As decision and resolution upholdin$ the #alidit! o" the marria$e.
:etitioner then "iled this motion "or reconsideration reiteratin$ his ar$ument that his marria$e to respondent ou$ht to %e declared null and #oid on the %asis o" his ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. incapacit!. 3e stressed that the e#idence he presented, especiall! the testimon! o" his eGpert witness, was more than enou$h to sustain the "indin$s and conclusions o" the trial court that he was and still is ps!cholo$icall! incapa%le o" compl!in$ with the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e.
>SS
3E@0 &ourt reiterated that courts should interpret the pro#ision on ps!cholo$ical incapacit! as a $round "or the declaration o" nullit! o" a marria$e on a case=to=case %asis $uided %! eGperience, the "indin$s o" eGperts and researchers in ps!cholo$ical disciplines and %! decisions o" church tri%unals.
>n 2e, this &ourt de"ined dependent personalit! disorder as
a personalit! disorder characterized %! a pattern o" dependent and su%missi#e %eha#ior. Such indi#iduals usuall! lack sel"=esteem and "re*uentl! %elittle their capa%ilities the! "ear criticism and are easil! hurt %! others comments. At times the! actuall! %rin$ a%out dominance %! others throu$h a *uest "or o#erprotection.
>n her ps!cholo$ical ps !cholo$ical report, 0r. 0a!an stated that petitioners dependent personalit! disorder was e#ident in the "act that petitioner was #er! much attached to his parents and depended on them "or decisions. :etitioners mother e#en had to %e the one to tell him to seek le$al help when he "elt con"used on what action to take upon learnin$ that his marria$e to respondent was "or real.
From the "ore$oin$, it has %een shown that petitioner is indeed su""erin$ "rom ps!cholo$ical incapacit! incapacit! that e""ecti#el! renders him una%le to per"orm the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e. Accordin$l!, Accordin$l!, the marria$e %etween petitioner and respondent is declared null and #oid
2he decision o" the Re$ional 2rial &ourt, :asi$ &it!, 5ranch 1-8 dated April 17, 1998 is RE>S2A2E0.
Matias Matias G.R. No. 109975. February 9, 2001 Repu%lic o" the :hilippines, petitioner :hilippines, petitioner,, vs. Erlinda Matias 0a$da$, respondent. UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUU "3+ Erlind Erlindaa Matias Matias marrie married d A#elino elino :aran$ :aran$an an 0a$da$ 0a$da$ and %e$ot %e$ot two child children ren.. A#elino elino would would disappear "or months without eGplanation and attend to drinkin$ sprees with "riends and return home drunk when with the "amil! "orced his wi"e to ha#e seGual intercourse and i" she resisted, would in"lict inure to the latter. 3e le"t his "amil! a$ain and ne#er heard o" him. Erlinda was constrained to look "or "or a o% to "end "or themsel#es. Erlinda then learned that A#elino A#elino was imprisoned "or some crime, and that he escaped "rom ail who remains at=lar$e at date.Erlinda "iled "or udicial declaration o" nullit! o" marria$e on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! under Article /) o" the Famil! &ode. 2he trial court rendered a decision declarin$ the marria$e #oid under Artcile /) o" the Famil! &ode. 2he Solicitor +eneral appealed to the &ourt o" Appeals raisin$ that the lower court erred in declarin$ the apellee;s marria$e to A#elino 0a$da$ null and #oid on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical ps!cholo$ical incapacit! o" the latter, pursuant to Article /) o" the Famil! &ode, the ps!cholo$ical incapacit! o" the nature contemplated %! the law not ha#in$ %een pro#en to eGist. 3owe#er, the &ourt o" Appeals Appeals a""irmed the decision o" the trial court I++u 4hether or not immaturit! and irresponsi%ilit!, ha%itual alcoholic, and a "u$iti#e "rom ustice constitutes ps!cholo$ical incapacit! under Article /) o" the Famil! &ode to declare the marria$e null and #oid.
in Repu%lic v. Court of !ppeals and Molina case is reiterated herein in which the Rul)* o. 2he rulin$ in Repu%lic &ourt laid down the "ollowin$ +<>0E@>ES in the interpretation and application o" Article /) o" the Famil! &ode 1 2he %urden o" proo" to show the nullit! o" the marria$e %elon$s to the plainti"". ( 2he root cause o" cause o" the ps!cholo$ical incapacit! must %e a medicall! or clinicall! identi"ied, % alle$ed in the complaint, c su""icientl! pro#en %! eGperts and d clearl! eGplained in the decision. Article /) o" the Famil! &ode re*uires that the incapacit! must %e ps!cholo$ical = not ph!sical, althou$h its mani"estations andKor s!mptoms ma! %e ph!sical. / 2he incapacit! must %e pro#en to %e eGistin$ at Qthe time o" the cele%ration o" the marria$e. Such incapacit! must also %e shown to %e medicall! or clinicall! permanent or incura%le. incura%le. Such incura%ilit! ma! %e a%solute or e#en relati#e onl! in re$ard to the other spouse, not necessaril! a%solutel! a$ainst e#er!one o" the same seG. - Such illness must %e grave %e grave enou$h to %rin$ a%out the disa%ilit! o" the part! to assume the essential o%li$ations o" marria$e. ) 2he essential marital o%li$ations must %e those em%raced %! Articles )8 up to 71 o" the Fa mil! &odeas re$ards the hus%and and wi"e as well as Articles ((C, ((1 and ((- o" the same &ode in re$ard to parents and their children 7 >nterpretations $i#en %! the ational Appellate Matrimonial 2ri%unal o" the &atholic &hurch in the :hilippines, while not controllin$ or decisi#e, should %e $i#en $reat respect %! our courts.
8 2he trial court must order the prosecutin$ attorne! or "iscal and the Solicitor +eneral to appear as counsel "or the state.
MARCOS V. MARCOS Fats !"ai#ti$ %re#&a %. Maros 'arrie& (i"so# Maros i# 19)2 a#& t*ey *a& +ve *i"&re#. A""ei# t*at t*e *usba#& -ai"e& to rovi&e 'ateria" suort to t*e -a'i"y a#& *ave resorte& to *ysia" abuse a#& aba#&o#'e#t, aba#&o#'e#t, %re#&a +"e& a ase -or t*e #u""ity ot*e 'arriae -or sy*o"oia" i#aaity. T*e RTC &e"are& t*e 'arriae #u"" a#& voi& u#&er Art. / *i* as *oever reverse& by CA. ssues (*et*er erso#a" 'e&ia" or sy*o"oia" e3a'i#atio# o- t*e reso#&e#t by a *ysiia# is a re4uire'e#t -or a &e"aratio# o- sy*o"oia" i#aaity. (*et*er t*e tota"ity o- evi&e#e rese#te& i# t*is ase s*o sy*o"oia" i#aaity. e"& !sy*o"oia" i#aaity as a rou#& -or &e"ari# t*e #u""ity o- a 'arriae, 'ay be estab"is*e& by t*e tota"ity o- evi&e#e rese#te&. T*ere is #o re4uire'e#t, *oever t*at t*e reso#&e#t be e3a'i#e& by a *ysiia# or a sy*o"oist as a o#&itio# si#e 4ua #o# -or su* &e"aratio#. A"t*ou* t*is Court is su6ie#t"y o#vi#e& t*at reso#&e#t -ai"e& to rovi&e 'ateria" suort to t*e -a'i"y a#& 'ay *ave resorte& to *ysia" abuse a#& aba#&o#'e#t, t*e tota"ity o- *is ats &oes #ot "ea& to a o#"usio# o- sy*o"oia" i#aaity o# *is art. T*ere is abso"ute"y #o s*oi# t*at *is &e-ets8 ere a"rea&y rese#t rese#t at t*e i#etio# o- t*e 'arriae or t*at t*ey are i#urab"e. Veri"y, t*e be*avior o- reso#&e#t a# be attribute& to t*e -at t*at *e *a& "ost *is ob a#& as #ot ai#-u""y e'"oye& -or a erio& o- 'ore t*a# si3 years. t as &uri# t*is erio& t*at *e bea'e i#ter'itte#t"y &ru#:, &ru#:, -ai"e& to ive 'ateria" a#& 'ora" suort, a#& eve# "e-t t*e -a'i"y *o'e. T*us, *is a""ee& sy*o"oia" sy*o"oia" i""#ess as trae& o#"y to sai& erio& a#& #ot to t*e i#etio# o- t*e 'arriae. ;4ua""y i'orta#t, t*ere is #o evi&e#e s*oi# t*at *is o#&itio# is i#urab"e, eseia""y #o t*at *e is ai#-u""y e'"oye& as a ta3i &river. # su', t*is Court a##ot &e"are t*e &isso"utio# o- t*e 'arriae -or -ai"ure o- t*e etitio#er to s*o t*at t*e a""ee& sy*o"oia" sy*o"oia" i#aaity is *arateri
a#tee&e#e a#& i#urabi"ty a#& -or *er -ai"ure to observe t*e ui&e"i#es as out"i#e i# Reub"i v. CA a#& Mo"i#a.
:aras s :Aras +R 178(
Antonio #s Re!es +R no 1--88C
!rt 34 "5 distinguished from $sychological )ncapacity >n 199C, @eo married Marie, the latter %ein$ ten !ears his senior. >n 199/, @eo "iled to annul the marria$e due to Marie6s :>. @eo claimed that Marie persistentl! lied a%out hersel", the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other e#ents or thin$s. She would claim that she is a ps!cholo$ist %ut she is not. She6d claim she is a sin$er with the compan! 5lack$old and that she is the latter6s num%er 1 mone! maker %ut she6s not. She6d also spend la#ishl! as opposed to her monthl! income. She "a%ricates thin$s and people onl! to ser#e her make %elie#e world. @eo presented an eGpert that pro#ed Marie6s :>. Marie denied all @eo6s alle$ations and also presented an eGpert to pro#e her case. 2he R2& ruled a$ainst Marie and annulled the marria$e. 2he Matrimonial 2ri%unal o" the church also annulled the marria$e and was a""irmed %! the atican6s Roman Rata. 2he &A re#ersed the decision hence the appeal. ISSUE: 4hether or not :> is attendant to the case. HELD: Des, :> is attendant. 2he $uidelines esta%lished in the Molina case is properl! esta%lished in the case at %ar.
2he S& also emphasized what "raud means as contemplated in Art - / o" the F& #is a #is Art ) o" the F&. >n :>, the misrepresentation done %! Marie points to her inade*uac! to cope with her marital o%li$ations, kindred to ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. >n Art - /, marria$e ma! %e annulled i" the consent o" either part! was o%tained %! "raud, and Article ) which enumerates the circumstances constitutin$ "raud under the pre#ious article, clari"ies that Qno other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, "ortune or chastit! shall constitute such "raud as will $i#e $rounds "or action "or the annulment o" marria$e. 2hese pro#isions o" Art - / and Art ) cannot %e applied in the case at %ar %ecause the misrepresentations done %! Marie is not considered as "raud %ut rather such misrepresentations constitute her a%errant %eha#iour which "urther constitutes :>. 3er misrepresentations are not lies sou$ht to #itiate @eo6s consent to marr! her. 3er misrepresentations are e#idence that Marie cannot simpl! distin$uish "ictionK"antas! "rom realit! which is so $ra#e and it "alls under the "ourth $uideline laid down in the Molina Case.
Repu%lic #s &A and Molina Rep4b+ic %s. CA a#) o+i#a G.R. No. 108'3 ;eb4a 13! 1// "A&$S:
2he case at %ar challen$es the decision o" &A a""irmin$ the marria$e o" the respondent Roridel Molina to Re!naldo Molina #oid in the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 2he couple $ot married in 198-, a"ter a !ear, Re!naldo mani"ested si$ns o" immaturit! and irresponsi%ilit! %oth as hus%and and a "ather pre"errin$ to spend more time with "riends whom he s*uandered his mone!, depends on his parents "or aid
and assistance and was ne#er honest with his wi"e in re$ard to their "inances. >n 198), the couple had an intense *uarrel and as a result their relationship was estran$ed. Roridel *uit her work and went to li#e with her parents in 5a$uio &it! in 1987 and a "ew weeks later, Re!naldo le"t her and their child. Since then he a%andoned them. ISSUE: 4hether or not the marria$e is #oid on the $round o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. HELD:
2he marria$e %etween Roridel and Re!naldo su%sists and remains #alid. 4hat constitutes ps!cholo$ical incapacit! is not mere showin$ o" irreconcila%le di""erences and con"liction personalities. >t is indispensa%le that the parties must eGhi%it inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsi%ilites and duties due to some ps!cholo$ical illness. Re!naldo6s action at the time o" the marria$e did not mani"est such characteristics that would comprise $rounds "or ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 2he e#idence shown %! Roridel merel! showed that she and her hus%and cannot $et alon$ with each other and had not shown $ra#it! o" the pro%lem neither its uridical antecedence nor its incura%ilit!. >n addition, the eGpert testimon! %! 0r Sison showed no incura%le ps!chiatric disorder %ut onl! incompati%ilit! which is not considered as ps!cholo$ical incapacit!.
•
2he "ollowin$ are the $uidelines as to the $rounds o" ps !cholo$ical incapacit! laid set "orth in this case %urden o" proo" to show nullit! %elon$s to the plainti""
•
root causes o" the incapacit! must %e medicall! and clinicall! inclined
•
such incapacit! should %e in eGistence at the time o" the marria$e
•
such incapacit! must %e $ra#e so as to disa%le the person in compl!in$ with the essentials o" marital o%li$ations o" marria$e such incapacit! must %e em%raced in Art. )8=71 as well as Art ((C, ((1 and ((- o" the Famil!
•
&ode •
decision o" the ational Matrimonial Appellate &ourt or the &atholic &hurch must %e respected
•
court shall order the prosecutin$ attorne! and the "iscal assi$ned to it to act on %ehal" o" the state.
&= 4ERS3>: 5uena#entura S. &A +.R. os. 1(7/-8 and +.R. os. 1(79 March /1, (CCFacts oel 5uena#entura "iled a position "or the declaration o" nullit! o" marria$e on the $round that %oth he and his wi"e were ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated. 2he R2& in its decision, declared the marria$e entered into %etween petitioner and respondent null and #iolation ordered the li*uidation o" the assets o" the conu$al partnership propert! ordered petitioner a re$ular support in "a#or o" his son in the amount o" 1-,CCC monthl!, su%ect to modi"ication as the necessit! arises, and awarded the care and custod! o" the minor to his mother.
