1 | P a g e

.CONTINUATION PERSONS AND FAMILY

HUMAN RELATION CASE
LACSON V. SAN JOSE-LACSON
August 30, 1!"
Under Artce 136 (Vountary Separaton of Property)
Dgest by Apesa Chungaao
Three consolidated cases:
Afonso Lacson v. Carmen San-|ose Lacson and the Court of Appeas (L-23482)
Carmen San-|ose Lacson v. Afonso Lacson (L-23767)
Afonso Lacson v. Carmen San |ose-Lacson
#$%&g'(u)*+
Afonso and Carmen were marred on February 14, 1953. They had four chdren. On
|anuary 9, 1963 Carmen eft the con|uga home n Bacood and resded n Mana. On March
12, 1963 she ed a compant n the |uvene and Domestc Reatons Court (|DRC) for
custody of a ther chdren as we as support for them and hersef. However, through the
assstance of ther respectve awyers, the spouses reached an amcabe settement as to
custody of the kds, support, and separaton of property. On Apr 27, 1963, they ed a |ont
petton wth the CFI of Negros Occdenta, submttng that they had mutuay agreed upon
the dssouton of ther con|uga partnershp. The terms ncuded a) separaton of property, b)
a earnngs of each spouse sha beong to that spouse excusvey, c) the custody of the two
eder chdren sha be awarded to Afonso and the two younger chdren to Carmen, d)
Afonso sha pay Carmen a monthy aowance of P200.00 for the support of the chdren, and
e) each pettoner sha have recproca rghts of vstaton and every summer the former
spouses sha swap |my word| kds. For that partcuar year, however, Carmen was aowed
custody of a four chdren unt |une of 1963, when she was supposed to return the two oder
chdren to Afonsos custody.
Fndng the foregong |ont petton as conformabe to the aw, the CFI ssued an
order approvng ther compromse agreement on the very same day. On May 7, however,
Carmen ed a moton wth the |DRC aegng that the compromse agreement was the ony
way she coud get custody of a the chdren and prayng that she be reeved of the
agreement pertanng to the custody and vstaton of the chdren and that she now be
awarded fu custody |btch|. Naturay, Afonso opposed the moton and the |DRC rued n hs
favour. Carmen went to the Court of Appeas and the CA certed the case to the Supreme
Court. Carmen went to the CFI and ed a moton for reconsderaton, bascay camng the
same thng. Afonso opposed. The CFI favored Afonso and ordered Carmen to return the two
oder chdren by |une, on pan of contempt. It s from ths decson that the nstant case
sprngs. Carmen nsttuted certorar proceedngs wth the CA aganst the CFI, sayng the CFI
commtted grave abuse of dscreton and acted n excess of |ursdcton n orderng the
mmedate executon of the compromse agreement. The CA decared vod the porton of the
agreement pertanng to the custody of chdren.
Issu,-H,.*-R$t/(+
Was the assailed compromise agreementand the judgment of the CFI grounded on said
agreementconformable to law? YES-but ony as far as the separaton of property of
spouses and the dssouton of the con|uga partnershp, n accordance wth Artce 191 of the
Cv Code. The spouses dd not appear to have any credtors who woud have been
pre|udced by ther arrangement. At the tme of the decson the spouses had been separated
ve years and so the proprety of severng ther nanca and propretary nterests was
manfest. (However, the Court mantaned that approvng the separaton of property and
dssouton of con|uga partnershp dd not amount to recognton or egazaton of de facto
separaton.) As to the custody of the chdren, they were a beow 7 years of age at the tme
of the agreement and so the CA was correct n awardng the custody to the mother. The Court
was aso "oath to uphod the coupes agreement regardng the custody of the chdren",
ctng rghts of the chdren to proper care not anchored on the soey on the whms of hs or
her parents. Courts must decde tness of parents for custody.
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000
FACTS+
Potencano Iusoro, a awyer, 86 year od of age, possessed extensve property vaued at
mons of pesos. For many year, he was the Charman of the Board and Presdent of Baguo
Country Cub. He was marred wth Ernda Iusoro, heren pettoner, for 30 years and
begotten 6 chdren namey Ramon, Ln Iusoro-Bdner (defendant), Maxmo, Syva, Maretta
and Shereen. They separated from bed and board n 1972. Potencano ved at Makat every
tme he was n Mana and at Iusoro Penthouse, Baguo Country Cub when he was n Baguo
Cty. On the other hand, the pettoner ved n Antpoo Cty.
In 1997, upon Potencanos arrva from US, he stayed wth her wfe for about 5 months n
Antpoo cty. The chdren, Syva and Ln, aeged that durng ths tme ther mother
overdose Potencano whch caused the atters heath to deterorate. In February 1998,
Ernda ed wth RTC petton for guardanshp over the person and property of Potencano
due to the atters advanced age, fra heath, poor eyesght and mpared |udgment. In May
1998, after attendng a corporate meetng n Baguo, Potencano dd not return to Antpoo
nstead ved at Ceveand Condomnum n Makat. In March 1999, pettoner ed wth CA
petton for habeas corpus to have the custody of hs husband aegng that the respondents
refused her demands to see and vst her husband and prohbted Potencano from returnng
to Antpoo.
ISSUE+ Whether or not the pettoned wrt of habeas corpus shoud be ssued.
HELD+
A wrt of habeas corpus extends to a cases of ega connement or detenton, or by whch
the rghtfu custody of a person s wthhed from the one entted thereto. To |ustfy the grant
for such petton, the restrant of berty must an ega and nvountary deprvaton of
freedom of acton. The ega restrant of berty must be actua and ehectve not merey
nomna or mora.
Evdence showed that there was no actua and ehectve detenton or deprvaton of
Potencanos berty that woud |ustfy ssuance of the wrt. The fact that the atter was 86
years of age and under medcaton does not necessary render hm mentay ncapactated.
He st has the capacty to dscern hs actons. Wth hs fu menta capacty havng the rght
of choce, he may not be the sub|ect of vstaton rghts aganst hs free choce. Otherwse, he
w be deprved of hs rght to prvacy.
The case at bar does not nvove the rght of a parent to vst a mnor chd but the rght of a
wfe to vst a husband. In any event, that the husband refuses to see hs wfe for prvate
2 | P a g e
reasons, he s at berty to do so wthout threat or any penaty attached to the exercse of hs
rght. Coverture, s a matter beyond |udca authorty and cannot be enforced by compuson
of a wrt of habeas corpus carred out by the sherhs or by any other process.
_____________
I.us('/( 0s. #/.*),'
1.R. N(. 132" M$3 14, 4000
F$%ts+
Ernda Kaaw and Potencano Iusoro contracted matrmony and ved together for a perod of
thrty years. Out of ther marrage, the spouses had sx chdren. In 1972, they separated from
bed and board for undscosed reasons. Potencano ved n Makat when he was n Mana and
n Iusoro penthouse when he was n Baguo Cty. On the other hand, Ernda ved n Antpoo
Cty.
When Potencano arrved from Unted States and ved wth Ernda n Antpoo Cty for ve
months. The chdren, Syva and Ln, aeged that ther mother overdosed ther father wth an
antdepressant drug whch the atters heath deterorated. Ernda ed wth RTC of Antpoo
Cty a petton for guardanshp over the person and property of her husband due to the
atters advanced age, fra heath, poor eyesght and mpared |udgment.
Potencano dd not return to Antpoo Cty and nstead ved n a condomnum n Makat Cty
after attendng a corporate meetng n Baguo Cty. Wth these, Ernda ed wth CA a petton
for habeas corpus to have custody of her husband and aso for the reason that respondent
refused pettoners demands to see and vst her husband and prohbtng Potencano from
vng wth her n Antpoo Cty.
Issu,+
Whether or not Ernda Iusoro may secure a wrt of habeas corpus to compe her husband to
ve wth her n con|uga bss.
Rung:
The essenta ob|ect and purpose of the wrt of habeas corpus s to nqure nto a manner of
nvountary restrant, and to reeve a person therefrom f such restrant s ega. To |ustfy
the grant of the petton, the restrant of berty must be an ega and nvountary deprvaton
of freedom of acton. The ega restrant of berty must be actua and ehectve, not merey
nomna or mora.
No court s empowered as a |udca authorty to compe a husband to ve wth hs wfe.
Coverture cannot be enforced by compuson of a wrt of habeas corpus carred out by sherhs
or by any other mesne process. That s a matter beyond |udca authorty and s best eft to
the man and womans free choce. Therefore, a petton for wrt of habeas corpus s dened.
________
Fu text
1.R. N(. 114!3 N(0,56,' 4, 11!
ELOISA 1OITIA DE LA CAMARA, panth-appeant,
vs.
JOSE CAMPOS RUEDA, defendant-appeee.
Eduardo Gutierre !epide and Feli" #ocias for appellant$
#an% &pisso and 'uuriaga for appellee$

TRENT, J.:
Ths s an acton by the wfe aganst her husband for support outsde of the con|uga domce.
From a |udgment sustanng the defendant's demurrer upon the ground that the facts aeged
n the compant do not state a cause of acton, foowed by an order dsmssng the case after
the panth decned to amend, the atter appeaed.