:etitioner appealed %e"ore the &A. 4hile the appeal was pendin$, the &A, upon respondent6s motion issued a resolution increasin$ the support pendants like to :(C, CCC. 2he &A dismissal petitioner appeal "or lack o" merit and a""irmed in to the R2& decision. :etitioner motion "or reconsideration was denied, hence this petition. >ssue 4hether or not co=ownership is applica%le to #alid marria$e. 3eld Since the present case does not in#ol#e the annulment o" a %i$amous marria$e, the pro#isions o" article -C in relation to articles 1, ( and / o" the Famil! &ode, pro#idin$ "or the dissolution o" the a%solute communit! or conu$al partnership o" $ains, as the case ma!%e, do not appl!. Rather the $eneral rule applies, which is in case a marria$e is declared #oid a% initio, the propert! re$ime applica%le to %e li*uidated, partitioned and distri%uted is that o" e*ual co=ownership. Since the properties ordered to %e distri%uted %! the court a *uo were "ound, %oth %! the R2& and the &A, to ha#e %een ac*uired durin$ the union o" the parties, the same would %e co#ered %! the co=ownership. o "ruits o" a separate propert! o" one o" the parties appear to ha#e %een included or in#ol#ed in said distri%ution.
Enrico #s 3eirs i" Medinaceli +R 17/)1 9K(8KC7
Reub"i vs CA Rep4b+ic %s. CA GR No. 15/'16! Decembe /! 2005 "A&$S:
Alan Ale$ro, the petitioner, was married with @ea in 'anuar! 199-. @ea arri#ed home late in Fe%ruar! 199- and Alan told her that i" she eno!s li"e o" a sin$le person, it will %e %etter "or her to $o %ack to her parents. @ea le"t a"ter that "i$ht. Allan checked i" she went to her parents6 house %ut was not there and e#en in*uired to her "riends. 3e went %ack to the parents=in=law6s house and learned that @ea had %een to their house %ut le"t without notice. 3e then sou$ht help "rom the 5aran$a! &aptain. For sometime, Alan decided to work as part=time taGi dri#er and durin$ his "ree time he would look "or @ea in the malls. >n 'une (CC1, Alan reported @ea6s disappearance to the local police station and an alarm notice was issued. 3e also reported the disappearance in 5> on 'ul! (CC1. Alan "iled a petition in March (CC1 "or the declaration o" presumpti#e death o" his wi"e.
ISSUE: 4hether Alan has a well="ounded %elie" that his wi"e is alread! dead.
HELD:
2he court ruled that Alan "ailed to pro#e that he has a well="ounded %elie", %e"ore he "iled his petition with R2&, that his spouse was dead. 3e "ailed to present a witness other than the 5aran$a! &aptain. 3e e#en "ailed to present those "riends o" @ea which he in*uired to corro%orate his testimon!. 3e also "ailed to make in*uiries "rom his parents=in=law re$ardin$ @ea6s wherea%outs %e"ore "ilin$ his petition in the R2&. >t could ha#e enhanced his credi%ilit! had he made in*uiries "rom his parents=in=law a%out @ea;s wherea%outs considerin$ that @ea;s "ather was the owner o" Radio 0DMS. 3e did report and seek help o" the local police authorities and 5> to locate @ea %ut he did so onl! a"ter the S+ "iled its notice to dismiss his petition in R2&.
SSS #s 'ar*ue 0e %ailon /K(KC) !rticle 30831 >n 19-- &lemente 5ailon and Alice 0iaz married in 5arcelona, Sorso$on. 1-V !ears later, &lemente "iled an action to declare the presumpti#e death o" Alice she %ein$ an a%sentee. 2he petition was $ranted in 197C. >n 198/, &lemente married 'ar*ue. 2he two li#e to$ether untile &lemente6s death in 1998. 'ar*ue then sou$ht to claim her hus%and6s SSS %ene"its and the same were $ranted her. n the other hand, a certain &ecilia 5aion=Dap who claimed that she is the dau$hter o" 5ailon to a certain Elisa 'a!ona petitioned %e"ore the SSS that the! %e $i#en the reim%ursement "or the "uneral spendin$ "or it was actuall! them who shouldered the %urial eGpenses o" &lemente. 2he! "urther claim that &lemente contracted three marria$es one with Alice, another with Elisa and the other with 'ar*ue. &ecilia also a#erred that Alice is ali#e and kickin$ and Alice su%se*uentl! emer$ed &ecilia claimed that &lemente o%tained the declaration o" Alice6s presumpti#e death in %ad "aith "or he was aware o" the wherea%outs o" Alice or i" not he could ha#e easil! located her in her parent6s place. She was in Sorso$on all alon$ in her parents6 place. She went there upon learnin$ that &lemente had %een ha#in$ eGtra=marital a""airs. SSS then ruled that 'ar*ue should reim%urse what had %een $ranted her and to return the same to &ecilia since she shouldered the %urial eGpenses and that the %ene"its should $o to Alice %ecause her reappearance had terminated &lemente6s marria$e with 3ar*ue. Further, SSS ruled that the R2&6s decision in declarin$ Alice to %e presumpti#el! death is erroneous. 2eresita appealed the decision o" the SSS %e"ore the Social Securit! &omission and the SS& a""irmed SSS. 2he &A howe#er ruled the contrar!. ISSUE: 4hether or not the mere appearance o" the a%sent spouse declared presumpti#el! dead automaticall! terminates the su%se*uent marria$e. HELD: 2here is no pre#ious marria$e to restore "or it is terminated upon &lemente6s death. @ikewise there is no su%se*uent marria$e to terminate "or the same is terminated upon &lemente6s death. SSS is correct in rulin$ that it is "utile "or Alice to pursue the recordin$ o" her reappearance %e"ore the local ci#il re$istrar throu$h an a""ida#it or a court action. 5ut it is not correct "or the SSS to rule upon the declaration made %! the R2&. 2he SS& or the SSS has no udicial power to re#iew the decision o" the R2&. SSS is indeed empowered to determine as to who should %e the ri$ht"ul %ene"iciar! o" the %ene"its o%tained %! a deceased mem%er in case o" disputes %ut such power does not include the appellate power to re#iew a court decision or declaration. >n the case at %ar, the R2& rulin$ is %indin$ and 'ar*ue6s marria$e to &lemente is still #alid %ecause no a""ida#it was "iled %! Alice to make known her reappearance le$all!. Alice reappeared onl! a"ter &lemente6s death and in this case she can no lon$er "ile such an a""ida#it in this case the %ad "aith Lor $ood "aith o" &lemente can no lon$er %e raised ? the marria$e herein is considered #oida%le and must %e attacked directl! not collaterall! ? it is howe#er impossi%le "or a direct attack since there is no lon$er a marria$e to %e attacked "or the same has %een terminated upon &lemente6s death.
illanue#a #s &a +R no 1/(9-- 1CK(7KC) !rticle 34 >n April 1988, rl! married @ilia %e"ore a trial court ud$e in :uerto :rincesa. >n o#em%er 199(, rl! "iled to annul the marria$e. 3e claimed that threats o" #iolence and duress "orced him to marr! @ilia. 3e said that he had %een recei#in$ phone calls threatenin$ him and that @ilia e#en hired the ser#ice o" a certain Pa &elso, a mem%er o" the :A, to threaten him. rl! also said he was de"rauded %! @ilia %! claimin$ that she was pre$nant hence he married her %ut he now raises that he ne#er impre$nated @ilia prior to the marria$e. @ilia on the other hand denied rl!6s alle$ations and she said that rl! "reel! coha%ited with her a"ter the marria$e and she showed 1 letters that shows rl!6s a""ection and care towards her. ISSUE: 4hether or not there is duress and "raud attendant in the case at %ar. HELD: 2he S& ruled that rl!6s alle$ation o" "raud and intimidation is untena%le. n its "ace, it is o%#ious that rl! is onl! seekin$ to annul his marria$e with @ilia so as to ha#e the pendin$ appealed %i$am! case L"iled a$ainst him %! @ilia to %e dismissed. n the merits o" the case, rl!6s alle$ation o" "ear was not concretel! esta%lished. 3e was not a%le to pro#e that there was a reasona%le and well $rounded reason "or "ear to %e created in his mind %! the alle$ed intimidation %ein$ done a$ainst him %! @ilia and her part!. rl! is a securit! $uard who is well a%reast with sel"=de"ense and that the threat he so descri%ed done a$ainst him is not su""icient enou$h to #itiate him "rom "reel! marr!in$ @ilia. Fraud cannot %e raised as a $round as well. 3is alle$ation that he ne#er had an erection durin$ their seGual intercourse is incredi%le and is an outri$ht lie. Also, there is a prolon$ed inaction on the part o" rl! to attack the marria$e. >t took him and a hal" !ears to "ile an action which %rin$s merit to @ilia6s contention that rl! "reel! coha%ited with her a"ter the marria$e.
A#aya vs !a"aroa# A#aa %s. *a+aoa# 3' SCRA /
"A&$S:
Aurora Ana!a and Fernando :alaroan were married in 19-/. :alaroan "iled an action "or annulment o" the marria$e in 19- on the $round that his consent was o%tained throu$h "orce and intimidation. 2he complaint was dismissed and upheld the #alidit! o" the marria$e and $rantin$ Aurora6s counterclaim. 4hile the amount o" counterclaim was %ein$ ne$otiated, Fernando di#ul$ed to her that se#eral months prior to their marria$e, he had pre=marital relationship with a close relati#e o" his. Accordin$ to her, the non=di#ul$ement to her o" such pre=marital secret constituted "raud in o%tainin$ her consent. She pra!ed "or the annulment o" her marria$e with Fernando on such $round.
ISSUE: 4hether or not the concealment to a wi"e %! her hus%and o" his pre=marital relationship with another woman is a $round "or annulment o" marria$e.
HELD:
2he concealment o" a hus%and6s pre=marital relationship with another woman was not one o" those enumerated that would constitute "raud as $round "or annulment and it is "urther eGcluded %! the last para$raph pro#idin$ that Qno other misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastit! shall $i#e $round "or an action to annul a marria$e. 3ence, the case at %ar does not constitute "raud and there"ore would not warrant an annulment o" marria$e.
Amelor #s R2& +R no 179)(C 8K()KC8 !rticle 34 Manuel married @eonida in 1989. 2he! are %oth medical practitioners. 2he! %e$ot / children. 11 !ears later, @eonida sou$ht to annul her marria$e with Manuel claimin$ that Manuel is ps!cholo$icall! incapacitated to per"orm the essential marital o%li$ations. @eonida testi"ied that Manuel is a harsh disciplinarian and that his polic! towards their children are o"ten uncon#entional and was the cause o" their "re*uent "i$ht. Manuel has an unreasona%le wa! o" imposin$ discipline towards their children %ut is remarka%l! so $entle towards his mom. 3e is more a""ectionate towards his mom and this is a "actor which is unreasona%le "or @eonida. Further, @eonida also testi"ied that Manuel is a homoseGual as e#idenced %! his unusual closeness to his male companions and that he concealed his homoseGualit! "rom @eonida prior to their marria$e. She once cau$ht Manuel talkin$ to a man a""ectionatel! o#er the phone and she con"irmed all her "ear when she saw Manuel kiss a man. 2he R2& ruled that their marria$e is null and #oid not %ecause o" :> %ut rather due to "raud %! reason o" Manuel6s concealment o" his homoseGualit! Art - o" the F&. 2he &A a""irmed the R2&6s decision. ISSUE: 4hether or not the marria$e %etween the two can %e declared as null and #oid due to "raud %! reason o" Manuel6s concealment o" his homoseGualit!. HELD: 2he S& emphasized that homoseGualit! per se is not a $round to nulli"! a marria$e. >t is the concealment o" homoseGualit! that would. >n the case at %ar howe#er, it is not pro#en that Manuel is a homoseGual. 2he lower court should not ha#e taken the pu%lic6s perception a$ainst Manuel6s seGualit!. 3is peculiarities must not %e ruled %! the lower court as an indication o" his homoseGualit! "or those are not conclusi#e and are not su""icient enou$h to pro#e so. E#en $rantin$ that Manuel is indeed a homoseGual, there was nothin$ in the complaint or an!where in the case was it alle$ed and pro#en that Manuel hid such seGualit! "rom @eonida and that @eonida6s consent had %een #itiated % ! such.
RARRAD #s &3AE PD<+ @EE
!rticle 34 Ra!ra! married @ee in 19-( in :usan, Porea. 5e"ore the marria$e, @ee was a%le to secure a marria$e license which is a re*uirement in Porea prior to marr!in$. 2he! li#ed to$ether until 19--. Ra!ra! howe#er later "ound out that @ee had pre#iousl! li#ed with ( Americans and a Porean. @ee answered %! sa!in$ that it is not unusual in Porea "or a woman to ha#e more than one partner and that it is le$all! permissi#e "or them to do so and that there is no le$al impediment to her marria$e with Ra!ra!. E#entuall! the! pursued their separate wa!s. Ra!ra! later "iled %e"ore lower court o" Manila "or an action to annul his marria$e with @ee %ecause @ee6s wherea%outs cannot %e determined and that his consent in marr!in$ @ee would ha#e not %een "or the marria$e had he known prior that @ee had %een li#in$ with other men. 3is action "or annulment had %een dul! pu%lished and summons were made known to @ee %ut due to her a%sence Ra!ra! mo#ed to ha#e @ee %e declared in de"ault. 2he lower court denied Ra!ra!6s action statin$ that since the marria$e was cele%rated in Porea the court cannot take co$nizance o" the case and that the "acts presented %! Ra !ra! is not su""icient to de%unk his marria$e with @ee. ISSUE: 4hether or not Ra!ra!6s marria$e with @ee is null and #oid. HELD: 2he lower court erred in rulin$ that :hilippine courts do not ha#e urisdiction o#er the case. As "ar as marria$e status is concerned, the nationalit! principle is controllin$ 2 leG loci cele%racionis. 2he lower court is howe#er correct in rulin$ that Ra!ra!6s e#idence is not su""icient to render his marria$e with @ee null and #oid. Ra!ra! said that the police clearance secured %! @ee is meant to allow her to marr! a"ter her su%se*uent coha%itationKs with the other men ? which is considered %i$amous in :hilippine law. 2he S& ruled that the police clearance is wantin$ "or it lacks the si$nature o" the person who prepared it and there is no competent document to esta%lish the identit! o" the same. Also, throu$h Ra!ra! himsel", @ee a#erred that it is ok in Porea "or a person who coha%ited with other men %e"ore to marr! another man. 2his is an indication that @ee hersel" is aware that i" it were a pre#ious marria$e that is concerned then that could %e a le$al impediment to an! su%se*uent marria$e. Ra!ra! cannot %e $i#en credence in claimin$ that his consent could ha#e %een otherwise altered had he known all these "acts prior to the marria$e %ecause he would lie to e#er! opportunit! $i#en him %! the &ourt so as to suit his case.
=e Oa'o vs F"ore#ia#o De Ocampo %s. ;+oe#cia#o
10 *$i+ 35
"A&$S:
'ose de campo and Sera"ina Florenciano were married in 19/8. 2he! %e$ot se#eral children who are not li#in$ with plainti"". >n March 19-1, latter disco#ered on se#eral occasions that his wi"e was %etra!in$ his trust %! maintainin$ illicit relations with 'ose Arcalas. 3a#in$ "ound out, he sent the wi"e to Manila in 'une 19-1 to stud! %eaut! culture where she sta!ed "or one !ear. A$ain plainti"" disco#ered that the wi"e was $oin$ out with se#eral other man other than Arcalas. >n 19-(, when the wi"e "inished her studies, she le"t plainti"" and since then the! had li#ed separatel!. >n 'une 19--, plainti"" surprised his wi"e in the act o" ha#in$ illicit relations with elson rzame. 3e si$ni"ied his intention o" "ilin$ a petition "or le$al separation to which de"endant mani"ested con"ormit! pro#ided she is not char$ed with adulter! in a criminal action. Accordin$l!, campo "iled a petition "or le$al separation in 19--.
ISSUE: 4hether the con"ession made %! Florenciano constitutes the con"ession o" ud$ment disallowed %! the Famil! &ode.
HELD:
Florenciano6s admission to the in#esti$atin$ "iscal that she committed adulter!, in the eGistence o" e#idence o" adulter! other than such con"ession, is not the con"ession o" ud$ment disallowed %! Article 8 o" the Famil! &ode. 4hat is prohi%ited is a con"ession o" ud$ment, a con"ession done in court or throu$h a pleadin$. 4here there is e#idence o" the adulter! independent o" the de"endant6s statement a$reein$ to the le$al separation, the decree o" separation should %e $ranted since it would not %e %ased on the con"ession %ut upon the e#idence presented %! the plainti"". 4hat the law prohi%its is a ud$ment %ased eGclusi#el! on de"endant6s con"ession. 2he petition should %e $ranted %ased on the second adulter!, which has not !et prescri%ed.
e#*ave< vs ;sa#o "I"E: "e#c$a%e& %s. Esca#o CI"A"ION: 15 SCRA 355
"A&$S:
(7 !ears old icenta Escano who %elon$ to a prominent Filipino Famil! o" Spanish ancestr! $ot married on Fe%urar! (, 198 with :astor 2encha#ez, /( !ears old en$ineer, and eG=arm! o""icer %e"ore &atholic chaplain @t. Moises @a#ares. 2he marria$e was a culmination o" the lo#e a""air o" the couple and was dul! re$istered in the local ci#il re$istr!. A certain :acita oel came to %e their match=maker and $o= %etween who had an amorous relationship with 2encha#ez as written %! a San &arlos colle$e student where she and icenta are stud!in$. icenta and :astor are supposed to renew their #owsK marria$e in a church as su$$ested %! icenta6s parents. 3owe#er a"ter translatin$ the said letter to icenta6s dad , he disa$reed "or a new marria$e. icenta continued lea#in$ with her parents in &e%u while :astor went %ack to work in Manila.
icenta applied "or a passport indicatin$ that she was sin$le and when it was appro#ed she le"t "or the
ISSUE: 4hether the di#orce sou$ht %! icenta Escano is #alid and %indin$ upon courts o" the :hilippines.
HELD:
&i#il &ode o" the :hilippines does not admit di#orce. :hilippine courts cannot $i#e reco$nition on "orei$n decrees o" a%solute di#orce %etween Filipino citizens %ecause it would %e a #iolation o" the &i#il &ode. Such $rant would arise to discrimination in "a#or o" rich citizens who can a""ord di#orce in "orei$n countries. 2he adulterous relationship o" Escano with her American hus%and is enou$h $rounds "or the le$al separation pra!ed %! 2encha#ez. >n the e!es o" :hilippine laws, 2encha#ez and Escano are still married. A "orei$n di#orce %etween Filipinos sou$ht and decreed is not entitled to reco$nition neither is the marria$e o" the di#orcee entitled to #alidit! in the :hilippines. 2hus, the desertion and securin$ o" an in#alid di#orce decree %! one spouse entitled the other "or dama$es.
43EREFRE, the decision under appeal is here%! modi"ied as "ollows 1 Adud$in$ plainti""=appellant :astor 2encha#ez entitled to a decree o" le$al separation "rom de"endant icenta F. EscaBo ( Sentencin$ de"endant=appellee icenta EscaBo to pa! plainti""=appellant 2encha#ez the amount o" :(-,CCC "or dama$es and attorne!s; "ees / Sentencin$ appellant :astor 2encha#ez to pa! the appellee, Mamerto EscaBo and the estate o" his wi"e, the deceased Mena EscaBo, :-,CCC % ! wa! o" dama$es and attorne!s; "ees.
>au
"A&$S:
&armen @apuz=S! "iled a petition "or le$al separation a$ainst Eu"emio Eu"emio on Au$ust 19-/. 2he! were married ci#ill! on Septem%er (1, 19/ and canonicall! a"ter nine da!s. 2he! had li#ed to$ether as hus%and and wi"e continuousl! without an! children until 19/ when her hus%and a%andoned her. 2he! ac*uired properties durin$ their marria$e. :etitioner then disco#ered that her hus%and coha%ited with a &hinese woman named +o 3iok on or a%out 199. She pra!ed "or the issuance o" a decree o" le$al separation, which amon$ others, would order that the de"endant Eu"emio should %e depri#ed o" his share o" the conu$al partnership pro"its.
Eu"emio counterclaimed "or the declaration o" nullit! o" his marria$e with @apuz=S! on the $round o" his prior and su%sistin$ marria$e with +o 3iok. 2rial proceeded and the parties adduced their respecti#e e#idence. 3owe#er, %e"ore the trial could %e completed, respondent alread! scheduled to present surre%uttal e#idence, petitioner died in a #ehicular accident on Ma! 19)9. 3er counsel dul! noti"ied the court o" her death. Eu"emio mo#ed to dismiss the petition "or le$al separation on 'une 19)9 on the $rounds that the said petition was "iled %e!ond the one=!ear period pro#ided in Article 1C( o" the &i#il &ode and that the death o" &armen a%ated the action "or le$al separation. :etitioner6s counsel mo#ed to su%stitute the deceased &armen %! her "ather, Macario @apuz.
ISSUE: 4hether the death o" the plainti"", %e"ore "inal decree in an action "or le$al separation, a%ate the action and will it also appl! i" the action in#ol#ed propert! ri$hts.
HELD:
An action "or le$al separation is a%ated %! the death o" the plainti"", e#en i" propert! ri$hts are in#ol#ed. 2hese ri$hts are mere e""ects o" decree o" separation, their source %ein$ the decree itsel" without the decree such ri$hts do not come into eGistence, so that %e"ore the "inalit! o" a decree, these claims are merel! ri$hts in eGpectation. >" death super#enes durin$ the pendenc! o" the action, no decree can %e "orthcomin$, death producin$ a more radical and de"initi#e separation and the eGpected conse*uential ri$hts and claims would necessaril! re main un%orn. 2he petition o" Eu"emio "or declaration o" nullit! is moot and academic and there could %e no "urther interest in continuin$ the same a"ter her demise, that automaticall! dissol#ed the *uestioned union. An! propert! ri$hts ac*uired %! either part! as a result o" Article 1 o" the &i#il &ode o" the :hilippines ) could %e resol#ed and determined in a proper action "or partition %! either the appellee or % ! the heirs o" the appellant.
!ote#ia#o vs CA *ote#cia#o %s. CA GR No. 13/8/! 13/808! 4+ 1/! 2001
"A&$S:
>n March 1999, Erlinda >llusorio, the wi"e o" herein petitioner, :otenciano, petitioned "or ha%eas corpus which was dismissed on Ma! (CCC "or lack o" merit and $ranted the petition to nulli"! the &A rulin$
$i#in$ #isitation ri$hts to Erlinda. 2his case %e"ore S& is Erlinda6s motion to reconsider the decision made. A con"erence was set on Septem%er (CCC to determine the propriet! and rele#ance o" a ph!sical and medical eGamination o" :otenciano and how it will %e conducted. Erlinda6s motion to ha#e :otenciano %e medicall! eGamined %! a team o" medical eGperts appointed %! the &ourt was denied with "inalit! in March (CC1.
ISSUE: 4hether a court can #alidl! issue an order compellin$ the hus%and to li#e to$ether and o%ser#e mutual lo#e, respect and "idelit!.
HELD:
Erlinda claimed that she was not compellin$ :otenciano to li#e with her in consortium %ut clearl! she wanted the latter to li#e with her and is the root cause o" her petition. 4hat the law pro#ides is that Qhus%and and wi"e are o%li$ed to li#e to$ether, o%ser#e mutual lo#e, respect and "idelit!. 2he sanction thereo" is the Qspontaneous, mutual a""ection %etween hus%and and wi"e and not an! le$al mandate or court order to en"orce consortium.
E#identl!, there was a%sence o" empath! %etween Erlinda and :otenciano ha#in$ separated "rom %ed and %oard since 197(. Empath! as de"ined %! S& is a Qshared "eelin$ %etween hus%and and wi"e eGperienced not onl! %! ha#in$ spontaneous seGual intimac! %ut a deep sense o" spiritual communion. Marital union is a two=wa! process. >t is "or two lo#in$ adults who #iew the relationship with respect, sacri"ice and a continuin$ commitment to to$etherness, conscious o" its #alue as a su%lime social institution.
2! #s &A +R no 1(7C) 11K(7KCC !rticle 32 – 9:ception to the Rule >n 1977, Re!es married Anna Maria illanue#a in a ci#il ceremon!. 2he! had a church weddin$ in the same !ear as well. >n 198C, the 'u#enile and 0omestic Relations &ourt o" & declared their marria$e as null and #oid the ci#il one "or lack o" marria$e license and the su%se*uent church weddin$ due to the lack o" consent o" the parties. >n 1979, prior to the '0R& decision, Re!es married "elia. 2hen in 1991, Re!es "iled "or an action "or declaration o" nullit! o" his marria$e with "elia. 3e a#erred that the! lack a marria$e license at the time o" the cele%ration and that there was no udicial declaration !et as to the nullit! o" his pre#ious marria$e with Anna. "elia presented e#idence pro#in$ the eGistence o" a #alid marria$e license includin$ the speci"ic license num%er desi$nated. 2he lower court howe#er ruled that "elia6s marria$e with Re!es is null and #oid. 2he same was a""irmed %! the &A appl!in$ the pro#isions o" the Art C o" the F&.
ISSUE: 4hether or not the a%solute nullit! o" the pre#ious o" marria$e o" Re!es can %e in#oked in the case at %ar. HELD: Art. C o" the F& pro#ides that, Q2he a%solute nullit! o" a pre#ious marria$e ma! %e in#oked "or purposes o" remarria$e on the %asis solel! o" a "inal ud$ment declarin$ such pre#ious marria$e #oid. 2his means that %e"ore one can enter into a second marria$e he must "irst ac*uire a udicial declaration o" the nullit! o" the pre#ious marria$e and such declaration ma! %e in#oked on the %asis solel! o" a "inal ud$ment declarin$ the pre#ious marria$e as #oid. For purposes other than remarria$e, other e#idences ma! %e presented and the declaration can %e passed upon %! the courts. >n the case at %ar, the lower court and the &A cannot appl! the pro#ision o" the F&. 5oth marria$es entered %! Re!es were solemnized prior to the F&. 2he old && did not ha#e an! pro#ision that states that there must %e such a declaration %e"ore remarria$e can %e done hence "elia6s marria$e with Re!es is #alid. 2he pro#isions o" the F& took e""ect in 687 cannot %e applied retroacti#el! especiall! %ecause the! would impair the #ested ri$hts o" "elia under the && which was operational durin$ her marria$e with Re!es.
ANG;>;S VS. MAG>A@A A*l+ !+. #ly GR *o 1;798 9>2>;
Fats :etitioner is the wi"e o" the deceased while the respondent is the child o" the deceased in his "irst wi"e. Respondent seeks administration o" the estate o" the deceased %ut opposed %! the sur#i#in$ wi"e (nd wi"e alle$in$ that the respondent is an ille$itimate child o" the deceased.
ssue 4hether or not the respondent is ille$itimate precludin$ her to %ecome the administratriG.
Ru"i# o, respondent is not ille$itimate.
•
•
Article 1) o" the Famil! &ode cannot %e more emphatic on the matter Q&hildren concei#ed or %orn durin$ the marria$e o" the parents are le$itimate. 2he issue o" le$itimac! cannot %e attacked collaterall!.
Art. 17(. 2he "iliation o" le$itimate children is esta%lished %! an! o" the "ollowin$ 1. 2he record o" %irth appearin$ in the ci#il re$ister or a "inal ud$ments or (. An admission o" le$itimate "iliation in a pu%lic document or a pri#ate handwritten instrument and si$ned %! the parent concerned. >n the a%sence o" the "ore$oin$ e#idence, the le$itimate "iliation shall %e pro#ed %! 1. 2he open and continuous possession o" the status o" a le$itimate child or (. An! other means allowed %! the Rules o" &ourt and special laws.
Co#eio# vs CA Co#cepcio# %s. CA CONO*9IN GR No. 123650! A4g4st 31! 2005
"A&$S:
+erardo &oncepcion, the petitioner, and Ma. 2heresa Almonte, pri#ate respondent, were married in 0ecem%er 1989, and %e$otten a child named 'ose +erardo in 0ecem%er 199C. 2he hus%and "iled on 0ecem%er 1991, a petition to ha#e his marria$e annulled on the $round o" %i$am! since the wi"e married a certain Mario +opiao sometime in 0ecem%er 198C, whom accordin$ to the hus%and was still ali#e and li#in$ in @o!ola 3ei$hts, &. 2rial court ruled that the son was an ille$itimate child and the custod! was awarded to the wi"e while +erardo was $ranted #isitation ri$hts. 2heresa ar$ued that there was nothin$ in the law $rantin$ Q#isitation ri$hts in "a#or o" the putati#e "ather o" an ille$itimate child. She "urther wanted to ha#e the surname o" the son chan$ed "rom Q&oncepcion to Almonte, her maiden name, since an ille$itimate child should use his mother6s surname. A"ter the re*uested oral ar$ument, trial court re#ersed its rulin$ and held the son to %e not the son o" +erardo %ut o" Mario. 3ence, the child was a le$itimate child o" 2heresa and Mario.