It was urged n the rst nstance, and the court so hed, that the defendant cannot be
compeed to support the panth, except n hs own house, uness t be by vrtue of a |udca
decree grantng her a dvorce or separaton from the defendant.
The partes were egay marred n the cty of Mana on |anuary 7, 1915, and mmedatey
thereafter estabshed ther resdence at 115 Cae San Marceno, where they ved together
for about a month, when the panth returned to the home of her parents. The pertnent
aegatons of the compant are as foows:
That the defendant, one month after he had contracted marrage wth the panth, demanded
of her that she perform unchaste and ascvous acts on hs genta organs; that the panth
spurned the obscene demands of the defendant and refused to perform any act other than
ega and vad cohabtaton; that the defendant, snce that date had contnuay on other
successve dates, made smar ewd and ndecorous demands on hs wfe, the panth, who
aways spurned them, whch |ust refusas of the panth exasperated the defendant and
nduce hm to matreat her by word and deed and nct n|ures upon her ps, her face and
dherent parts of her body; and that, as the panth was unabe by any means to nduce the
defendant to desst from hs repugnant desres and cease from matreatng her, she was
obged to eave the con|uga abode and take refuge n the home of her parents.
Marrage n ths |ursdcton s a contract entered nto n the manner and wth the soemntes
estabshed by Genera Orders No. 68, n so far as ts cv ehects are concerned requrng the
consent of the partes. (Garca vs. Montague, 12 Ph. Rep., 480, ctng artce 1261 of Cv
Code.) Upon the termnaton of the marrage ceremony, a con|uga partnershp s formed
between the partes. (Sy |oc Leng vs. Encarnacon, 16 Ph. Rep., 137.) To ths extent a
marrage partakes of the nature of an ordnary contract. But t s somethng more than a mere
contract. It s a new reaton, the rghts, dutes, and obgatons of whch rest not upon the
agreement of the partes but upon the genera aw whch denes and prescrbes those rghts,
dutes, and obgatons .Marrage s an nsttuton, n the mantenance of whch n ts purty
the pubc s deepy nterested. It s a reaton for fe and the partes cannot termnate t at
any shorter perod by vrtue of any contract they may make .The recproca rghts arsng
from ths reaton, so ong as t contnues, are such as the aw determnes from tme to tme,
and none other. When the ega exstence of the partes s merged nto one by marrage, the
new reaton s reguated and controed by the state or government upon prncpes of pubc
pocy for the benet of socety as we as the partes. And when the ob|ect of a marrage s
defeated by renderng ts contnuance ntoerabe to one of the partes and productve of no
possbe good to the communty, reef n some way shoud be obtanabe. Wth these
prncpes to gude us, we w nqure nto the status of the aw touchng and governng the
queston under consderaton.
Artces 42 to 107 of the Cv Code are not n force n the Phppne Isands (Benedcto vs. De
a Rama, 3 Ph .Rep., 34). Artces 44 to 78 of the Law of Cv Marrage of 1870, n force n the
Pennsua, were extended to the Phppne Isands by roya decree on Apr 13, 1883 (Ebreo
vs. Schon, 4 Ph. Rep., 705). Artces 44, 45, and 48 of ths aw read:
ART. 44. The spouses are obged to be fathfu to each other and to mutuay assst each
other.
ART. 45. The husband must ve wth and protect hs wfe. (The second paragraph deas wth
the management of the wfe's property.)
ART. 48. The wfe must obey her husband, ve wth hm, and foow hm when he charges hs
domce or resdence.
Notwthstandng the provsons of the foregong paragraph, the court may for |ust cause
reeve her from ths duty when the husband removes hs resdence to a foregn country.
And artces 143 and 149 of the Cv Code are as foows:
3 | P a g e
ART. 143. The foowng are obged to support each other recprocay to the whoe extent
speced n the precedng artce.
1. The consorts.
x x x x x x x x x
ART. (149) 49. The person obged to gve support may, at hs opton, satsfy t, ether by
payng the penson that may be xed or by recevng and mantanng n hs own home the
person havng the rght to the same.
Artce 152 of the Cv Code gves the nstances when the obgaton to gve support sha
cease. The faure of the wfe to ve wth her husband s not one of them.
The above quoted provsons of the Law of Cv Marrage and the Cv Code x the dutes and
obgatons of the spouses. The spouses must be fathfu to, assst, and support each other.
The husband must ve wth and protect hs wfe. The wfe must obey and ve wth her
husband and foow hm when he changes hs domce or resdence, except when he removes
to a foregn country. But the husband who s obged to support hs wfe may, at hs opton, do
so by payng her a xed penson or by recevng and mantanng her n hs own home. May
the husband, on account of hs conduct toward hs wfe, ose ths opton and be compeed to
pay the penson? Is the rue estabshed by artce 149 of the Cv Code absoute? The
supreme court of Span n ts decson of December 5, 1903, hed:.
That n accordance wth the rung of the supreme court of Span n ts decsons dated May
11, 1897, November 25, 1899, and |uy 5, 1901, the opton whch artce 149 grants the
person, obged to furnsh subsstence, between payng the penson xed or recevng and
keepng n hs own house the party who s entted to the same, s not so absoute as to
prevent cases beng consdered wheren, ether because ths rght woud be opposed to the
exercse of a preferenta rght or because of the exstence of some |ustabe cause moray
opposed to the remova of the party en|oyng the mantenance, the rght of seecton must be
understood as beng thereby restrcted.
Whereas the ony queston dscussed n the case whch gave rse to ths appea was whether
there was any reason to prevent the exercse of the opton granted by artce 149 of the Cv
Code to the person obged to furnsh subsstence, to receve and mantan n hs own house
the one who s entted to receve t; and nasmuch as nothng has been aeged or dscussed
wth regard to the parenta authorty of Pedro Acantara Cavo, whch he ha not exercsed, and
t havng been set forth that the natura father smpy cams hs chd for the purpose of thus
better attendng to her mantenance, no acton havng been taken by hm toward provdng
the support unt, owng to such neggence, the mother was obged to demand t; t s seen
that these crcumstances, together wth the fact of the marrage of Pedro Acantara, and that
t woud be dmcut for the mother to mantan reatons wth her daughter, a consttute an
mpedment of such a nature as to prevent the exercse of the opton n the present case,
wthout pre|udce to such decson as may be deemed proper wth regard to the other
questons prevousy cted n respect to whch no opnon shoud be expressed at ths tme.
The above was quoted wth approva n Unted States and De |esus vs. Avr (9 Ph. Rep.,
576), wheren the court hed that the rue ad down n artce 149 of the Cv Code "s not
absoute." but t s nssted that there exsted a preexstng or preferenta rght n each of
these cases whch was opposed to the remova of the one entted to support. It s true that n
the rst the person camng the opton was the natura father of the chd and had marred a
woman other than the chd's mother, and n the second the rght to support had aready
been estabshed by a na |udgment n a crmna case. Notwthstandng these facts the two
cases ceary estabshed the proposton that the opton gven by artce 149 of the Cv Code
may not be exercsed n any and a cases.
Counse for the defendant cte, n support of ther contenton, the decson of the supreme
court of Span, dated November 3, 1905. In ths case Don Berno Comas, as a resut of certan
busness reverses and n order no to pre|udce hs wfe, conferred upon her powers to
admnster and dspose of her property. When she eft hm he gave her a the munments of
tte, mortgage credts, notes, P10,000 n accounts recevabe, and the key to the safe n
whch he kept a arge amount of |ewes, thus deprvng hmsef of a hs possessons and
beng reduced n consequence to want. Subsequenty he nsttuted ths cv acton aganst hs
wfe, who was then vng n opuence, for support and the revocaton of the powers
heretofore granted n reference to the admnstraton and dsposa of her property. In her
answer the wfe camed that the panth (her husband) was not egay n a stuaton to cam
support and that the powers vountary conferred and accepted by her were batera and
coud not be canceed by the panth. From a |udgment n favor of the panth the defendant
wfe appeaed to the (udencia Territorialwheren, after due tra, |udgment was rendered n
her favor dsmssng the acton upon the merts. The panth appeaed to the supreme court
and that hgh trbuna, n amrmng the |udgment of the (udencia Territorial, sad:
Consderng that artce 143, No. 1, of the Cv Code, provdng that the spouses are mutuay
obged to provde each other wth support, cannot but be subordnate to the other provsons
of sad Code whch reguates the famy organzaton and the dutes of spouses not egay
separated, among whch dutes are those of ther vng together and mutuay hepng each
other, as provded n artce 56 of the aforementoned code; and takng ths for granted, the
obgaton of the spouse who has property to furnsh support to the one who has no property
and s n need of t for subsstence, s to be understood as mted to the case where, n
accordance wth aw, ther separaton has been decreed, ether temporary or nay and ths
case, wth respect to the husband, cannot occur unt a |udgment of dvorce s rendered,
snce, unt then, f he s cupabe, he s not deprved of the management of hs wfe's
property and of the product of the other property beongng to the con|uga partnershp; and
Consderng that, shoud the doctrne mantaned n the appea preva, t woud aow marred
persons to dsregard the marrage bond and separate from each other of ther own free w,
thus estabshng, contrary to the ega provson contaned n sad artce 56 of the Cv Code,
a ega status entrey ncompatbe wth the nature and ehects of marrage n dsregard of the
dutes nherent theren and dsturbng the unty of the famy, n opposton to what the aw, n
conformty wth good moras, has estabshed; and.