HELD:
&onsiderin$ that 2heresa6s marria$e with +erardo was #oid a% initio, the latter ne#er %ecame the "ormer6s hus%and and ne#er ac*uired an! ri$ht to impu$n the le$itimac! o" the child. 2heresa6s contention was to ha#e his son %e declared as not the le$itimate child o" her and Mario %ut her ille$itimate child with +erardo. >n this case, the mother has no ri$ht to disa#ow a child %ecause maternit! is ne#er uncertain. 3ence, she is not permitted %! law to *uestion the son6s le$itimac!.
%e#ite%a&ua vs CA e#ite&-a)4a %s. CA GR No. 105'25! a#4a 26! 1//6
"A&$S:
Spouses icente 5enitez and >sa%el &hipon$ian were owners o" #arious properties located in @a$una. >sa%el died in 198( while his hus%and died in 1989. icente6s sister and nephew "iled a complaint "or the issuance o" letters o" administration o" icente6s estate in "a#or o" the nephew, herein pri#ate respondent. 2he petitioner, Marissa 5enitez=5adua, was raised and cared %! the deceased spouses since childhood, thou$h not related to them %! %lood, nor le$all! adopted. 2he latter to pro#e that she is the onl! le$itimate child o" the spouses su%mitted documents such as her certi"icate o" li#e %irth where the spouses name were re"lected as her parents. She e#en testi"ied that said spouses continuousl! treated her as their le$itimate dau$hter. n the other hand, the relati#es o" icente declared that said spouses were una%le to ph!sicall! procreate hence the petitioner cannot %e the %iolo$ical child. 2rial court decided in "a#or o" the petitioner as the le$itimate dau$hter and sole heir o" the spouses.
ISSUE: 4 petitioner6s certi"icate o" li#e %irth will su""ice to esta%lish her le$itimac!.
HELD:
2he &ourt dismissed the case "or lack o" merit. 2he mere re$istration o" a child in his or her %irth certi"icate as the child o" the supposed parents is not a #alid adoption. >t does not con"er upon the child the status o" an adopted child and her le$al ri$hts. Such act amounts to simulation o" the child;s %irth or "alsi"ication o" his or her %irth certi"icate, which is a pu%lic document.
>t is worth! to note that icente and %rother o" the deceased wi"e eGecuted a 0eed o" EGtra='udicial Settlement o" the Estate o" the latter. >n the notarized document, the! stated that the! were the sole heirs o" the deceased %ecause Qshe died without descendants and ascendants. >n eGecutin$ such deed, icente e""ecti#el! repudiated the &erti"icate o" @i#e 5irth o" the petitioner where it appeared thathe was the petitioner6s "ather.
SS #. A+
FA&2S
:a%lo A$uas, a mem%er and pensioner o" the SSS died. :a%lo6s sur#i#in$ spouse, Rosanna 3. A$uas, "iled a claim with the SSS "or death %ene"its on indicatin$ in herclaim that :a%lo was sur#i#ed %! his minor child, 'e!lnn 3er claim "or monthl! pension was settled. SSS recei#ed a sworn "rom @eticia A$uas=Macapinlac, :a%lo6s sister, contestin$ Rosanna6s claim "or death%ene"its. She alle$ed that Rosanna a%andoned the "amil! a%ode approGimatel! more than ) !ears %e"ore, and li#ed with another man on whom she has %een dependent "or support. She "urther a#erred that :a%lo had no le$al children with Rosanna.
2he SS& ruled that Rosanna was no lon$er *uali"ied as primar! %ene"iciar!.
&A re#ersed the SS& deicision and "a#ored the respondents.
>SSA@@D +RA2E0.
>t %ears stressin$ that under Article 1) o" the Famil! &ode, children concei#ed or %orn durin$ the marria$e o" the parents are le$itimate. 'e!lnn6s claim is usti"ied %! the photocop! o" her %irth certi"icate which %ears the si$nature o" :a%lo. :etitioner was a%le to authenticate the certi"ication "rom the &i#il Re$istr! showin$ that she was %orn on cto%er (9, 1991. 2he records also show that Rosanna and :a%lo were married on 0ecem%er , 1977 and the marria$e su%sisted until the latter6s death on 0ecem%er 8, 199). >t is there"ore e#ident that 'e!lnn was %orn durin$ Rosanna and :a%lo6s marria$e. >mpu$nin$ the le$itimac! o" a child is a strictl! personal ri$ht o" the hus%and or, in eGceptional cases, his heirs. >n this case, there is no showin$ that :a%lo challen$ed the le$itimac! o" 'e!lnn durin$ his li"etime. 2he presumption that 'e!lnn is a le$itimate child is %uttressed %! her %irth certi"icate %earin$ :a%lo6s si$nature, which was #eri"ied "rom his specimen si$nature on "ile with petitioner. A %irth certi"icate si$ned %! the "ather is a competent e#idence o" paternit!. For Rosanna, to *uali"! as a primar! %ene"iciar!, she must esta%lish ( *uali"!in$ "actors 1 that she is the le$itimate spouse, and ( that she is dependent upon the mem%er "or support. A wi"e who is alread! separated de "acto "rom her hus%and cannot %e said to %e Idependent "or supportI upon the hus%and, a%sent an! showin$ to the contrar!. >" it is pro#ed that the were till li#in$ to$ether at the time o" his death, it is presumed that she was dependent on the hus%and "or support, unless it is shown that she is capa%le o" pro#idin$ "or hersel". nl! 'e!lnn is entitled to the SSS death %ene"its as it was esta%lished that she is his le$itimate child. Records show that 'anet was merel! IadoptedI %! the spouses, %ut there are no le$al papers to pro#e it. Rosanna was the le$itimate wi"e o" :a%lo, she is likewise not *uali"ied as a primar! %ene"iciar! since she "ailed to present an! proo" to show that at the time o" his death, she was still dependent on him "or support e#en i" the! were alread! li#in$ separatel!. 2E @e$itimac! cannot %e eGtended to other si%lin$s.
$E%"IS$A 5A5IERA ?S PRESEN$A&I%N &A$%$AL :osted %! ka!e lee on 11// :M
+.R. o. 1/89/ 'une 1- (CCC
"A&$S:
:resentacion *uestioned the authenticit! o" the entr! o" %irth o" 2eo"ista. She asserted that the %irth certi"icate is #oid a% initio, as it was totall! a simulated %irth, the si$nature o" in"ormant "or$ed, and contained "alse entries, to wit
2hat 2eo"ista is the le$itimate child o" the late spouses Eu$enio 5a%iera and 3ermo$ena &ariBosa Si$nature o" the mother, 3ermo$ena, is "alsi"ied 2eo"ista;s correct "amil! name is +<>2, not 5a%iera 3er real mother was Flora +uinto, and her status is an ille$itimate child >t was clinicall! and medicall! impossi%le "or 3ermo$ena to %ore a child at - !ears o" a$e her last child %irth was when :resentacion was %orn. :resentacion ask the court to declare 2eo"ista;s certi"icate o" %irth #oid and ine""ecti#e, and to order the &it! &i#il Re$istrar to cancel the same as it a""ect the hereditar! ri$hts o" :resentacion who inherited the estate. •
• • • •
2eo"ista countered that she and :resentacion are "ull=%looded sisters, as showed therein her certi"icate o" %irth, &erti"icate o" 5aptism, and her School Report &ard. She also "iled a motion on the $rounds that the petition states no cause o" action, %ein$ an attack on her le$itimac! as the child o" 3ermo$ena and Eu$enio that :resentacion has no le$al capacit! to "ile the petition pursuant to Art. 171 o" the Famil! &ode and that the petition was %arred "rom prescription in accordance with Art. 17C o" the Famil! &ode.
2he trial court ruled in "a#or o" :resentacion. &A a""irmed the decision o" the trial court.
ISSUE:
1. 4hether or not :resentacion has le$al capacit! to "ile the special proceedin$s pursuant to Art. 171 (. 4hether or not the special proceedin$s is improper and %arred % ! the statute o" limitation /. 4hether or not the pu%lic record o" 2eo"ista;s %irth is superior to the oral testimon! o" :resentacion.
RULING:
:etition is not meritorious.
1. Article 171 is not applica%le in this case. Article 171 o" the Famil! &ode shows that it applies to instances which the "ather impu$ns the le$itimac! o" his wi"e;s child. 2he pro#ision, howe#er, presupposes that the child was the undisputed child o" the mother. :resent case alle$es and shows that 3ermo$ena did not $i#e %irth to 2eo"ista. 2he present action does not impu$n 2eo"ista;s "iliation to Eu$enio and 3ermo$eno, %e there is no %lood relation to impu$n in the "irst place. 2he reason wh! :resentacion took interest on 2eo"ista;s status is to protect the "ormer;s successional ri$hts.
(. Article 17C o" the F& does not appl!. 2he pro#ision pro#ides a prescripti#e period "or action to impu$n the le$itimac! o" the child. 2he present action in#ol#es the cancellation o" 2eo"ista;s 5irth &erti"icate, it does not impu$n her le$itimac!. 2he action to nulli"! the %irth certi"icate does not prescri%e %ecause it was alle$edl! declared #oid a% initio.
/. 2he speci"ic attendant in the case at %ar and the totalit! o" the e#idence presented durin$ trial, su""icientl! ne$ates the presumption o" re$ularit! in the issuance o" %irth certi"icate.
First, the %irth certi"icate was not si$ned %! the local ci#il re$istrar, and the mother;s si$nature was di""erent "rom other si$natures. Second, no medical records or doctor;s prescription that pro#ide as e#idence o" 3ermo$ena;s pre$nanc!. >t was impossi%le "or her to ha#e $i#en %irth at - !ears o" a$e. 2hird, the disposition o" 3ermo$ena which states that she did not $i#e %rith to 2eo"ista and that the latter was not hers o" Eu$enio.
$IJING ?S &A :osted %! ka!e lee on 1- :M
+.R. o. 1(-9C1, March 8, (CC1 L3a%eas &orpus "A&$S: Ed$ardo and 5ien#enida 2iin$ "iled a petition "or ha%eas corpus in order to reco#er their !oun$est child, Ed$ardo 'r., whom the! did not see "or !ears. 2rial court $ranted the petition and ordered An$elita 0iamante to immediatel! release the child, now named 'ohn 2homas 0. @opez, and turn him o#er to his parents. &A re#ersed and set aside the decision rendered %! the lower court. >t *uestioned the propriet! o" the ha%eas corpus in this case.
ISSUE:4hether or not ha%eas corpus is the proper remed! to re$ain custod! o" the minor. RULING: Des. S& upheld the decision o" the trial court.
2he writ o" ha%eas corpus eGtends to all cases o" ille$al con"inement or detention %! which an! person is depri#ed o" his li%ert!, or %! the ri$ht"ul custod! o" an! person withheld "rom the persons entitled thereto. 2he writ o" ha%eas corpus is the proper le$al remed! to ena%le parents to re$ain the custod! o" a minor child e#en i" the latter %e in the custod! o" a third person o" his own "ree will. >t must %e stressed out that in ha%eas corpus proceedin$, the *uestion o" identit! is rele#ant and material, su%ect to the usual presumption, includin$ those as identit! o" the person. 2he trial court was correct in its ud$ment %ased on the e#idence esta%lished %! the parents and %! the witness who is the %rother o" the late common=law hus%and o" An$elita. Furthermore, there are no clinical records, lo$ %ook or dischar$e "rom the clinic where 'ohn 2homas was alle$edl! %orn were presented. Stron$ e#idence directl! pro#es that 2homas @opez, An$ela;s Ihus%andI, was not capa%le o" sirin$ a child. Moreo#er, his "irst marria$e produced no o""sprin$ e#en a"ter almost 1- !ears o" li#in$ to$ether with his le$al wi"e. 3is 1 !ear a""air with An$elita also %ore no o""sprin$. 2he %irth certi"icate o" 'ohn 2homas @opez were attended %! irre$ularities. >t was "iled %! 2homas @opez, the alle$ed "ather.
Biso# vs CA iso# %s. CA GR No. 126853! ;eb4a 26! 1//8
"A&$S:
:ri#ate respondent, Monina 'ison, instituted a complaint a$ainst petitioner, Francisco 'ison, "or reco$nition as ille$itimate child o" the latter. 2he case was "iled (C !ears a"ter her mother6s death and when she was alread! /9 !ears o" a$e.
:etitioner was married to @ilia @opez 'ison since 19C and sometime in 19-, he impre$nated Esperanza Amolar, Monina6s mother. Monina alle$ed that since childhood, she had eno!ed the continuous, implied reco$nition as the ille$itimate child o" petitioner %! his acts and that o" his "amil!. >t was likewise alle$ed that petitioner supported her and spent "or her education such that she %ecame a &:A and e#entuall! a &entral 5ank EGaminer. Monina was a%le to present total o" 11 witnesses.
ISSUE: 4 Monina should %e declared as ille$itimate child o" Francisco 'ison.
HELD:
Q2o pro#e open and continuous possession o" the status o" an ille$itimate child, there must %e e#idence o" the mani"estation o" the permanent intention o" the supposed "ather to consider the child as his, %! continuous and clear mani"estations o" parental a""ection and care, which cannot %e attri%uted to pure charit!. Such acts must %e o" such a nature that the! re#eal not onl! the con#iction o" paternit!, %ut also the apparent desire to ha#e and treat the child as such in all relations in societ! and in li"e, not accidentall!, %ut continuousl!.
2he "ollowin$ "acts was esta%lished %ased on the testimonial e#idences o""ered %! Monina 1.
(.
2hat Francisco was her "ather and she was concei#ed at the time when her mother was emplo!ed %! the "ormer 2hat Francisco reco$nized Monina as his child throu$h his o#ert acts and conduct.