Consderng that, as the spouses D. Ramon Benso and Doa Adea Gando are not egay
separated, t s ther duty to ve together and ahord each other hep and support; and for ths
reason, t cannot be hed that the former has need of support from hs wfe so that he may
ve apart from her wthout the con|uga abode where t s hs pace to be, nor of her
conferrng power upon hm to dspose even of the fruts of her property n order therewth to
pay the matrmona expenses and, consequenty, those of hs own support wthout need of
gong to hs wfe; wherefore the |udgment appeaed from, denyng the petton of D. Ramon
Benso for support, has not voated the artces of the Cv Code and the doctrne nvoked n
the assgnments of error 1 and 5 of the appea.
From a carefu readng of the case |ust cted and quoted from t appears qute ceary that the
spouses separated vountary n accordance wth an agreement prevousy made. At east
there are strong ndcatons to ths ehect, for the court says, "shoud the doctrne mantaned
n the appea preva, t woud aow marred persons to dsregard the marrage bond and
separate from each other of ther own free w." If ths be the true bass upon whch the
supreme court of Span rested ts decson, then the doctrne theren enuncated woud not be
controng n cases where one of the spouses was compeed to eave the con|uga abode by
the other or where the husband vountary abandons such abode and the wfe seeks to force
hm to furnsh support. That ths s true appears from the decson of the same hgh trbuna,
dated October 16, 1903. In ths case the wfe brought an acton for support aganst her
husband who had wfuy and vountary abandoned the con|uga abode wthout any cause
4 | P a g e
whatever. The supreme court, reversng the |udgment absovng the defendant upon the
ground that no acton for dvorce, etc., had been nsttuted, sad:
In the case at bar, t has been proven that t was Don Teodoro Exposto who eft the con|uga
abode, athough he cams, wthout however provng hs contenton, that the person
responsbe for ths stuaton was hs wfe, as she turned hm out of the house. From ths state
of ahars t resuts that t s the wfe who s party abandoned, the husband not havng
prosecuted any acton to keep her n hs company and he therefore nds hmsef, as ong as
he consents to the stuaton, under the neuctabe obgaton to support hs wfe n fument
of the natura duty sanctoned n artce 56 of the Code n reaton wth paragraph 1 of artce
143. In not so hodng, the tra court, on the mstaken ground that for the fument of ths
duty the stuaton or reaton of the spouses shoud be reguated n the manner t ndcates,
has made the errors of aw assgned n the rst three grounds aeged, because the nature of
the duty of ahordng mutua support s compatbe and enforcbe n a stuatons, so ong as
the needy spouse does not create any ct stuaton of the court above descrbed.lawphil$net
If we are n error as to the doctrne enuncated by the supreme court of Span n ts decson
of November 3, 1905, and f the court dd hod, as contended by counse for the defendant n
the case under consderaton, that nether spouse can be compeed to support the other
outsde of the con|uga abode, uness t be by vrtue of a na |udgment grantng the n|ured
one a dvorce or separaton from the other, st such doctrne or hodng woud not
necessary contro n ths |ursdcton for the reason that the substantve aw s not n every
partcuar the same here as t s n Span. As we have aready stated, artces 42 to 107 of the
Cv Code n force n the Pennsua are not n force n the Phppne Isands. The aw
governng the dutes and obgatons of husband and wfe n ths country are artces 44 to 78
of the Law of Cv Marrage of 1870 .In Span the companng spouse has, under artce 105
of the Cv Code, varous causes for dvorce, such as adutery on the part of the wfe n every
case and on the part of the husband when pubc scanda or dsgrace of the wfe resuts
therefrom; persona voence actuay ncted or grave nsuts: voence exercsed by the
husband toward the wfe n order to force her to change her regon; the proposa of the
husband to prosttute hs wfe; the attempts of the husband or wfe to corrupt ther sons or to
prosttute ther daughters; the connvance n ther corrupton or prosttuton; and the
condemnaton of a spouse to perpetua chans or hard abor, whe n ths |ursdcton the ony
ground for a dvorce s adutery. (Benedcto vs. De a Rama, 3 Ph .Rep., 34, 45.) Ths postve
and absoute doctrne was announced by ths court n the case |ust cted after an exhaustve
examnaton of the entre sub|ect. Athough the case was appeaed to the Supreme Court of
the Unted States and the |udgment rendered by ths court was there reversed, the reversa
dd not ahect n any way or weaken the doctrne n reference to adutery beng the ony
ground for a dvorce. And snce the decson was promugated by ths court n that case n
December, 1903, no change or modcaton of the rue has been announced. It s, therefore,
the we setted and accepted doctrne n ths |ursdcton.
But t s argued that to grant support n an ndependent sut s equvaent to grantng dvorce
or separaton, as t necesstates a determnaton of the queston whether the wfe has a good
and sumcent cause for vng separate from her husband; and, consequenty, f a court acks
power to decree a dvorce, as n the nstant case, power to grant a separate mantenance
must aso be ackng. The weakness of ths argument es n the assumpton that the power to
grant support n a separate acton s dependent upon a power to grant a dvorce. That the
one s not dependent upon the other s apparent from the very nature of the marta
obgatons of the spouses. The mere act of marrage creates an obgaton on the part of the
husband to support hs wfe. Ths obgaton s founded not so much on the express or mped
terms of the contract of marrage as on the natura and ega duty of the husband; an
obgaton, the enforcement of whch s of such vta concern to the state tsef that the aws
w not permt hm to termnate t by hs own wrongfu acts n drvng hs wfe to seek
protecton n the parenta home. A |udgment for separate mantenance s not due and
payabe ether as damages or as a penaty; nor s t a debt n the strct ega sense of the
term, but rather a |udgment cang for the performance of a duty made specc by the
mandate of the soveregn. Ths s done from necessty and wth a vew to preserve the pubc
peace and the purty of the wfe; as where the husband makes so base demands upon hs
wfe and nduges n the habt of assautng her. The pro tanto separaton resutng from a
decree for separate support s not an mpeachment of that pubc pocy by whch marrage s
regarded as so sacred and nvoabe n ts nature; t s merey a stronger pocy overrung a
weaker one; and except n so far ony as such separaton s toerated as a means of
preservng the pubc peace and moras may be consdered, t does not n any respect
whatever mpar the marrage contract or for any purpose pace the wfe n the stuaton of
a feme sole.
The foregong are the grounds upon whch our short opnon and order for |udgment,
heretofore ed n ths case, rest.
__________
1$s7,5 S7((&$t #$&s7 0. CA 13
)*+ #C!( **, - Ci.il 'aw - Torts and /amages - 0reach of promise to 1arr2 3 (rticle )* of
the Ci.il Code
In August 1986, whe workng as a watress n Dagupan Cty, Pangasnan, Marou Gonzaes,
then 21 years od, met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year od exchange student from Iran
who was studyng medcne n Dagupan. The two got reay cose and ntmate. On Marous
account, she sad that Gashem ater ohered to marry her at the end of the semester. Marou
then ntroduced Gashem to her parents where they expressed ther ntenton to get marred.
Marous parents then started nvtng sponsors and reatves to the weddng. They even
started ookng for anmas to saughter for the occason.
Meanwhe, Marou started vng wth Gashem n hs apartment where they had sexua
ntercourse. But n no tme, ther reatonshp went sour as Gashem began matreatng
Marou. Gashem eventuay revoked hs promse of marryng Marou and he tod her that he
s aready marred to someone n Bacood Cty. So Marou went home and ater sued Gashem
for damages.
The tra court rued n favor of Marou and awarded her P20k n mora damages. The Court of
Appeas amrmed the decson of the tra court.
On appea, Gashem averred that he never proposed marrage to Marou and that he cannot
be ad|udged to have voated Fpno customs and tradtons snce he, beng an Iranan, was
not famar wth Fpno customs and tradtons.
ISSUE+ Whether or not the Court of Appeas s correct.
HELD+ Yes. Gashem s abe to pay for damages n favor of Marou not reay because of hs
breach of promse to marry her but based on Artce 21 of the Cv Code whch provdes:
(n2 person who wilfull2 causes loss or injur2 to another in a manner that is contrar2 to
morals% good customs or public polic2 shall compensate the latter for the damage$
Breach of promse to marry s not an actonabe wrong per se. In ths case, t s the decet and
fraud empoyed by Gashem that consttutes a voaton of Artce 21 of the Cv Code. Hs
promse of marryng Marou was a decetfu scheme to ure her nto sexua congress. As
found by the tra court, Marou was not a woman of oose moras. She was a vrgn before
she met Gashem. She woud not have surrendered hersef to Gashem had Gashem not
promsed to marry her. Gashems batant dsregard of Fpno tradtons on marrage and on
the reputaton of Fpnas s contrary to moras, good customs, and pubc pocy. As a
5 | P a g e
foregner who s en|oyng the hosptaty of our country and even takng advantage of the
opportunty to study here he s expected to respect our tradtons. Any act contrary w
render hm abe under Artce 21 of the Cv Code.
The Supreme Court aso eucdated that Artce 21 was meant to expand the concepts of torts
and quas dect. It s meant to cover stuatons such as ths case where the breach
companed of s not strcty covered by exstng aws. It was meant as a ega remedy for the
untod number of mora wrongs whch s mpossbe for human foresght to speccay
enumerate and punsh n the statute books - such as the absence of a aw penazng a the
breach of promse to marry.
The Supreme Court however agreed wth ega umnares that f the promse to marry was
made and there was carna knowedge because of t, then mora damages may be recovered
(presence of mora or crmna seducton), Except f there was mutua ust; or f expenses
were made because of the promse (expenses for the weddng), then actua damages may be
recovered.
___________
8ASSMER VS VELE9
FACTS+
Francsco Veez and Beatrz, foowng ther promse to ove, decded to get marred. Two days
before ther marrage Francsco wrote Beatrz teng her that ther marrage had to be
postponed as hs mother opposes t. A day before hs marrage he sent a teegram nformng
her "nothng changed rest assured returnng soon". Francsco was never heard from agan.
Beatrz sued for damages for breach of promse to marry.
ISSUE+
Is breach of promse to marry an actonabe wrong?
HELD+
The extent to whch acts not contrary to aw may be perpetrated wth mpunty, s not
mtess for Artce 21 of the Cv Code provdes that "any person who wfuy causes oss or
n|ury to another n a manner that s contrary to moras, good customs or pubc pocy sha
compensate the atter for the damages.
Ths s not a case of mere breach to marry. As stated, mere breach of promse to marry s not
an actonabe wrong. But to formay set a weddng and go through a the preparaton and
pubcty, ony to wak out of t when the matrmony s about to be soemnzed, s qute
dherent. Ths s papaby and un|ustaby contrary to good customs for whch defendant
must be hed answerabe n damages n accordance wth Artce 21 of the Cv Code.
When a breach to marry s actonabe under Artce 21 of the Cv Code, mora damages may
be awarded under Artce 2219(10) of the sad Code. Exempary damages may aso be
awarded under Artce 2232 of sad Code where t s proven that the defendant ceary acted
n a wanton, reckess and oppressve manner.
__________
H,'5(s/s/5$ 0. CA
FACTS+
In 1950, Soedad Caggas, 33 years od (then a schoo teacher, ater she became an
nsurance underwrter), and Francsco Hermossma, 23 years od (apprentce shp pot), fe
n ove wth each other. Snce 1953, both had a refuar ntmate and sexua ahar wth each
other. In 1954, Soedad got pregnant. Francsco then promsed to marry Soedad. In |une
1954, Soedad gave brth to a baby gr. The next month, Francsco got marred but wth a
dherent woman named Romanta Perez.
Subsequenty, Soedad ed an acton aganst Francsco for the atter to recognze hs
daughter wth Soedad and for damages due to Francscos breach of hs promse to marry
Soedad. The tra court rued n favor of Soedad. The Court of Appeas amrmed the decson
of the tra court and even ncreased the award of damages. The Court of Appeas reasoned
that Francsco s abe for damages because he seduced Soedad. He expoted the ove of
Soedad for hm n order to satsfy hs sexua desres - that beng, the award of mora
damages s proper.
ISSUE+ Whether or not mora damages are recoverabe under our aws for breach of promse
to marry.
HELD+ No. Breach of promse to marry s not an actonabe wrong per se. The Court of
Appeas based ts award of damages on Artce 2219 of the Cv Code whch says n part that
"Mora damages may be recovered from (3) Seducton, xxx" However, t must be noted
that the "Seducton" beng contempated n the sad Cv Code provson s the same
"Seducton" beng contempated n Artce 337 and 338 of the Revsed Pena Code. Such
"seducton" s not present n ths case.
Further, t cannot be sad that Francsco morall2 seduced (n eu of crmna seducton)
Soedad gven the crcumstances of ths case. Soedad was 10 years oder than Francsco.
Soedad had a better |ob experence and a better |ob overa than Francsco who was a mere
apprentce. Further st, t was admtted by Soedad hersef that she surrendered hersef to
Francsco and that she wanted to bnd "by havng a frut of ther engagement even before
they had the benet of cergy."
TA:E NOTE+
Under Artce 388 of the Revsed Pena Code,
the eements of s/5;., s,*u%t/() are as foows:
1. That the ohended party s over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. That she must be of good reputaton, snge or wdow;
3. That the ohender has sexua ntercourse wth her; and
4. That t s commtted by means of decet.
A)t/-R$;, L$< (= 12 >RA "3?3@
ELEMENTS:
Rape s commtted -
1. By a man who sha have carna knowedge of a
woman under any of the foowng
crcumstances:
a. through force, threat or ntmdaton;
b. when the ohended party s deprved of
reason or otherwse unconscous;
%. 63 5,$)s (= ='$u*u.,)t 5$%7/)$t/() ('
g'$0, $6us, (= $ut7('/t3; or
d. when the ohended party s under 12 years
of age or s demented, even though none
of the crcumstances mentoned above be
6 | P a g e
present.
2. By any person who, under any of the
crcumstances mentoned n paragraph 1 hereof,
sha commt an act of sexua assaut by
nsertng
a. hs pens nto another personws mouth or
ana orce; or
b. any nstrument or ob|ect, nto the genta
or ana orce of another person
___________
NE8 CASES+
1.R. N(. 1!11"" Ju), 13, 400"
H,/'s (= PURISIMA NALA, ',;',s,)t,* 63 t7,/' $tt('),3-/)-=$%t EFE1ENIA DI1NA
DUYAN, pettoners,
vs.
ARTEMIO CA#ANSA1, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINE9, J.+
Ths s a petton for revew under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court assang the Court of Appeas
(CA) Decson
1
dated December 19, 2002 and Resouton
2
dated October 28, 2003, dsmssng
pettoners' appea and amrmng wth modcaton the Regona Tra Court (RTC) Decson
dated August 10, 1994 rendered n Cv Case No. O-91-10541.
The facts of the case are as foows:
Artemo Cabansag (respondent) ed Cv Case No. O-91-10541 for damages n October
1991. Accordng to respondent, he bought a 50-square meter property from spouses Eugeno
Gomez, |r. and Fesa Duyan Gomez on |uy 23, 1990. Sad property s part of a 400-square
meter ot regstered n the name of the Gomez spouses. In October 1991, he receved a
demand etter from Atty. Aexander de Prado (Atty. De Prado), n behaf of Pursma Naa
(Naa), askng for the payment of rentas from 1987 to 1991 unt he eaves the premses, as
sad property s owned by Naa, fang whch crmna and cv actons w be ed aganst
hm. Another demand etter was sent on May 14, 1991. Because of such demands,
respondent suhered damages and was constraned to e the case aganst Naa and Atty. De
Prado.
3
Atty. De Prado camed that he sent the demand etters n good fath and that he was merey
actng n behaf of hs cent, Naa, who dsputed respondent's cam of ownershp. Naa
aeged that sad property s part of an 800-square meter property owned by her ate
husband, Euogo Duyan, whch was subsequenty dvded nto two parts. The 400-square
meter property was conveyed to spouses Gomez n a cttous deed of sae, wth the
agreement that t w be merey hed by them n trust for the Duyan's chdren. Sad property
s covered by Transfer Certcate of Tte (TCT) No. 281115 n the name of spouses Gomez.
Naa aso camed that respondent s ony rentng the property whch he occupes.
4
After tra, the RTC of Ouezon Cty, Branch 93, rendered ts Decson on August 10, 1994, n
favor of respondent. The dspostve porton of the Decson provdes:
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, by preponderance of evdence, the Court nds n favor of
the panth and hereby orders the defendants, |onty and severay, to pay panth the
foowng:
1. P150,000.00 by way of mora damages;
2. P30,000.00 by way of exempary damages;
3. P20,000.00 as and for reasonabe attorney's fees and other tgaton expenses; and
4. to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
5
Naa and Atty. De Prado appeaed to the CA. The heren assaed CA Decson dated
December 19, 2002 amrmed the RTC Decson wth modcaton, thus:
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, the nstant appea s hereby DISMISSED. The assaed
decson of the Regona Tra Court, Branch 93, Ouezon Cty, n Cv Case No. O-91-10541 s
heretofore AFFIRMED wth MODIFICATION. Defendants-appeants are ordered to pay, |onty
and severay, panth-appeee the amount of P30,000.00 by way of mora damages. It s
further ordered to pay hm exempary damages n the amount of P10,000.00 and P10,000.00,
attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.
6
In amrmng the RTC Decson, the CA took note of the Decson dated September 5, 1994
rendered by the RTC of Ouezon Cty, Branch 80, dsmssng Cv Case No. 91-8821, an acton
for reconveyance of rea property and canceaton of TCT No. 281115 wth damages, ed by
Naa aganst spouses Gomez.