S& ruled that a certi"icate o" li#e %irth purportedl! identi"!in$ the putati#e "ather is not competence e#idence as to the issue o" paternit!. Francisco6s lack o" participation in the preparation o" %aptismal certi"icates and school records render the documents showed as incompetent to pro#e paternit!. 4ith re$ard to the a""ida#it si$ned %! Monina when she was (- !ears o" a$e attestin$ that Francisco was not her "ather, S& was in the position that i" Monina were trul! not Francisco6s ille$itimate child, it would %e unnecessar! "or him to ha#e $one to such $reat len$ths in order that Monina denounce her "iliation. Monina6s e#idence hurdles the Qhi$h standard o" proo" re*uired "or the success o" an action to esta%lish one6s ille$itimate "iliation in rel!in$ upon the pro#ision on Qopen and continuous possession. 3ence, Monina pro#ed her "iliation %! more than mere preponderance o" e#idence.
Since the instant case in#ol#es paternit! and "iliation, e#en i" ille$itimate, Monina "iled her action well within the period $ranted her %! a positi#e pro#ision o" law. A denial then o" her action on $round o" laches would clearl! %e ine*uita%le and unust. :etition was denied.
Case =iest G.R. No. 17)9. Otober 22, 2007
Rommel 'acinto 0antes Sil#erio, petitioner, #s. Repu%lic o" the :hilippines, respondent. UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
"3+ :etitioner was %orn and re$istered as male. 3e admitted that he is a male transseGual, that is, Qanatomicall! male %ut "eels, thinks and acts as a Q"emale and that he had alwa!s identi"ied himsel" with $irls since childhood. 3e underwent ps!cholo$ical eGamination, hormone treatment, %reast au$mentation and seG reassi$nment sur$er!. From then on, petitioner li#ed as "emale and was in "act en$a$ed to %e married. 3e then sou$ht to ha#e his name in his %irth certi"icate chan$ed "rom Rommel 'acinto to Mel!, and his seG "rom male to "emale. 2he trial court rendered a decision in "a#or o" the petitioner. Repu%lic o" the :hilippines thru the S+ "iled a petition "or certiorari in the &ourt o" Appeals. &A rendered a decision in "a#or o" the Repu%lic.
I++u 4hether or not petitioner is entitled to the relie" asked "or.
Rul)* Article /7) o" the &i#il &ode pro#ides that no person can chan$e his name or surname without udicial authorit! which was amended %! RA 9C8 ? &lerical Error @aw which does not sanction a chan$e o" "irst name on the $round o" seG reassi$nment. 5e"ore a person can le$all! chan$e his $i#en name, he
must present proper or reasona%le cause or an! compellin$ reason usti"!in$ such chan$e. >n addition, he must show that he will %e preudiced %! the use o" his true and o""icial name. >n this case, he "ailed to show, or e#en alle$e, an! preudice that he mi$ht su""er as a result o" usin$ his true and o""icial name. Article 1( o" the &i#il &ode pro#ides that no entr! in the ci#il re$ister shall %e chan$ed or corrected without a udicial order. 2he %irth certi"icate o" petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, includin$ those correspondin$ to his "irst name and seG, were all correct. 3ence, no correction is necessar!. Article 1/ o" the &i#il &ode pro#ides that all other matters pertainin$ to the re$istration o" ci#il status shall %e $o#erned %! special laws. 3owe#er, there is no such special law in the :hilippines $o#ernin$ seG reassi$nment and its e""ects.
For these reasons, while petitioner ma! ha#e succeeded in alterin$ his %od! and appearance throu$h the inter#ention o" modern sur$er!, no law authorizes the chan$e o" entr! as to seG in the ci#il re$istr! "or that reason. 2hus, there is no le$al %asis "or his petition "or the correction or chan$e o" the entries in his %irth certi"icate. 2he remedies petitioner seeks in#ol#e *uestions o" pu%lic polic! to %e addressed solel! %! the le$islature, not %! the courts. 3ence, petition is denied.
Repu%lic #s. &a$andahan, +R o. 1)))7) :osted cto%er -, (C11 in &+ D)++
"A&$S: 'enni"er &a$andahan "iled %e"ore the Re$ional 2rial &ourt 5ranch // o" Siniloan, @a$una a
:etition "or &orrection o" Entries in 5irth &erti"icate o" her name "rom 'enni"er 5. &a$andahan to 'e"" &a$andahan and her $ender "rom "emale to male. >t appearin$ that 'enni"er &a$andahan is su""erin$ "rom &on$enital Adrenal 3!perplasia which is a rare medical condition where a""licted persons possess %oth male and "emale characteristics. 'enni"er &a$andahan $rew up with secondar! male characteristics. 2o "urther her petition, &a$andahan presented in court the medical certi"icate e#idencin$ that she is su""erin$ "rom &on$enital Adrenal 3!perplasia which certi"icate is issued %! 0r. Michael Sionzon o" the 0epartment o" :s!chiatr!,
eGplained that Q&a$andahan $eneticall! is "emale %ut %ecause her %od! secretes male hormones, her "emale or$ans did not de#elop normall!, thus has or$ans o" %oth male and "emale. 2he lower court decided in her "a#or %ut the ""ice o" the Solicitor +eneral appealed %e"ore the Supreme &ourt in#okin$ that the same was a #iolation o" Rules 1C/ and 1C8 o" the Rules o" &ourt %ecause the said petition did not implead the local ci#il re$istrar.
ISSUE: 2he issue in this case is the #alidit! o" the chan$e o" seG or $ender and name o" respondent as
ruled %! the lower court.
HELD: 2he contention o" the ""ice o" the Solicitor +eneral that the petition is "atall! de"ecti#e %ecause
it "ailed to implead the local ci#il re$istrar as well as all persons who ha#e or claim an! interest therein is not without merit. 3owe#er, it must %e stressed that pri#ate respondent "urnished the local ci#il re$istrar a cop! o" the petition, the order to pu%lish on 0ecem%er 1), (CC/ and all pleadin$s, orders or processes in the course o" the proceedin$s. >n which case, the Supreme &ourt ruled that there is su%stantial compliance o" the pro#isions o" Rules 1C/ and 1C8 o" the Rules o" &ourt. Furthermore, the Supreme &ourt held that the determination o" a person6s seG appearin$ in his %irth certi"icate is a le$al issue which in this case should %e dealt with utmost care in #iew o" the delicate "acts present in this case.
>n decidin$ the case, the Supreme &ourt %rin$s "orth the need to ela%orate the term QinterseGualit! which is the condition or let us sa! a disorder that respondent is under$oin$. >2ERSEW2D applies to human %ein$s who cannot %e classi"ied as either male or "emale. >t is the state o" a li#in$ thin$ o" a $onochoristic species whose seG chromosomes, $enitalia, andKor secondar! seG characteristics are determined to %e neither eGclusi#el! male nor "emale. >t is said that an or$anism with interseG ma! ha#e %iolo$ical characteristics o" %oth male and "emale seGes. >n #iew o" the "ore$oin$, the hi$hest tri%unal o" the land consider the compassionate calls "or reco$nition o" the #arious de$rees o" interseG as #ariations which should not %e su%ect to outri$ht denial.
2he current state o" :hilippine statutes apparentl! compels that a person %e classi"ied either as a male or as a "emale, %ut this &ourt is not controlled %! mere appearances when nature itsel" "undamentall! ne$ates such ri$id classi"ication. 2hat is, :hilippine courts must render ud$ment %ased on law and the e#idence presented. >n the instant case, there is no den!in$ that e#idence points that respondent is male.
>n determinin$ respondent to %e a "emale, there is no %asis "or a chan$e in the %irth certi"icate entr! "or $ender. 2he Supreme &ourt held that where the person is %iolo$icall! or naturall! interseG the determinin$ "actor in his $ender classi"ication would %e what the indi#idual, like respondent, ha#in$ reached the a$e o" maorit!, with $ood reason thinks o" hisKher seG. SeGual de#elopment in cases o" interseG persons makes the $ender classi"ication at %irth inconclusi#e. >t is at maturit! that the $ender o" such persons, like respondent, is "iGed. 2he &ourt will not consider respondent as ha#in$ erred in not choosin$ to under$o treatment in order to %ecome or remain as a "emale. either will the &ourt "orce respondent to under$o treatment and to take medication in order to "it the mold o" a "emale, as societ! commonl! currentl! knows this $ender o" the human species. Respondent is the one who has to li#e with his interseG anatom!. 2o him %elon$s the human ri$ht to the pursuit o" happiness and o" health. 2hus, to him should %elon$ the primordial choice o" what courses o" action to take alon$ the path o" his seGual de#elopment and maturation. >n the a%sence o" e#idence that respondent is an Qincompetent and in the a%sence o" e#idence to show that classi"!in$ respondent as a male will harm other mem%ers o" societ! who are e*uall! entitled to protection under the law, the Supreme &ourt a""irmed as #alid and usti"ied the respondent6s position and his personal ud$ment o" %ein$ a male.
Alcantara #s alcantara +R no 1)77) au$ust 8 (CC7 Marriage – Valid Marriage @ -emper praesumitur pro matrimonio Restituto "iled a petition "or annulment o" marria$e a$ainst Rosita alle$in$ that on 8 0ec 198( he and Rosita, without securin$ the re*uired marria$e license, went to the Manila &it! 3all "or the purpose o" lookin$ "or a Q"iGer who could arran$e a marria$e "or them %e"ore a certain Re#. a#arro. 2he! $ot
married on the same da!. Restituto and Rosita went throu$h another marria$e ceremon! in 2ondo, Manila, on () March 198/. 2he marria$e was a$ain cele%rated without the parties securin$ a marria$e license. 2he alle$ed marria$e license, procured in &armona, &a#ite, appearin$ on the marria$e contract, is a sham, as neither part! was a resident o" &armona, and the! ne#er went to &armona to appl! "or a license with the local ci#il re$istrar o" the said place. >n 1988, the! parted wa!s and li#ed separate li#es. :etitioner pra!ed that a"ter due hearin$, ud$ment %e issued declarin$ their marria$e #oid and orderin$ the &i#il Re$istrar to cancel the correspondin$ marria$e contract and its entr! on "ile. Rosita howe#er asserts the #alidit! o" their marria$e and maintains that there was a marria$e license issued as e#idenced %! a certi"ication "rom the ""ice o" the &i#il Re$istr! o" &armona, &a#ite. Restituto has a mistress with whom he has three children. Restituto onl! "iled the annulment o" their marria$e to e#ade prosecution "or concu%ina$e. Rosita, in "act, has "iled a case "or concu%ina$e a$ainst Restituto. ISSUE: 4hether or not their marria$e is #alid. HELD: 2he re*uirement and issuance o" a marria$e license is the State6s demonstration o" its in#ol#ement and participation in e#er! marria$e, in the maintenance o" which the $eneral pu%lic is interested. :etitioner cannot insist on the a%sence o" a marria$e license to impu$n the #alidit! o" his marria$e. 2he cases where the court considered the a%sence o" a marria$e license as a $round "or considerin$ the marria$e #oid are clear=cut. >n this case, the marria$e contract %etween the petitioner and respondent re"lects a marria$e license num%er. A certi"ication to this e""ect was also issued %! the local ci#il re$istrar o" &armona, &a#ite. 2he certi"ication moreo#er is precise in that it speci"icall! identi"ied the parties to whom the marria$e license was issued, namel! Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, "urther #alidatin$ the "act that a license was in "act issued to the parties herein. :etitioner, in a "aint attempt to demolish the pro%ati#e #alue o" the marria$e license, claims that neither he nor respondent is a resident o" &armona, &a#ite. E#en then, we still hold that there is no su""icient %asis to annul petitioner and respondent6s marria$e. >ssuance o" a marria$e license in a cit! or municipalit!, not the residence o" either o" the contractin$ parties, and issuance o" a marria$e license despite the a%sence o" pu%lication or prior to the completion o" the 1C=da! period "or pu%lication are considered mere irre$ularities that do not a""ect the #alidit! o" the marria$e. An irre$ularit! in an! o" the "ormal re*uisites o" marria$e does not a""ect its #alidit! %ut the part! or parties responsi%le "or the irre$ularit! are ci#ill!, criminall! and administrati#el! lia%le. -emper praesumitur pro matrimonio . 2he presumption is alwa!s in "a#or o" the #alidit! o" the marria$e. E#er! intendment o" the law or "act leans toward the #alidit! o" the marria$e %onds. 2he &ourts look upon this presumption with $reat "a#or. >t is not to %e li$htl! repelled on the contrar!, the presumption is o" $reat wei$ht.
Reub"i vs CA a#& Castro Rep4b+ic %s. CA a#) Casto GR No. 10306! Septembe 12! 1//6
"A&$S:
An$elina &astro, with her parents unaware, contracted a ci#il marria$e with Edwin &ardenas. 2he! did not immediatel! li#e to$ether and it was onl! upon &astro "ound out that she was pre$nant that the! decided to li#e to$ether wherein the said coha%itation lasted "or onl! months. 2herea"ter, the! parted wa!s and &astro $a#e %irth that was adopted %! her %rother with the consent o" &ardenas.
2he %a%! was %rou$ht in the
ISSUE: 4hether or not the documentar! and testimonial e#idence resorted to %! &astro is su""icient to esta%lish that no marria$e license was issued to the parties prior to the solemnization o" their marria$e.
HELD:
2he court a""irmed the decision o" &A that the certi"ication issued %! the &i#il Re$istrar unaccompanied %! an! circumstances o" suspicion su""icientl! pro#e that the o""ice did not issue a marria$e license to the contractin$ parties. Al%eit the "act that the testimon! o" &astro is not supported %! an! other witnesses is not a $round to den! her petition %ecause o" the peculiar circumstances o" her case. Furthermore, &ardenas was dul! ser#ed with notice o" the proceedin$s, which he chose to i$nore.
&AR> S &AR> +R 1/(-(9 ( FE5RAn 19)9 S: Santia$o &arino married Susan icdao &arino. 3e had ( children with her. >n 199(, S: contracted a second marria$e, this time with Susan Dee &arino. >n 1988, prior to his second marria$e, S: is alread! %edridden and he was under the care o" Dee. >n 199(, he died 1/ da!s a"ter his marria$e
with Dee. 2herea"ter, the spouses went on to claim the %ene"its o" S:. icdao was a%le to claim a total o" :1C,CCC.CC while Dee was a%le to collect a total o" :(1,CCC.CC. >n 199/, Dee "iled an action "or collection o" sum o" mone! a$ainst icdao. She wanted to ha#e hal" o" the :1Ck. Dee admitted that her marria$e with S: was solemnized durin$ the su%sistence o" the marria$e %Kn S: and icdao %ut the said marria$e %etween icdao and S: is null and #oid due to the a%sence o" a #alid marria$e license as certi"ied %! the local ci#il re$istrar. Dee also claimed that she onl! "ound out a%out the pre#ious marria$e on S:6s "uneral. ISSUE: 4hether or not the a%solute nullit! o" marria$e ma! %e in#oked to claim presumpti#e le$itimes. HELD: 2he marria$e %etween icdao and S: is null and #oid due the a%sence o" a #alid marria$e license. 2he marria$e %etween Dee and S: is likewise null and #oid "or the same has %een solemnized without the udicial declaration o" the nullit! o" the marria$e %etween icdao and S:. n such instances, e#idence must %e adduced, testimonial or documentar!, to pro#e the eGistence o" $rounds renderin$ such a pre#ious marria$e an a%solute nullit!. 2hese need not %e limited solel! to an earlier "inal ud$ment o" a court declarin$ such pre#ious marria$e #oid. 2he S& ruled that Dee has no ri$ht to the %ene"its earned %! S: as a policeman "or their marria$e is #oid due to %i$am! she is onl! entitled to properties, mone! etc owned %! them in common in proportion to their respecti#e contri%utions. 4a$es and salaries earned %! each part! shall %elon$ to him or her eGclusi#el! Art. 18 o" F&. icdao is entitled to the "ull %ene"its earned %! S: as a cop e#en i" their marria$e is likewise #oid. 2his is %ecause the two were capacitated to marr! each other "or there were no impediments %ut their marria$e was #oid due to the lack o" a marria$e license in their situation, their propert! relations is $o#erned %! Art 17 o" the F& which pro#ides that e#er!thin$ the! earned durin$ their coha%itation is presumed to ha#e %een e*uall! contri%uted %! each part! ? this includes salaries and wa$es earned %! each part! notwithstandin$ the "act that the other ma ! not ha#e contri%uted at all.
Morio vs !eo"e oigo %s. *eop+e GR No. 16522'! ;eb4a '! 2006
"A&$S:
@ucio Mori$o and @ucia 5arrete were %oardmates in 5ohol. 2he! lost contacts "or a while %ut a"ter recei#in$ a card "rom 5arrete and #arious eGchan$es o" letters, the! %ecame sweethearts. 2he! $ot married in 199C. 5arrete went %ack to &anada "or work and in 1991 she "iled petition "or di#orce in ntario &anada, which was $ranted. >n 199(, Mori$o married @um%a$o. 3e su%se*uentl! "iled a complaint "or udicial declaration o" nullit! on the $round that there was no marria$e ceremon!. Mori$o was then char$ed with %i$am! and mo#ed "or a suspension o" arrai$nment since the ci#il case pendin$ posed a preudicial *uestion in the %i$am! case. Mori$o pleaded not $uilt! claimin$ that his marria$e with 5arrete was #oid a% initio. :etitioner contented he contracted second marria$e in $ood "aith.
ISSUE: 4hether Mori$o must ha#e "iled declaration "or the nullit! o" his marria$e with 5arrete %e"ore his second marria$e in order to %e "ree "rom the %i$am! case.
HELD:
Mori$o6s marria$e with 5arrete is #oid a% initio considerin$ that there was no actual marria$e ceremon! per"ormed %etween them %! a solemnizin$ o""icer instead the! ust merel! si$ned a marria$e contract. 2he petitioner does not need to "ile declaration o" the nullit! o" his marria$e when he contracted his second marria$e with @um%a$o. 3ence, he did not commit %i$am! and is ac*uitted in the case "iled.
%a"obo vs CA a+ogbog %s. CA GR No. 835/8! ac$ ! 1//
"A&$S:
Ramonito and +eneroso 5alo$%o$ "iled an action "or partition and accountin$ a$ainst their Aunt @eoncia and nstance o" &e%u &it! which was $ranted %! the latter. @eoncia and +audioso appealed to the &ourt o" Appeals %ut the latter a""irmed the lower court6s decision.
5asilio 5alo$%o$ and +eno#e#a Arni%al died intestate in 19-1 and 19)1 respecti#el!. 2he! ha#e three children, @eoncia, +audioso and +a#ino, their older %rother who died in 19/-. Ramoncito and +eneroso was claimin$ that the! were the le$itimate children o" +a#ino %! &atalina <%as and that, as such the! were entitled to the one=third share in the estate o" their $randparents. 3owe#er, @eoncia and +audioso claimed the! are not aware that their %rother has ( sons and that he was married. 2he! started to *uestion the #alidit! o" the marria$e %etween their %rother +a#ino and &atalina despite how +audioso himsel" admitted durin$ a police in#esti$ation proceedin$ that indeed Ramonito is his nephew as the latter is the son o" his elder %rother +a#ino.
>n the e""orts o" Ramoncito and +eneroso to pro#e the #alidit! o" their parent6s marria$e, the! presented :riscilo 2razo, 81 !ears old then ma!or o" Asturias "rom 19(8 to 19/ and Matias :o$o! who %oth testi"ied that he knew +a#ino and &atalina to %e hus%and and wi"e and that the! ha#e three children. &atalina hersel" testi"ied that she was handed a Qreceipt presuma%l! the marria$e certi"icate % ! Fr. 'omao=as %ut it was %urned durin$ the war.
n the other hand,@eoncia claimed that her %rother +a#ino died sin$le at the "amil! residence in Asturias. She o%tained a certi"icate "rom the local &i#il Re$istrar o" Asturias to the e""ect that the o""ice did not ha#e a record o" the names o" +a#ino and &atalina which was prepared %! Assistant Municipal 2reasurer 'uan Maran$a who testi"ied in the hearin$ as well.
@eoncia and +audioso contended that the marria$e o" +a#ino and &atalina should ha#e %een pro#en in accordance with Arts. -/ and - o" the &i#il &ode o" 1889 %ecause this was the law in "orce at the time o" the alle$ed marria$e was cele%rated.
Art. -/ pro#ides that Qmarria$es cele%rated under the &i#il &ode o" 1889 should %e pro#en onl! %! a certi"ied cop! o" the memorandum in the &i#il Re$istr!, unless the %ooks thereo" ha#e not %een kept or ha#e %een lost, or unless the! are *uestioned in the courts, in which case an! other proo", such as that o" the continuous possession %! parents o" the status o" hus%and and wi"e, ma! %e considered, pro#ided that the re$istration o" the %irth o" their children as their le$itimate children is also su%mitted in e#idence.
ISSUE: 4hether or not +a#ino and &atalina6s marria$e is #alid.
HELD:
Supreme &ourt a""irmed the decisions o" the trial court and &ourt o" Appeals in renderin$ +a#ino and &atalina6s marria$e as #alid and thus entitle Ramonito and +eneroso one third o" their $randparents6 estate.
2he court "urther states that Arts. ( to 1C7 o" the &i#il &ode o" 889 o" Spain did not take e""ect, ha#in$ %een suspended %! the +o#ernor +eneral o" the :hilippines shortl! a"ter the eGtension o" that code o" this countr!. 2here"ore, Arts. -/ and - ne#er came into "orce. Since this case was %rou$ht in the lower court in 19)8, the eGistence o" the marria$e must %e determined in accordance with the present &i#il &ode, which repealed the pro#isions o" the "ormer &i#il &ode, eGcept as the! related to #ested ri$hts, and the rules o" e#idence.
Al%eit, a marria$e contract is considered primar! e#idence o" marria$e, "ailure to present it would not mean that marria$e did not take place. ther e#idence ma! %e presented where in this case e#idence consistin$ o" the testimonies o" witnesses was held competent to pro#e the marria$e o" +a#ino and &atalina in 19(9, that the! ha#e three children, one o" whom, :etronilo, died at the a$e o" siG and that the! are reco$nized %! +a#ino6s "amil! and %! the pu%lic as the le$itimate children o" +a#ino
G.R. No. L-19671 No!(< 29, 196;B $*3!C !+. E+3o "A&$S:
icenta EscaBo, (7, eGchan$ed marria$e #ows with :astor 2encha#ez, /(, on "<uy 24, 1948, %e"ore a &atholic chaplain. 2he marria$e was dul! re$istered with the local ci#il re$istrar. 3owe#er, the two were una%le to li#e to$ether a"ter the marria$e and as o" Ju* 1948, the! were alread! estran$ed. icenta le"t "or the nstance o" &e%u, and amended on /1 Ma! 19-), a$ainst icenta F. EscaBo, her parents, Mamerto and Mena EscaBo whom he char$ed with ha#in$ dissuaded and discoura$ed icenta "rom oinin$ her hus%and, and alienatin$ her a""ections, and a$ainst the Roman &atholic &hurch, "or ha#in$, throu$h its 0iocesan 2ri%unal, decreed the annulment o" the marria$e, and asked "or le$al separation and one million pesos in dama$es. icenta6s parents denied that the! had in an! wa! in"luenced their dau$hter6s acts, and counterclaimed "or moral dama$es. ISSUE: 1. 4hether or not the di#orce sou$ht %! icenta EscaBo is #alid and %indin$ upon courts o" the :hilippines.
(. 4hether or not the char$es a$ainst icenta EscaBo6s parents were su""icient in "orm. RULING: 1. o. icenta EscaBo and :astor 2encha#ez6 marria$e remain eGistent and undissol#ed under the :hilippine @aw. EscaBo6s di#orce and second marria$e cannot %e deemed #alid under the :hilippine @aw to which EscaBo was %ound since in the time the di#orce decree was issued, EscaBo, like her hus%and, was still a Filipino citizen. 2he acts o" the wi"e in not compl!in$ with her wi"el! duties, desertin$ her hus%and without an! usti"ia%le cause, lea#in$ "or the
Repu%lic #s >!o! +.R. o. 1-(-77 "3+:
2he case is a petition "or re#iew %! the R: represented %! the ""ice o" the Solicitor +eneral on certiorari pra!in$ "or there#ersal o" the decision o" the &A dated 'ul! /C, (CC1 a""irmin$ the ud$ment o" the R2& declarin$ the marria$e o" &rasus @. >!o!respondent and Ada Rosal=>!o! null and #oid %ased on Article /).
n 0ecem%er 1), 19)1 &rasus >!o! and Ada Rosal=>!o! married each other, the! had - children. >n 198, Fel! went to the n 198-, &rasus learned that Fel! married an Americanand had a child. Fel! went %ack to the :hilippines on se#eral occasions, durin$ one she attended the marria$e o" one o" her children inwhich she used her hus%and6s last name as hers in the in#itation.
March (-, 1997, &rasus "iled a complaint "or declaration o" nullit! alle$in$ that Fel!6s acts %rou$ht Qdan$er and dishonor to the "amil! and were mani"estations o" her ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. &rasus
su%mitted his testimon!, the certi"ication o" the recordin$ o" their marria$e contract, and the in#itation where Fel! used her newhus%and6s last name as e#idences.
Fel! denied the claims and asserted that &rasus was a drunkard, womanizer, had no o%, and thatsince 1988 she was alread! an American citizen and not co#ered %! our laws. 2he R2& "ound the e#idences su""icient and $ranted thedecree it was a""irmed in the &A.
I++u:
0oes a%andonment and seGual in"idelit! per se constitute ps!cholo$ical incapacit!
Hl':
2he e#idences presented %! the respondent "ail to esta%lish ps!cholo$ical incapacit!.
Furthermore, Article /) Qcontemplates downri$ht incapacit! or ina%ilit! to take co$nizance o" and to assume the %asic marital o%li$ations not a mere re"usal, ne$lect or di""icult!, much less, ill will, on the part o" the errant spouse. >rreconcila%le di""erences, con"lictin$ personalities, emotional immaturit! and irresponsi%ilit!, ph!sical a%use, ha%itual alcoholism, seGual in"idelit! or per#ersion, and a%andonment, %! themsel#es, also do not warrant a "indin$ o" ps!cholo$ical incapacit! under the said Article.
Finall!, Article /) Qis not to %e con"used with a di#orce law thatcuts the marital %ond at the time the causes there"ore mani"est themsel#es. >t re"ers to a serious ps!cholo$ical illness a""lictin$ apart! e#en %e"ore the cele%ration o" marria$e. >t is a malad! so $ra#e and so permanent as to depri#e one o" awareness o" the duties and responsi%ilities o" the matrimonial %ond one is a%out to assume.
an dorn #s Romillo +R no @=)87C octo%er 8 1980"# scra 0"# /ationality $rinciple – >ivorce :etitioner Alice Re!es is a citizen o" the :hilippines while pri#ate respondent is a citizen o" the
:ri#ate respondent "iled suit a$ainst petitioner, statin$ that petitioner6s %usiness in Manila is their conu$al propert! that petitioner he ordered to render accountin$ o" the %usiness and that pri#ate respondent %e declared to mana$e the conu$al propert!. :etitioner mo#ed to dismiss the case contendin$ that the cause o" action is %arred %! the ud$ment in the di#orce proceedin$s %e"ore the e#ada &ourt. 2he denial now is the su%ect o" the certiorari proceedin$. ISSUE: 4hether or not the di#orce o%tained %! the parties is %indin$ onl! to the alien spouse. HELD: >s it true that owin$ to the nationalit! principle em%odied in Article 1- o" the &i#il &ode, onl! :hilippine nationals are co#ered %! the polic! a$ainst a%solute di#orces the same %ein$ considered contrar! to our concept o" pu%lic polic! and moralit!. 3owe#er, aliens ma! o%tain di#orces a%road, which ma! %e reco$nized in the :hilippines, pro#ided the! are #alid accordin$ to their national law. >n this case, the di#orce in e#ada released pri#ate respondent "rom the marria$e "rom the standards o" American @aw, under which di#orce dissol#es the marria$e. 2hus, pursuant to his national law, pri#ate respondent is no lon$er the hus%and petitioner. 3e would ha#e no standin$ to sue in the case %elow as petitioner6s hus%and entitled to eGercise control o#er conu$al assets. As he is %ound %! the decision o" his own countr!6s court, which #alidl! eGercised urisdiction o#er him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped %! his own representation %e"ore said court "rom assertin$ his ri$ht o#er the alle$ed conu$al propert!.