7
Hence, heren petton by the hers of Naa (pettoners)
8
wth the foowng assgnment of
errors:
a) Respondent Court of Appeas erred n not consderng the rght of Pursma Naa to assert
her rghts and nterest over the property.
b) Respondent Court of Appeas erred n not consderng the Decson rendered by the Court
of Appeas n the case for reconveyance whch uphed the rghts and nterest of Pursma Naa
and her chdren over a certan parce of and, a porton of whch s sub|ect of the present
case.
c) Respondent Court of Appeas erred n awardng damages and attorney's fees wthout any
bass.
9
Atty. De Prado ed a moton for extenson of tme to e hs separate petton but t was
dened by the Court per ts Resouton dated |anuary 19, 2004 ssued n G.R. No. 160829.
Pettoners argue that ther predecessor-n-nterest had every rght to protect and assert her
nterests over the property. Naa had no knowedge that the property was sod by spouses
Gomez to respondent when the demand etters were sent. What she was aware of was the
fact that spouses Gomez were managng the rentas on the property by vrtue of the mped
trust created between them and Euogo Duyan. When spouses Gomez faed to remt the
rentas and camed ownershp of the property, t was then that Naa decded to procure the
servces of ega counse to protect ther rghts over the property.
Pettoners aso contend that t was error for the CA to take note of the RTC Decson n Cv
Case No. 91-8821 wthout further notng that the CA had aready reversed and set asde sad
RTC Decson and ordered reconveyance of the property to Naa and her chdren n a Decson
dated March 8, 2000 rendered n CA-G.R. CV No. 49163. Pettoners aso argue that
respondent dd not substantate hs cam for damages.
Premnary, the Court notes that both the RTC and the CA faed to ndcate the partcuar
provson of aw under whch t hed pettoners abe for damages. Nevertheess, based on
the aegatons n respondent's compant, t may be gathered that the bass for hs cam for
damages s Artce 19 of the Cv Code, whch provdes:
Art. 19. Every person must, n the exercse of hs rghts and n the performance of hs dutes,
act wth |ustce, gve everyone hs due, and observe honesty and good fath.
The foregong provson sets the standards whch may be observed not ony n the exercse of
one's rghts but aso n the performance of one's dutes. When a rght s exercsed n a
manner whch does not conform wth the norms enshrned n Artce 19 and resuts n damage
to another, a ega wrong s thereby commtted for whch the wrongdoer must be hed
7 | P a g e
responsbe. But a rght, though by tsef ega because recognzed or granted by aw as such,
may nevertheess become the source of some egaty. A person shoud be protected ony
when he acts n the egtmate exercse of hs rght; that s, when he acts wth prudence and
n good fath, but not when he acts wth neggence or abuse. There s an abuse of rght when
t s exercsed ony for the purpose of pre|udcng or n|urng another. The exercse of a rght
must be n accordance wth the purpose for whch t was estabshed, and must not be
excessve or unduy harsh; there must be no ntenton to n|ure another.
|10|
In order to be abe for damages under the abuse of rghts prncpe, the foowng requstes
must concur: (a) the exstence of a ega rght or duty; (b) whch s exercsed n bad fath; and
(c) for the soe ntent of pre|udcng or n|urng another.
11
It shoud be stressed that mace or bad fath s at the core of Artce 19 of the Cv Code.
Good fath s presumed, and he who aeges bad fath has the duty to prove the same.
12
Bad
fath, on the other hand, does not smpy connote bad |udgment to smpe neggence,
dshonest purpose or some mora oboquy and conscous dong of a wrong, or a breach of
known duty due to some motves or nterest or w that partakes of the nature of fraud.
Mace connotes w or spte and speaks not n response to duty. It mpes an ntenton to
do uteror and un|ustabe harm.
13
In the present case, there s nothng on record whch w prove that Naa and her counse,
Atty. De Prado, acted n bad fath or mace n sendng the demand etters to respondent. In
the rst pace, there was ground for Naa's actons snce she beeved that the property was
owned by her husband Euogo Duyan and that respondent was egay occupyng the same.
She had no knowedge that spouses Gomez voated the trust mposed on them by Euogo
and surrepttousy sod a porton of the property to respondent. It <$s ().3 $=t,'
',s;()*,)t A.,* t7, %$s, =(' *$5$g,s $g$/)st N$.$ t7$t s7, .,$'),* (= su%7
s$.,. The bare fact that respondent cams ownershp over the property does not gve rse to
the concuson that the sendng of the demand etters by Naa was done n bad fath. Absent
any evdence presented by respondent, bad fath or mace coud not be attrbuted to
pettoner snce Naa was ony tryng to protect ther nterests over the property.
Moreover, respondent faed to show that Naa and Atty. De Prado's acts were done wth the
soe ntenton of pre|udcng and n|urng hm. It may be true that respondent suhered menta
angush, serous anxety and seepess nghts when he receved the demand etters; however,
there s a matera dstncton between damages and n|ury. In|ury s the ega nvason of a
ega rght whe damage s the hurt, oss or harm whch resuts from the n|ury.
14
Thus, there
can be damage wthout n|ury n those nstances n whch the oss or harm was not the resut
of a voaton of a ega duty. In such cases, the consequences must be borne by the n|ured
person aone; the aw ahords no remedy for damages resutng from an act whch does not
amount to a ega n|ury or wrong. These stuatons are often caed damnum abs4ue injuria.
15
Naa was actng we wthn her rghts when she nstructed Atty. De Prado to send the
demand etters. She had to take a the necessary ega steps to enforce her ega/equtabe
rghts over the property occuped by respondent. One who makes use of hs own ega rght
does no n|ury.
16
Thus, whatever damages are suhered by respondent shoud be borne soey
by hm.
Naa's acts n protectng her rghts over the property nd further sod ground n the fact that
the property has aready been ordered reconveyed to her and her hers. In ts Decson dated
March 8, 2000 n CA-G.R. CV No. 49163, the CA reversed and set asde the RTC's Decson and
ordered the reconveyance of the property to pettoners, and TCT No. 281115 was decared
canceed. Sad CA Decson was amrmed by ths Court n ts Decson dated March 18, 2005 n
G.R. No. 144148, whch became na and executory on |uy 27, 2005.
8HEREFORE, the petton s 1RANTED. The Decson dated December 19, 2002 and
Resouton dated October 28, 2003 rendered by the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 48580
are NULLIFIED. Cv Case No. O-91-10541 s DISMISSED for ack of mert.
____________
TANJANCO 0s. COUIRT OF APPEALS
L-18630
December 17, 1966

FACTS+
Pettoner Apoono Tan|anco courted respondent Arau Santos-he expressed and
professed hs undyng ove and ahecton towards her whch she eventuay recprocated. For
one year from Dec. 1953-Dec. 1954, pettoner succeeded n havng carna access to her,
because of hs protestaton of ove and promse of marrage. She got pregnant, for whch she
resgned from her work as IBM secretary to avod embarrassment. He refused to marry her
nor gve support.
Thus, she ed for an acton before the tra court to compe hm to recognze the
unborn chd and provde support. The compant was dsmssed for faure to state the cause
of acton. Upon appea, the CA rued that cause of acton exsted for damages as premsed
on Art. 21.
ISSUE+
Whether or not breach of a promse to marry s an actonabe wrong.
HELD+
The case under Art. 21, cted as an exampe by the Code Commsson, refers to a
tort upon a mnor who has been seduced. The essenta feature s seducton, that n aw s
more than sexua ntercourse, or a breach or promse of marrage; t connotes essentay the
dea of decet, entcement, superor power or abuse of condence on the part of the seducer,
to whch the woman has yeded. Where for one whoe year, a woman of adut age
mantaned ntmate sexua ntercourse, such conduct s ncompatbe wth the dea of
seducton. Pany, there s vountarness and mutua passon. Hence, no case s made under
Art. 21, and no other cause of acton beng aeged, no error was commtted by CFI n
dsmssng the compant.
In 5# .$ 0ustamante% )6 7hil *)*: To consttute seducton, there must n a cases
be some sumcent promse or nducement and the woman must yed because of the promse
or other nducement. If she consents merey from carna ust and the ntercourse s from
mutua desre, there s no seducton.
Decson of CA reversed; that of CFI amrmed.
_________________
A*(;t/() (= St,;7$)/, Ast('g$ >',=,' t( ;',0/(us )(t,s@
Su;;.,5,)t$. N(t,s () A*(;t/() (= St,;7$)/, Ast('g$+
Thus, Artces 364 to 380 of the Cv Code provdes the substantve rues whch reguate the
use of surname
|10|
of an ndvdua whatever may be hs status n fe, i$e$, whether he may be
egtmate or egtmate, an adopted chd, a marred woman or a prevousy marred woman,
or a wdow, thus:
"Art. 364. Legtmate and egtmated chdren sha prncpay use the surname of the father.
Art. 365. An adopted chd sha bear the surname of the adopter.
x x x
8 | P a g e
Art. 369. Chdren conceved before the decree annung a vodabe marrage sha prncpay
use the surname of the father.
Art. 370. A marred woman may use:
(1) Her maden rst name and surname and add her husband's surname, or
(2) Her maden rst name and her husband's surname or
(3) Her husband's fu name, but prexng a word ndcatng that she s hs wfe, such as Mrs.