0e castro #s de castro +r no 1)C17( "e% 1/ (CC8 Void a% initio marriages Reinel and Anna%elle met and %ecame sweethearts in 1991. 2he! applied "or a marria$e license in :asi$ &it! in Septem%er 199. 2he! had their "irst seGual relation sometime in cto%er 199, and had re$ularl! en$a$ed in seG therea"ter. 4hen the couple went %ack to the ""ice o" the &i#il Re$istrar, the marria$e license had alread! eGpired. 2hus, in order to push throu$h with the plan, in lieu o" a marria$e license, the! eGecuted an a""ida#it dated 1/ March 199- statin$ that the! had %een li#in$ to$ether as hus%and and wi"e "or at least "i#e !ears. 2he couple $ot married on the same date. e#ertheless, a"ter the ceremon!, petitioner and respondent went %ack to their respecti#e homes and did not li#e to$ether as hus%and and wi"e. n 1/ o# 199-, Anna%elle $a#e %irth to a child named Reinna 2ricia A. 0e &astro. Since the child6s %irth, the mother has %een the one supportin$ her out o" her income as a $o#ernment dentist and "rom her pri#ate practice. n 'une 1998, respondent "iled a complaint "or support a$ainst petitioner %e"ore the Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" :asi$ &it! . >n her complaint, respondent alle$ed that she is married to petitioner and that the latter has Qrene$ed on his responsi%ilit!Ko%li$ation to "inanciall! support her Qas his wi"e and Reinna 2ricia as his child. Reinel denied his marria$e with Anna%elle claimin$ that the marria$e is #oid a% initio %ecause the a""ida#it the! ointl! eGecuted is a "ake. And that he was onl! "orced %! Anna%elle to marr! her to a#oid the humiliation that the pre$nanc! sans marria$e ma! %rin$ her. 2he trial court ruled that the marria$e %etween petitioner and respondent is not #alid %ecause it was solemnized without a marria$e license. 3owe#er, it declared petitioner as the natural "ather o" the child, and thus o%li$ed to $i#e her support. 2he &ourt o" Appeals denied the appeal. :rompted %! the rule that a marria$e is presumed to %e su%sistin$ until a udicial declaration o" nullit! has %een made, the appellate court declared that the child was %orn durin$ the su%sistence and #alidit! o" the parties6 marria$e. >n addition, the &ourt o" Appeals "rowned upon petitioner6s re"usal to under$o 0A testin$ to pro#e the paternit! and "iliation, as
well as his re"usal to state with certaint! the last time he had carnal knowled$e with respondent, sa!in$ that petitioner6s Q"or$et"ulness should not %e used as a #ehicle to relie#e him o" his o%li$ation and reward him o" his %ein$ irresponsi%le. Moreo#er, the &ourt o" Appeals noted the a""ida#it dated 7 April 1998 eGecuted %! petitioner, wherein he #oluntaril! admitted that he is the le$itimate "ather o" the child. 2he appellate court also ruled that since this case is an action "or support, it was improper "or the trial court to declare the marria$e o" petitioner and respondent as null and #oid in the #er! same case. 2here was no participation o" the State, throu$h the prosecutin$ attorne! or "iscal, to see to it that there is no collusion %etween the parties, as re*uired %! the Famil! &ode in actions "or declaration o" nullit! o" a marria$e. 2he %urden o" proo" to show that the marria$e is #oid rests upon petitioner, %ut it is a matter that can %e raised in an action "or declaration o" nullit!, and not in the instant proceedin$s. ISSUE: 4hether or not their marria$e is #alid. HELD: 2he S& holds that the trial court had urisdiction to determine the #alidit! o" the marria$e %etween petitioner and respondent. 2he #alidit! o" a #oid marria$e ma! %e collaterall! attacked. n the instant case, it is clear "rom the e#idence presented that petitioner and respondent did not ha#e a marria$e license when the! contracted their marria$e. >nstead, the! presented an a""ida#it statin$ that the! had %een li#in$ to$ether "or more than "i#e !ears. 3owe#er, respondent hersel" in e""ect admitted the "alsit! o" the a""ida#it when she was asked durin$ cross=eGamination. 2he "alsit! o" the a""ida#it cannot %e considered as a mere irre$ularit! in the "ormal re*uisites o" marria$e. 2he law dispenses with the marria$e license re*uirement "or a man and a woman who ha#e li#ed to$ether and eGclusi#el! with each other as hus%and and wi"e "or a continuous and un%roken period o" at least "i#e !ears %e"ore the marria$e. 2he aim o" this pro#ision is to a#oid eGposin$ the parties to humiliation, shame and em%arrassment concomitant with the scandalous coha%itation o" persons outside a #alid marria$e due to the pu%lication o" e#er! applicant6s name "or a marria$e license. >n the instant case, there was no Qscandalous coha%itation to protect in "act, there was no coha%itation at all. 2he "alse a""ida#it which petitioner and respondent eGecuted so the! could push throu$h with the marria$e has no #alue whatsoe#er it is a mere scrap o" paper. 2he! were not eGempt "rom the marria$e license re*uirement. 2heir "ailure to o%tain and present a marria$e license renders their marria$e #oid a% initio.
Repu%lic o" the :hilippines SUPRE#E &%UR$ Manila F>RS2 0>>S>
G.R. No. 188;4 Ju* 14, 1994 #A. PA "ERNANDE R%HN, petitioner, #s. &%UR$ %" APPEALS *' EDGAR R%HN, JR., respondents.
Cru=, >urian, !ga%in, !tien=a, !lday and *uason for petitioner. 7scar . Martine= for private respondent.
5ELL%SILL%, .:
A con"idential ps!chiatric e#aluation report is %ein$ presented in e#idence %e"ore the trial court in a petition "or annulment o" marria$e $rounded on ps!cholo$ical incapacit!. 2he witness testi"!in$ on the report is the hus%and who initiated the annulment proceedin$s, not the ph!sician who prepared the report. 2he su%ect o" the e#aluation report, Ma. :az Fernandez Prohn, in#okin$ the rule on pri#ile$ed communication %etween ph!sician and patient, seeks to enoin her hus%and "rom disclosin$ the contents o" the report. A"ter "ailin$ to con#ince the trial court and the appellate court, she is now %e"ore us on a petition "or re#iew on certiorari. n 1 'une 19), Ed$ar Prohn, 'r., and Ma. :az Fernandez were married at the Saint incent de :aul &hurch in San Marcelino, Manila. 2he union produced three children, Ed$ar 'ohannes, Parl 4ilhelm and AleGandra. 2heir %lessin$s notwithstandin$, the relationship %etween the couple de#eloped into a storm! one. >n 1971, Ma. :az underwent ps!cholo$ical testin$ purportedl! in an e""ort to ease the marital strain. 2he e""ort howe#er pro#ed "utile. >n 197/, the! "inall! separated in "act. >n 197-, Ed$ar was a%le to secure a cop! o" the con"idential ps!chiatric report on Ma. :az prepared and si$ned %! 0rs. &ornelio 5anaa$, 'r., and 5altazar Re!es. n ( o#em%er 1978, presentin$ the report amon$ others, he o%tained a decree I&onclusionI "rom the *ri%unal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in Manila nulli"!in$ his church marria$e with Ma. :az on the $round o" I incapacitas assumendi onera con&ugalia due to lack o" due discretion eGistent at the time o" the weddin$ and therea"ter.I 1 n 1C 'ul! 1979, the decree was con"irmed and pronounced IFinal and 0e"inite.I 2 Meanwhile, on /C 'ul! 198(, the then &ourt o" First >nstance now Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" :asi$, 5r. >>, issued an order $rantin$ the #oluntar! dissolution o" the conu$al partnership. n (/ cto%er 199C, Ed$ar "iled a petition "or the annulment o" his marria$e with Ma. :az %e"ore the trial court. >n his petition, he cited the &on"idential :s!chiatric E#aluation Report which Ma. :az merel! denied in her Answer as Ieither un"ounded or irrele#ant.I 4 At the hearin$ on 8 Ma! 1991, Ed$ar took the witness stand and tried to testi"! on the contents o" the &on"idential :s!chiatric E#aluation Report. 2his was o%ected to on the $round that it #iolated the rule on pri#ile$ed communication %etween ph!sician and patient. Su%se*uentl!, Ma. :az "iled a Mani"estation eGpressin$ her Icontinuin$ o%ectionI to an! e#idence, oral or documentar!, Ithat would thwart the ph!sician=patient pri#ile$ed communication rule,I ; and therea"ter su%mitted a Statement "or the Record assertin$ amon$ others that Ithere is no "actual or le$al %asis whatsoe#er "or petitioner Ed$ar to claim ;ps!cholo$ical incapacit!; to annul their marria$e, such $round %ein$ completel! "alse, "a%ricated and merel! an a"terthou$ht.I 6 5e"ore lea#in$ "or Spain where she has since resided a"ter their separation, Ma. :az also authorized and instructed her counsel to oppose the suit and pursue her counterclaim e#en durin$ her a%sence. n (9 Ma! 1991, Ed$ar opposed Ma. :az; motion to disallow the introduction o" the con"idential ps!chiatric report as e#idence, 7 and a"terwards mo#ed to strike out Ma. :az; Statement "or the Record.
8
n 'une 1991, the trial court issued an rder admittin$ the &on"idential :s!chiatric E#aluation Report in e#idence and rulin$ that H . . . the &ourt resol#es to o#errule the o%ection and to sustain the pposition to the respondent;s Motion "irst, %ecause the #er! issue in this case is whether or not the respondent had %een su""erin$ "rom ps!cholo$ical incapacit! and secondl!, when the said ps!chiatric report was re"erred to in the complaint, the respondent did not o%ect thereto on the $round o" the supposed pri#ile$ed communication %etween patient and ph!sician. 4hat was raised %! the respondent was that the said ps!chiatric report was irrele#ant. So, the &ourt "eels that in the interest o" ustice and "or the purpose o" determinin$ whether the respondent as alle$ed in the petition was su""erin$ "rom ps!cholo$ical incapacit!, the said ps!chiatric report is #er! material and ma! %e testi"ied to %! petitioner Ed$ar Prohn, 'r. without preudice on the part o" the respondent to dispute the said report or to cross=eGamination "irst the petitioner and later the ps!chiatrist who prepared the same i" the latter will %e presented. 9 n (7 o#em%er 1991, the trial court denied the Motion to Reconsider rder dated 'une , 1991, and directed that the Statement "or the Record "iled %! Ma. :az %e stricken o"" the record. A su%se*uent motion "or reconsideration "iled %! her counsel was likewise denied. &ounsel o" Ma. :az then ele#ated the issue to respondent &ourt o" Appeals. >n a 0ecision promul$ated /C cto%er 199(, the appellate court dismissed the petition "or certiorari. 1 n - Fe%ruar! 199/, the motion to reconsider the dismissal was likewise denied. 3ence, the instant petition "or re#iew. :etitioner now seeks to enoin the presentation and disclosure o" the contents o" the ps !chiatric report and pra!s "or the admission o" her Statement "or the Record to "orm part o" the records o" the case. She ar$ues that since Sec. (, par. c, Rule 1/C, o" the Rules o" &ourt 11 prohi%its a ph!sician "rom testi"!in$ on matters which he ma! ha#e ac*uired in attendin$ to a patient in a pro"essional capacit!, I4>23 MRE REAS should %e third person like respondent=hus%and in this particular instance %e :R3>5>2E0 "rom testi"!in$ on pri#ile$ed matters %etween a ph!sician and patient or "rom su%mittin$ an! medical report, "indin$s or e#aluation prepared %! a ph!sician which the latter has ac*uired as a result o" his con"idential and pri#ile$ed relation with a patient.I 12 She sa!s that the reason %ehind the prohi%ition is H . . . to "acilitate and make sa"e, "ull and con"idential disclosure %! a patient to his ph!sician o" all "acts, circumstances and s!mptoms, untrammeled %! apprehension o" their su%se*uent and en"orced disclosure and pu%lication on the witness stand, to the end that the ph!sician ma! "orm a correct opinion, and %e ena%led sa"el! and e""icaciousl! to treat his patient. 1 She "urther ar$ues that to allow her hus%and to testi"! on the contents o" the ps!chiatric e#aluation report Iwill set a #er! %ad and dan$erous precedent %ecause it a%ets circum#ention o" the rule;s intent in preser#in$ the sanctit!, securit! and con"idence to the relation o" ph!sician and his patient.I 14 3er thesis is that what cannot %e done directl! should not %e allowed to %e done indirectl!. :etitioner su%mits that her Statement "or the Record simpl! reiterates under oath what she asserted in her Answer, which she "ailed to #eri"! as she had alread! le"t "or Spain when her Answer was "iled. She maintains that her IStatement "or the Record is a plain and simple pleadin$ and is not as it has ne#er %een intended to take the place o" her testimon!I 1; hence, there is no "actual and le$al %asis whatsoe#er to eGpun$e it "rom the records.