Art. 371. In case of annument of marrage, and the wfe s the guty party, she sha resume
her maden name and surname. If she s the nnocent spouse, she may resume her maden
name and surname. However, she may choose to contnue empoyng her former husband's
surname, uness:
(1) The court decrees otherwse, or
(2) She or the former husband s marred agan to another person.
Art. 372. When ega separaton has been granted, the wfe sha contnue usng her name
and surname empoyed before the ega separaton.
Art. 373. A wdow may use the deceased husband's surname as though he were st vng, n
accordance wth Artce 370.
Art. 374. In case of dentty of names and surnames, the younger person sha be obged to
use such addtona name or surname as w avod confuson.
Art. 375. In case of dentty of names and surnames between ascendants and descendants,
the word |unor can be used ony by a son. Grandsons and other drect mae descendants
sha ether:
(1) Add a mdde name or the mother's surname,
(2) Add the Roman numeras II, III, and so on.
x x x"
'aw Is #ilent (s To The 5se &f
1iddle 8ame -
As correcty submtted by both partes, there s no aw reguatng the use of a mdde name.
Even Artce 176
|11|
of the Famy Code, as amended by Repubc Act No. 9255, otherwse
known as "(n (ct (llowing Illegitimate Children To 5se The #urname &f Their Father%" s sent
as to what mdde name a chd may use.
The mdde name or the mothers surname s ony consdered n Artce 375(1), quoted above,
n case there s dentty of names and surnames between ascendants and descendants, n
whch case, the mdde name or the mothers surname sha be added.
Notaby, the aw s kewse sent as to what mdde name an adoptee may use. Artce 365
of the Cv Code merey provdes that "an adopted child shall bear the surname of the
adopter." Aso, Artce 189 of the Famy Code, enumeratng the ega ehects of adopton, s
kewse sent on the matter, thus:
"(1) For cv purposes, the adopted sha be deemed to be a egtmate chd of the
adopters and both sha acqure the recproca rghts and obgatons arsng from the
reatonshp of parent and chd, ncudng the rght of the adopted to use the surname of the
adopters;
__________
TIT!: Gelu" vs #$
#IT$TI%N: 2 &#R$ 801
FACTS+
Nta Vanueva, the wfe of Oscar azo, respondent, came to know Antono Geuz, the
pettoner and physcan, through her aunt Paua Yambot. Nta became pregnant some tme
n 1950 before she and Oscar were egay marred. As advsed by her aunt and to concea t
from her parents, she decded to have t aborted by Geuz. She had her pregnancy aborted
agan on October 1953 snce she found t nconvenent as she was empoyed at COMELEC.
After two years, on February 21, 1955, she agan became pregnant and was accompaned by
her sster Purcacon and the atters daughter Lucda at Geuz cnc at Carredo and P.
Gomez Street. Oscar at ths tme was n the provnce of Cagayan campagnng for hs
eecton to the provnca board. He doesnt have any dea nor gven hs consent on the
aborton.
ISSUE+ Whether husband of a woman, who vountary procured her aborton, coud recover
damages from the physcan who caused the same.
HELD+
The Supreme Court beeved that the mnmum award xed at P3,000 for the death of a
person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that s not endowed wth personaty whch
tra court and Court of Appeas predcated.
Both tra court and CA wasnt abe to nd any bass for an award of mora damages evdenty
because Oscars ndherence to the prevous abortons of Nta ceary ndcates he was
unconcerned wth the frustraton of hs parenta ahectons. Instead of ng an admnstratve
or crmna case aganst Geuz, he turned hs wfes ndscreton to persona prot and ed a
cv acton for damages of whch not ony he but, ncudng hs wfe woud be the
benecares. It shows that hes after obtanng a arge money payment snce he sued Geuz
for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorneys fees that serves as ndemnty cam, whch under
the crcumstances was ceary exaggerated.
___________
ANTONIO 1ELU9 0s. COURT OF APPEALS
1.R. N(. L-1!B3, Ju.3 40, 1!1
4 SCRA "01
FACTS+
Her present husband mpregnated Nta Vanueva before they were egay marred. Desrng
to concea her pregnancy from the parent, she had hersef aborted by pettoner Antono
Geuz. After her marrage, she agan became pregnant. As she was then empoyed n the
COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be nconvenent, she had hersef aborted agan by
Geuz. Less than 2 years ater, Nta ncurred a thrd aborton of a two-month od fetus, n
consderaton of the sum of P50.00. Her husband dd not know of, nor consented to the
aborton. Hence Oscar Lazo, prvate respondent, sued pettoner for damages based on the
thrd and ast aborton.
The tra court rendered |udgment orderng Antono Geuz to pay P3,000.00 as damages,
P700.00 as attorneys fee and the cost of the sut. Court of Appeas amrmed the decson.
ISSUE+
Is an unborn chd covered wth personaty so that f the unborn chd ncurs n|ury, hs
parents may recover damages from the ones who caused the damage to the unborn chd?
RULIN1+
Personaty begns at concepton. Ths personaty s caed presumptve personaty. It s, of
course, essenta that brth shoud occur ater, otherwse the fetus w be consdered as never
9 | P a g e
havng possessed ega personaty.
Snce an acton for pecunary damages on account of n|ury or death pertans prmary to the
one n|ured, t s easy to see that f no acton for damages coud be nsttuted on behaf of the
unborn chd on account of n|ures t receved, no such rght of acton coud dervatvey
accrue to ts parents or hers. In fact, even f a cause of acton dd accrue on behaf of the
unborn chd, the same was extngushed by ts pre-nata death, snce no transmsson to
anyone can take pace from one that acked |urdca personaty.
It s no answer to nvoke the presumptve personaty of a conceved chd under Artce 40 of
the Cv Code because that same artce expressy mts such provsona personaty by
mposng the condton that the chd shoud be subsequenty born ave. In the present case,
the chd was dead when separated from ts mothers womb.
Ths s not to say that the parents are not entted to damages. However, such damages must
be those ncted drecty upon them, as dstngushed from n|ury or voaton of the rghts of
the deceased chd.
_______________
C()t/),)t$. St,,. 0. M()t$)(, 1.R. N(. 1"4"3!, O%t(6,' 13, 400
FACTS+
Hortano, an empoyee of pettoner Contnenta Stee, ed a cam for Paternty Leave,
Bereavement Leave and Death and Accdent Insurance for dependent, pursuant to the CBA.
The cam was for Hortanos unborn chd who ded. Hortanos wfe had a premature
devery whe she was on her 38
th
week of pregnancy. The femae fetus ded durng the abor.
The company granted Hortanos cam for paternty eave but dened hs cams for
bereavement eave and death benets. Hortano camed that the provson n CBS dd not
speccay state that the dependent shoud have rst been born ave or must have acqured
|urdca personaty. Pettoner argued that the sad provson of CBA dd not contempate
death of an unborn chd or a fetus wthout ega personaty. They aso camed that there are
two eements for the enttement of the benet: 1) death; and 2) status of egtmate
dependent. None whch exsted n Hortanos case. They further contend that the ony one
wth cv personaty coud de, based on Art 40-42 of Cv Code. Hence, accordng to
pettoner, the unborn chd never ded. Labor Arbter Montana argued that the fetus had the
rght to be supported by the parents from the very moment he/she was conceved. Pettoner
appeaed to CA but CA amrmed Labor Arbters decson. Hence, ths petton.
ISSUE+
W/N ony one wth |urdca personaty can de.
HELD+
No. The reance of Contnenta Stee on Artces 40, 41 and 42 of the Cv Code for the ega
denton of death s mspaced. Artce 40 provdes that a conceved chd acqures
personaty ony when t s born, and Artce 41 denes when a chd s consdered born.
Artce 42 pany states that cv personaty s extngushed by death. The ssue of cv
personaty s rreevant n ths case. Arts 40-42 do not provde at a denton of death. Lfe s
not synonymous to cv personaty. One need not acqure cv personaty rst before s/he
coud de. The Consttuton n fact recognzes the fe of the unborn from concepton.
ISSUE+
W/N a fetus can be consdered as a dependent.
HELD+
Yes. Even an unborn chd s a dependent of ts parents. The fetus woud have not reached 38-
39 weeks wthout dependng upon ts mother.
_________________
1.R. N(. L-1410? J$)u$'3 30, 1!0
TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. #OHANAN, *,%,$s,*.
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., ,C,%ut('-$;;,..,,,
0s. MA1DALENA C. #OHANAN, ED8ARD C. #OHANAN, $)* MARY LYDIA #OHANAN,
(;;(s/t('s-$;;,..$)ts.
Issu,s+
The oppostors, Magadaena C. Bohanan and her two chdren, queston the vadty of the
executor/testator C.O. Bohanans ast w and testament, camng that they have been
deprved of the egtmate that the aws of the form concede to them.
Another, s the cam of the testator's chdren, Edward and Mary Lyda Bohanan, who had
receved egaces n the amount of PHP 6, 000 each ony, and, therefore, have not been gven
ther shares n the estate whch, n accordance wth the aws, shoud be two-thrds of the
estate eft by the testator.