:ri#ate respondent Ed$ar Prohn, 'r., howe#er contends that Ithe rules are #er! eGplicit the prohi%ition applies onl! to a ph!sician. 2hus . . . the le$al prohi%ition to testi"! is not applica%le to the case at %ar where the person sou$ht to %e %arred "ro m testi"!in$ on the pri#ile$ed communication is the hus%and and not the ph!sician o" the petitioner.I 16 >n "act, accordin$ to him, the Rules sanction his testimon! considerin$ that a hus%and ma! testi"! a$ainst his wi"e in a ci#il case "iled %! one a$ainst the other. 5esides, pri#ate respondent su%mits that pri#ile$ed communication ma! %e wai#ed %! the person entitled thereto, and this petitioner eGpressl! did when she $a#e her unconditional consent to the use o" the ps!chiatric e#aluation report when it was presented to the *ri%unal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale which took it into account amon$ others in decidin$ the case and declarin$ their marria$e null and #oid. :ri#ate respondent "urther ar$ues that petitioner also $a#e her implied consent when she "ailed to speci"icall! o%ect to the admissi%ilit! o" the report in her Answer where she merel! descri%ed the e#aluation report as Ieither un"ounded or irrele#ant.I At an! rate, "ailure to interpose a timel! o%ection at the earliest opportunit! to the e#idence presented on pri#ile$ed matters ma! %e construed as an implied wai#er. 4ith re$ard to the Statement "or the Record "iled %! petitioner, pri#ate respondent posits that this in realit! is an amendment o" her Answer and thus should compl! with pertinent pro#isions o" the Rules o" &ourt, hence, its eGclusion "rom the records "or "ailure to compl! with the Rules is proper. 2he treatise presented %! petitioner on the pri#ile$ed nature o" the communication %etween ph!sician and patient, as well as the reasons there"or, is not dou%ted. >ndeed, statutes makin$ communications %etween ph!sician and patient pri#ile$ed are intended to inspire con"idence in the patient and encoura$e him to make a "ull disclosure to his ph!sician o" his s!mptoms and condition. 17 &onse*uentl!, this pre#ents the ph!sician "rom makin$ pu%lic in"ormation that will result in humiliation, em%arrassment, or dis$race to the patient. 18 For, the patient should rest assured with the knowled$e that the law reco$nizes the communication as con"idential, and $uards a$ainst the possi%ilit! o" his "eelin$s %ein$ shocked or his reputation tarnished %! their su%se*uent disclosure. 19 2he ph!sician=patient pri#ile$e creates a zone o" pri#ac!, intended to preclude the humiliation o" the patient that ma! "ollow the disclosure o" his ailments. >ndeed, certain t!pes o" in"ormation communicated in the conteGt o" the ph!sician=patient relationship "all within the constitutionall! protected zone o" pri#ac!, 2 includin$ a patient;s interest in keepin$ his mental health records con"idential. 21 2hus, it has %een o%ser#ed that the ps!chotherapist=patient pri#ile$e is "ounded upon the notion that certain "orms o" antisocial %eha#ior ma! %e pre#ented %! encoura$in$ those in need o" treatment "or emotional pro%lems to secure the ser#ices o" a ps !chotherapist. :etitioner;s discourse while eGhausti#e is howe#er misplaced. ?im v. Court of !ppeals 22 clearl! la!s down the re*uisites in order that the pri#ile$e ma! %e success"ull! in#oked a the pri#ile$e is claimed in a ci#il case % the person a$ainst whom the pri#ile$e is claimed is one dul! authorized to practice medicine, sur$er! or o%stetrics c such person ac*uired the in"ormation while he was attendin$ to the patient in his pro"essional capacit! d the in"ormation was necessar! to ena%le him to act in that capacit! and, e the in"ormation was con"idential and, i" disclosed, would %lacken the reputation "ormerl! character o" the patient. >n the instant case, the person a$ainst whom the pri#ile$e is claimed is not one dul! authorized to practice medicine, sur$er! or o%stetrics. 3e is simpl! the patient;s hus%and who wishes to testi"! on a document eGecuted %! medical practitioners. :lainl! and clearl!, this does not "all within the claimed prohi%ition. either can his testimon! %e considered a circum#ention o" the prohi%ition %ecause his testimon! cannot ha#e the "orce and e""ect o" the testimon! o" the ph!sician who eGamined the patient and eGecuted the report.
&ounsel "or petitioner indul$ed hea#il! in o%ectin$ to the testimon! o" pri#ate respondent on the $round that it was pri#ile$ed. >n his Mani"estation %e"ore the trial court dated 1C Ma! 1991, he in#oked the rule on pri#ile$ed communications %ut ne#er *uestioned the testimon! as hearsa!. >t was a "atal mistake. For, in "ailin$ to o%ect to the testimon! on the $round that it was hearsa!, counsel wai#ed his ri$ht to make such o%ection and, conse*uentl!, the e#idence o""ered ma! %e admitted. 2he other issue raised %! petitioner is too tri#ial to merit the "ull attention o" this &ourt. 2he alle$ations contained in the Statement "or the Records are %ut re"utations o" pri#ate respondent;s declarations which ma! %e denied or dispro#ed durin$ the trial. 2he instant appeal has taken its toll on the petition "or annulment. 2hree !ears ha#e alread! lapsed and pri#ate respondent herein, as petitioner %e"ore the trial court, has !et to conclude his testimon! thereat. 4e thus enoin the trial ud$e and the parties; respecti#e counsel to act with deli%erate speed in resol#in$ the main action, and a#oid an! and all strata$ems that ma! "urther dela! this case. >" all law!ers are allowed to appeal e#er! percei#ed indiscretion o" a ud$e in the course o" trial and include in their appeals depthless issues, there will %e no end to liti$ations, and the docket o" appellate courts will "ore#er %e clo$$ed with inconse*uential cases. 3ence, counsel should eGercise prudence in appealin$ lower court rulin$s and raise onl! le$itimate issues so as not to retard the resolution o" cases. >ndeed, there is no point in unreasona%l! dela!in$ the resolution o" the petition and prolon$in$ the a$on! o" the wedded couple who a"ter comin$ out "rom a storm still ha#e the ri$ht to a renewed %liss"ul li"e either alone or in the compan! o" each other. 2 43EREFRE, the instant petition "or re#iew is 0E>E0 "or lack o" merit. 2he assailed 0ecision o" respondent &ourt o" Appeals promul$ated on /C cto%er 199( is AFF>RME0. S R0ERE0. Cru=, >avide, Jr., @uiason and Aapunan, JJ., concur.
@acson #s san ose lacson ( S 8(7 P<@A+
&<*) !+ &A GR 124814 1>21>4 DE&ISI% N &%R%NA, .:
5e"ore us is a petition "or re#iew on certiorari under Rule - o" the Rules o" &ourt assailin$ the March 1-, 199) decision L1 o" the &ourt o" Appeals in &A=+.R. /)7C8 which in turn a""irmed the decision o" the Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" &adiz &it!, 5ranch )C in Spec. :roc. o. 88=& which compelled petitioner &amelo &a%atania to acknowled$e pri#ate respondent &amelo Re$odos as his ille$itimate son and to $i#e support to the latter in the amount o" : -CC per month. 2his contro#ers! stemmed "rom a petition "or reco$nition and support "iled %! Florencia Re$odos in %ehal" o" her minor son, pri#ate respondent &amelo Re$odos. 0urin$ the trial, Florencia testi"ied that she was the mother o" pri#ate respondent who was %orn on Septem%er 9, 198( and that she was the one supportin$ the child. She recounted that a"ter her hus%and le"t her in the earl! part o" 1981, she went to Escalante, e$ros ccidental to look "or work and was e#entuall! hired as petitioner6s household help. >t was while workin$ there as a maid that, on 'anuar! (, 198(, petitioner %rou$ht her to 5acolod &it! where the! checked in at the isa!an Motel and had seGual intercourse. :etitioner promised to support her i" she $ot pre$nant. Florencia claimed she disco#ered she was carr!in$ petitioner6s child (7 da!s a"ter their seGual encounter. 2he seGual intercourse was repeated in March 198( in San &arlos &it!. @ater, on suspicion that Florencia was pre$nant, petitioner6s wi"e sent her home. 5ut petitioner instead %rou$ht her to Sin$can$, 5acolod &it! where he rented a house "or her. n Septem%er 9, 198(, assisted %! a hilot in her aunt6s house in 2i$lawi$an, &adiz &it!, she $a#e %irth to her child, pri#ate respondent &amelo Re$odos. :etitioner &amelo &a%atania6s #ersion was di""erent. 3e testi"ied that he was a su$ar planter and a %usinessman. Sometime in 0ecem%er, 1981, he hired Florencia as a ser#ant at home. 0urin$ the course o" her emplo!ment, she would o"ten $o home to her hus%and in the a"ternoon and return to work the "ollowin$ mornin$. 2his displeased petitioner6s wi"e, hence she was told to look "or another o%. >n the meantime, Florencia asked permission "rom petitioner to $o home and spend ew Dear6s E#e in &adiz &it!. :etitioner met her on %oard the &eres %us %ound "or San &arlos &it! and in#ited her to dinner. 4hile the! were eatin$, she con"ided that she was hard up and petitioner o""ered to lend her sa#e mone!. @ater, the! spent the ni$ht in San &arlos &it! and had seGual intercourse. 4hile doin$ it, he "elt somethin$ erkin$ and when he asked her a%out it, she told him she was pre$nant with the child o" her hus%and. 2he! went home the "ollowin$ da!. >n March 198(, Florencia, then alread! workin$ in another household, went to petitioner6s house hopin$ to %e re=emplo!ed as a ser#ant there. Since petitioner6s wi"e was in need o" one, she was re=hired. 3owe#er petitioner6s wi"e noticed that her stomach was %ul$in$ and in*uired a%out the "ather o" the un%orn child. She told petitioner6s wi"e that the %a%! was %! her hus%and. 5ecause o" her condition, she was a$ain told to $o home and the! did not see each other an!more.
:etitioner was there"ore surprised when summons was ser#ed on him %! Florencia6s counsel. She was demandin$ support "or pri#ate respondent &amelo Re$odos. :etitioner re"used, den!in$ the alle$ed paternit!. 3e insisted she was alread! pre$nant when the! had seG. 3e denied $oin$ to 5acolod &it! with her and checkin$ in at the isa!an Motel. 3e #ehementl! denied ha#in$ seG with her on 'anuar! (, 198( and rentin$ a house "or her in Sin$can$, 5acolod &it!. A"ter trial, the court a
GGG
GGG
>n #iew o" the e#idence presented %! the plainti"", the &ourt "inds the e#idence o" the plainti"" in support o" the claim to Q%e meritorious de"endant admitted ha#in$ a seGual intercourse with the plainti""6s mother, Florencia Re$odos, %ut denied paternit! to the child. 2he child was presented %e"ore the &ourt, and i" the &ourt is to decide this case, %ased on the personal appearance o" the child, then there can ne#er %e a dou%t that the plainti""=minor is the child o" the de"endant with plainti""=minor6s mother, Florencia Re$odos.L( n appeal, the &ourt o" Appeals a""irmed the R2& 2he misrepresentation made %! Florencia in the petition that she was a widow should not preudice the ri$ht o" petitioner=appellee. As held %! the Supreme &ourt, e#en where a witness has %een "ound to ha#e deli%eratel! "alsi"ied the truth in some particulars, it is not re*uired that the whole o" her testimon! %e reected :eople #s. 5ohol, 17C S&RA -8-. >t is per"ectl! reasona%le to %elie#e the testimon! o" a witness with respect to some "acts and dis%elie#e it with respect to other "acts :eople #s. 0elas, 199 S&RA -7, -7-. 2here is there"ore no reason to dis%elie#e Florencia that her "irst intercourse with appellant occurred on 'anuar! (, 198( and nine 9 months later or on Septem%er 9, 198(, she $a#e %irth to appellee 2S, 3earin$ o" 'une 1C, 1991 and EGhi%it QA. >n the a%sence o" ar%itrariness in the e#aluation o" the e#idence adduced %e"ore the trial court and there %ein$ no e#idence that the latter had o#erlooked or misappreciated, we "ind no co$ent reason to distur% the trial court6s "indin$s. 43EREFRE, the appealed decision is AFF>RME0. L/ 3ence this petition which assi$ns the "ollowin$ errors A. 23E & >2S A::@>&A2> F AR2>&@E (8/ F 23E &>>@ &0E 23E &M:<@SRD RE&+>2> A0 A4AR0 F S<::R2 > FAR F RES:0E2=A::E@@EE &AME@ RE+0S
5. 23E & >2S 0E&>S> 5ASE0 23E E>0E&E A00<&E0 5D RES:0E2 &AME@ RE+0S 5EFRE 23E 2R>A@ &n the a%sence o" the "ore$oin$ e#idence, the le$itimate "iliation shall %e pro#ed %! 1 2he open and continuous possession o" the status o" a le$itimate child or ( An! other means allowed %! the Rules o" &ourt and special laws. Art. 17-. >lle$itimate children ma! esta%lish their ille$itimate "iliation in the same wa! and on the same e#idence as le$itimate children. GGG
GGG
GGG
:ri#ate respondent presented a cop! o" his %irth and %aptismal certi"icates, the preparation o" which was without the knowled$e or consent o" petitioner. A certi"icate o" li#e %irth purportedl! identi"!in$ the putati#e "ather is not competent e#idence o" paternit! when there is no showin$ that the putati#e "ather had a hand in the preparation o" said certi"icate. 2he local ci#il re$istrar has no authorit! to record the paternit! o" an ille$itimate child on the in"ormation o" a third person. L8 >n the same #ein, we ha#e ruled that, while a %aptismal certi"icate ma! %e considered a pu%lic document, it can onl! ser#e as e#idence o" the administration o" the sacrament on the date speci"ied %ut not the #eracit! o" the entries with respect to the child6s paternit!. L9 2hus, certi"icates issued %! the local ci#il re$istrar and %aptismal certi"icates are per se inadmissi%le in e#idence as proo" o" "iliation and the! cannot %e admitted indirectl! as circumstantial e#idence to pro#e the same. L1C Aside "rom Florencia6s sel"=ser#in$ testimon! that petitioner rented a house "or her in Sin$can$, 5acolod &it!, pri#ate respondent "ailed to present su""icient proo" o" #oluntar! reco$nition. 4e now proceed to the credi%ilit! o" Florencia6s testimon!. 5oth the trial court and the appellate court %rushed aside the misrepresentation o" Florencia in the petition "or reco$nition that she was a widow. 5oth courts dismissed the lie as minor which did not a""ect the rest o" her testimon!. 4e disa$ree. 2he "act that Florencia6s hus%and is li#in$ and there is a #alid su%sistin$ marria$e %etween them $i#es rise to the presumption that a child %orn within that marria$e is le$itimate e#en thou$h the mother ma! ha#e declared a$ainst its le$itimac! or ma! ha#e %een sentenced as an adulteress. L11 2he presumption o" le$itimac! does not onl! "low out o" a declaration in the statute %ut is %ased on the %road principles o" natural ustice and the supposed #irtue o" the mother. 2he presumption is $rounded on the polic! to protect innocent o""sprin$ "rom the odium o" ille$itimac!.L1( >n this a$e o" $enetic pro"ilin$ and deoG!ri%onucleic acid 0A anal!sis, the eGtremel! su%ecti#e test o" ph!sical resem%lance or similarit! o" "eatures will not su""ice as e#idence to pro#e paternit! and "iliation %e"ore the courts o" law. FHERE"%RE, the petition is here%! +RA2E0 . 2he assailed decision o" the &ourt o" Appeals in &A=+.R. /)7C8 dated March 1-, 199), a""irmin$ the decision o" the Re$ional 2rial &ourt o" &adiz &it!, 5ranch )C, in Spec. :roc. o. 88=& isREERSE0 and SE2 AS>0E. :ri#ate respondent6s petition "or reco$nition and support is dismissed. S% %RDERED.
0e la cam*ra #s rueda +R no 11()/ o#em%ner (, 191)