F$%ts+
C.O. Bohanan was born n Nebraska and therefore a ctzen of that state. Notwthstandng hs
ong resdence n the Phppnes, he contnued and remaned to be a ctzen of the Unted
States and of the state of hs pertnent resdence to spend the rest of hs days n that state.
Hs permanent resdence or domce n the Unted States depended upon hs persona ntent
or desre, and he seected Nevada as hs homcde and therefore at the tme of hs death, he
was a ctzen of that state.
H,.*+
The rst ssue refers to the share that the wfe of the testator, Magdaena C. Bohanan, shoud
be entted to receve. The w has not gven her any share n the estate eft by the testator. It
s argued that t was error for the tra court to have recognzed the Reno dvorce secured by
the testator from hs Fpno wfe Magdaena C. Bohanan, and that sad dvorce shoud be
decared a nuty n ths |ursdcton. The court refused to recognze the cam of the wdow on
the ground that the aws of Nevada, of whch the deceased was a ctzen, aow hm to
dspose of a of hs propertes wthout requrng hm to eave any porton of hs estate to hs
former (or dvorced) wfe. No rght to share n the nhertance n favor of a dvorced wfe
exsts n the State of Nevada, thus the oppostor can no onger cam porton of the estate eft
by the testator.
Wth regards the second ssue, the od Cv Code, whch s appcabe to ths case because the
testator ded n 1944, expressy provdes that successona rghts to persona property are to
be earned by the natona aw of the person whose successon s n queston, thus the two-
thrd rue s not enforceabe.
Wherefore% the court 9nds that the testator C$ &$ 0ohanan was at the time of his death a
citien of the 5nited #tates and of the #tate of 8e.ada and declares that his will and
testament is full2 in accordance with the laws of the state of 8e.ada and admits the same to
probate$
(s in accordance with (rticle *: of the old Ci.il Code% the .alidit2 of testamentar2
dispositions are to be go.erned b2 the national law of the testator% and as it has been
10 | P a g e
decided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the #tate of
8e.ada which allows a testator to dispose of all his propert2 according to his will% as in the
case at bar% the order of the court appro.ing the project of partition made in accordance with
the testamentar2 pro.isions% must be% as it is hereb2 a;rmed% with costs against appellants$
ANCHETA V. 1UERSEY-DALAY1ON >Su%%,ss/()@
#/)*/)g ED,%t (= Ju*g5,)ts
B0 SCRA 1B0
Ju), ", 400!
F$%ts: Spouses Audrey ONe (Audrey) and W. Rchard Guersey (Rchard) were Amercan
ctzens who have resded n the Phppnes for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter,
Kye Guersey H (Kye). Audrey ded n 1979. She eft a w wheren she bequeathed her
entre estate to Rchard consstng of Audreys con|uga share n rea estate mprovements at
Forbes Park, current account wth cash baance and shares of stock n A/G Interors. Two years
after her death, Rchard marred Candeara Guersey-Daaygon. Four years thereafter, Rchard
ded and eft a w wheren he bequeathed hs entre estate to respondent, except for hs
shares n A/G, whch he eft to hs adopted daughter.
Pettoner, as ancary admnstrator n the court where Audreys w was admtted to
probate, ed a moton to decare Rchard and Kye as hers of Audrey and a pro|ect of
partton of Audreys estate. The moton and pro|ect of partton were granted. Meanwhe, the
ancary admnstrator wth regards to Rchards w aso ed a pro|ect of partton, eavng
2/5 of Rchards undvded nterest n the Forbes property was aocated to respondent
Candeara, whe 3/5 thereof was aocated to ther three chdren. Respondent opposed on
the ground that under the aw of the State of Maryand, where Rchard was a natve of, a
egacy passes to the egatee the entre nterest of the testator n the property sub|ect to the
egacy.
Issu,: Whether or not the decree of dstrbuton may st be annued under the
crcumstances.
H,.*: A decree of dstrbuton of the estate of a deceased person vests the tte to the and of
the estate n the dstrbutees, whch, f erroneous may be corrected by a tmey appea. Once
t becomes na, ts bndng ehect s ke any other |udgment n rem.
However, n exceptona cases, a na decree of dstrbuton of the estate may be set asde for
ack of |ursdcton or fraud. Further, n Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court rued that a party
nterested n a probate proceedng may have a na qudaton set asde when he s eft out
by reason of crcumstances beyond hs contro or through mstake or nadvertence not
mputabe to neggence.
Pettoners faure to procenty manage the dstrbuton of Audreys estate accordng to the
terms of her w and as dctated by the appcabe aw amounted to extrnsc fraud. Hence the
CA Decson annung the RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and Apr 7, 1988, must be
uphed.
ANCHETA 0s 1UERSEY-DALAY1ON
FACTS+
Spouses Audrey ONe and W. Rchard Guersey were Amercan Ctzens wth an adopted
daughter named Kye Guersey H, and have ved n the Phppnes for 30 years. Audrey
ded eavng a w bequeathng her entre estate to Rchard, who was aso desgnated as
executor. The w was admtted probate before the Orphans Court of Batmore, Mary Land,
U.S.A. whch named |ames N. Phps as executor due to Rchards renuncaton of hs
appontment. Atty. Aonzo O. Ancheta, heren pettoner, of the Ouasha Aspera Ancheta
Pena & Noasco Law omces was kewse desgnated by the court as ancary admnstrator.
In 1981 Rchard marred heren respondent Candeara Guersey-Daaygon wth whom he has
two chdren. Subsequenty, Audreys w was admtted probate by then Court of Frst
Instance of Rza. As admnstrator of Audreys estate n the Phppnes, pettoner ed an
nventory and apprasa of Audreys propertes.
On |uy 20, 1984, Rchard ded, eavng a w, wheren he bequeathed hs entre estate to
respondent, save for hs rghts and nterests over the A/G Interors, Inc. shares, whch he eft
to Kye. The w was aso admtted to probate by the Orphans Court of Ann Arunde,
Maryand, U.S.A, and |ames N. Phps was kewse apponted as executor, who n turn,
desgnated Atty. Wam Ouasha or any member of the Ouasha Aspera Ancheta Pena &
Noasco Law Omces, as ancary admnstrator.
On October 19, 1987, pettoner ed n Speca Proceedng No.9625 before the Makat RTC, a
moton to decare Rchard and Kye as hers of Aubrey and apportoned to them and V of
a the estate, respectvey. Ths moton and pro|ect of partton was granted and approved by
the tra court n ts Order dated February 12, 1988. Ths was opposed by respondent on the
ground that under the aw of the State of Maryand, "a egacy passes to the egatee the entre
nterest of the testator n the property sub|ect of the egacy." Respondent argued that snce
Audrey devsed her entre estate to Rchard, then t shoud be whoy ad|udcated to hm and
not merey thereof, and snce Rchard eft hs entre estate to the respondent, except for
the A/G Interor Inc. shares, then the entre property shoud now pertan to respondent. The
Court of Appeas annued the tra courts Orders n Speaca Proceedng No. 9625 and ater
dened the appea of the pettoner, thus the petton for revew on certorar.
ISSUE+
Whether or not the pettoner wfuy breached hs ducary duty when he dsregarded the
aws of the State of Maryand on the dstrbuton of Audreys estate n accordance wth her
w?
RULIN1+
We-ntentoned though t may be, defendant Aonzo H. Anchetas acton appears to have
breached hs dutes and responsbtes as ancary admnstrator of the sub|ect estate. Whe
such breach of duty admttedy cannot be consdered extrnsc fraud under ordnary
crcumstances, the ducary nature of the sad defendants poston, as we as the resutant
frustraton of the decedents ast w, combne to create a crcumstance that s tantamount to
extrnsc fraud. Defendant Aonzo H. Anchetas omsson to prove the natona aws of the
decedent and to foow the atters ast w, n sum, resuted n the procurement of the sub|ect
orders wthout a far submsson of the rea ssues nvoved n the case.
__________________
VI9CONDE 0s. CA
11 | P a g e
1R E 11"BB, F,6'u$'3 11, 1"
FACTS+
Estreta purchased form Rafae a 10,110 sq. m. ot ocated at Vaenzuea, Buacan for
P100k. She sod the Vaenzuea property for P3, 405, 612 and n |une of the same year, she
bought a house and ot n BF Homes, Paraaque usng a porton of the proceeds of the sae of
the Vaenzuea ot. Estreta and her 2 chdren, Carmea and |ennfer, were ked. Lauro was
eft as the soe her but he entered nto an extra|udca settement of hs wfes estate wth
Rafae and Saud, her parents. Ths settement provded 50% of the tota amount of the bank
deposts of Estreta and her daughters to Rafae whe the other 50% was gven to
Lauro. The Paraaque property and the car were aso gven to Lauro wth Rafae and Saud
wavng a ther cams, rghts, ownershp and partcpaton as hers n the sad propertes.
Rafae ded. In the ntestate proceedng the Vaenzuea ot aegedy was gven by Rafae to
Estreta and that the hers egtme shoud come from coaton of a propertes dstrbuted
to hs chdren by Rafae durng hs fetme. Ramon, Rafaes son, further camed that the
pettoner s one of Rafaes chdren by rght of representaton as Estretas wdower.
HELD+
Pettoner s Rafaes son-n-aw and not one of hs compusory hers. Wth respect to Rafaes
estate, pettoner, who was not even shown to be a credtor of Rafae, s consdered a
3
rd
person. As such, he may not be dragged nto the ntestate estate proceedng.
Secondy, t7, ('*,' (= %(..$t/() /s ;',5$tu', s/)%, t7, ;'(%,,*/)g /s st/.. /) /ts
/)/t/$t('3 st$g,. T7,', /s )(t7/)g t( /)*/%$t, t7$t t7, .,g/t/5, (= $)3 (= R$=$,.Fs
7,/'s 7$s 6,,) /5;$/',* t( <$''$)t %(..$t/(). Further, coaton of the Paraaque
property, bought usng the proceeds of the sae of the Vaenzuea property whch Rafae
transferred to Estreta, has no statutory bass. The Order of the probate court presupposes
that the Paraaque property was gratutousy conveyed by Rafae to Estreta. However,
Estreta pad P900, 000 to Premer Homes, Inc. for sad property. The coaton s mproper for
coaton covers ony propertes gratutousy gven by decedent durng hs fetme to hs
compusory hers whch do not obtan to the transfer of the Paraaque reaty. Moreover,
Rafae aready waved hs rght to sad reaty. Lasty, Estreta ded ahead of Rafae. In fact, t
was Rafae who nherted from her an amount more than the vaue of the Vaenzuea
ot. Thus, even assumng that the atter property maybe coated, coaton may not be
aowed as the vaue of the Vaenzuea ot has ong been returned to Rafaes estate.
LAURO 1. VI9CONDE, 'e(i(ioner, vs., COURT OF APPEALS, RE1IONAL TRIAL COURT,
#'$)%7 140, C$.((%$) C/t3, $)* RAMON 1. NICOLAS, res'onden(s.
D E C I S I O N >1"@
FRANCISCO, J.+
Pettoner Lauro G. Vzconde and hs wfe Estreta Ncoas-Vzconde had two chdren, .i.,
Carmea and |ennfer. Pettoners wfe, Estreta, s one of the ve sbngs of spouses Rafae
Ncoas and Saud Gonzaes-Ncoas. The other chdren of Rafae and Saud are Antono
Ncoas; Ramon Ncoas; Teresta Ncoas de Leon, and Rcardo Ncoas, an
ncompetent. Antono predeceased hs parents and s now survved by hs wdow, Zenada,
and ther four chdren.
On May 22, 1979, Estreta purchased from Rafae a parce of and wth an area of 10,110 sq.
m. ocated at Vaenzuea, Buacan (hereafter Vaenzuea property) covered by TCT No. (T-
36734) 13206 for One Hundred Thrty Fve Thousand Pesos (P135,000.00), evdenced by a
"Lubusang Bhan ng Bahag ng Lupa na Nasasakupan ng Ttuo TCT NO. T-36734."
|1|
In vew
thereof, TCT No. V-554 coverng the Vaenzuea property was ssued to Estreta.
|2|
On March
30, 1990, Estreta sod the Vaenzuea property to Amea Lm and Mara Natvdad Bactar
Chu for Three Mon, Four Hundred Fve Thousand, Sx Hundred Tweve Pesos
(P3,405,612.00).
|3|
In |une of the same year, Estreta bought from Premere Homes, Inc., a
parce of and wth mprovements stuated at Vnzon St., BF Homes, Paraaque (hereafter
Paraaque property) usng a porton of the proceeds was used n buyng a car whe the
baance was deposted n a bank.
The foowng year an unfortunate event n pettoners fe occurred. Estreta and her two
daughters, Carmea and |ennfer, were ked on |une 30, 1991, an ncdent popuary known
as the "Vzconde Massacre". The ndngs of the nvestgaton conducted by the NBI revea
that Estreta ded ahead of her daughters.
|4|
Accordngy, Carmea, |ennfer and heren
pettoner succeeded Estreta and, wth the subsequent death of Carmea and |ennfer,
pettoner was eft as the soe her of hs daughters. Nevertheess, pettoner entered nto an
"Extra-|udca Settement of the Estate of Deceased Estreta Ncoas-Vzconde Wth Waver
of Shares",
|5|
wth Rafae and Saud, Estretas parents. The extra-|udca settement
provded for the dvson of the propertes of Estreta and her two daughters between
pettoner and spouses Rafae and Saud. The propertes ncude bank deposts, a car and the
Paraaque property. The tota vaue of the deposts deductng the funera and other reated
expenses n the bura of Estreta, Carmea and |ennfer, amounts to Three Mon Pesos
(P3,000,000.00).
|6|
The settement gave fty percent (50%) of the tota amount of the bank
deposts of Estreta and her daughters to Rafae, except Savng Account No. 104-111211-0
under the name of |ennfer whch nvoves a token amount. The other fty percent (50%) was
aotted to pettoner. The Paraaque property and the car were aso gven to pettoner wth
Rafae and Saud wavng a ther "cams, rghts, ownershp and partcpaton as hers"
|7|
n
the sad propertes.
On November 18, 1992, Rafae ded. To sette Rafaes estate, Teresta nsttuted an ntestate
estate proceedng
|8|
docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1679, wth Branch 120 of the Regona Tra
Court (RTC) of Caoocan Cty stng as hers Saud, Ramon, Rcardo and the wfe (Zenada)
and chdren of Antono. Teresta prayed to be apponted Speca Admnstratrx of Rafaes
estate. Addtonay, she sought to be apponted as guardan ad litem of Saud, now sene,
and Rcardo, her ncompetent brother. Heren prvate respondent Ramon ed an
opposton
|9|
dated March 24, 1993, prayng to be apponted nstead as Saud and Rcardos
guardan. Barey three weeks passed, Ramon ed another opposton
|10|
aegng, among
others, that Estreta was gven the Vaenzuea property by Rafae whch she sod for not es
than Sx Mon Pesos (P6,000,000.00) before her gruesome murder. Ramon peaded for
courts nterventon "to determne the egaty and vadty of the ntervvos dstrbuton made
by deceased Rafae to hs chdren,"
|11|
Estreta ncuded. On May 12, 1993, Ramon ed hs
own petton, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. C-1699, entted "InMatter Of The Guardanshp Of
Saud G. Ncoas and Rcardo G. Ncoas" and averred that ther egtme shoud come from
the coaton of a the propertes dstrbuted to hs chdren by Rafae durng hs fetme.
|12|
Ramon stated that heren pettoner s one of Rafaes chdren "by rght of representaton
as the wdower of deceased egtmate daughter of Estreta."
|13|
In a consodated Order, dated November 9, 1993, the RTC apponted Ramon as the Guardan
of Saud and Rcardo whe Teresta, n turn, was apponted as the Speca Admnstratrx of
Rafaes estate. The courts Order dd not ncude pettoner n the sate of Rafaes hers.
|14|
Nether was the Paraaque property sted n ts st of propertes to be ncuded n the
estate.
|15|
Subsequenty, the RTC n an Order dated |anuary 5, 1994, removed Ramon as Saud
and Rcardos guardan for seng hs wards property wthout the courts knowedge and
permsson.
|16|
12 | P a g e
Sometme on |anuary 13, 1994, the RTC reeased an Order gvng pettoner "ten (10) days x x
x wthn whch to e any approprate petton or moton reated to the pendng petton
nsofar as the case s concerned and to e any opposton to any pendng moton that has
been ed by both the counses for Ramon Ncoas and Teresta de Leon." In response,
pettoner ed a Manfestaton, dated |anuary 19, 1994, stressng tha the was nether a
compusory her nor an ntestate her of Rafae and he has no nterest to partcpate n the
proceedngs. The RTC noted sad Manfestaton n ts Order dated February 2, 1994.
|17|
Despte the Manfestaton, Ramon, through a moton dated February 14, 1994, moved to
ncude pettoner n the ntestate estate proceedng and asked that the Paraaque property,
as we as the car and the baance of the proceeds of the sae of the Vaenzuea property, be
coated.
|18|
Actng on Ramons moton, the tra court on March 10, 1994 granted the same n
an Order whch pertnenty reads as foows:
x x x x x x x x x
"On the Moton To Incude Lauro G. Vzconde In Intestate proceedngs n nstant case and
consderng the comment on h Manfestaton, the same s hereby granted."
|19|
x x x x x x x x x
Pettoner ed ts moton for reconsderaton of the aforesad Order whch Ramon opposed.
|20|
On August 12, 1994, the RTC rendered an Order denyng pettoners moton for
reconsderaton. It provdes:
x x x x x x x x x
"The centerpont of oppostor-appcants argument s that spouses Vzconde were then
nancay ncapabe of havng purchased or acqured for a vauabe consderaton the
property at Vaenzuea from the deceased Rafae Ncoas. Admttedy, the spouses Vzconde
were then vng wth the deceased Rafae Ncoas n the atters ancestra home. In fact, as
the argument further goes, sad spouses were dependent for support on the deceased Rafae
Ncoas. And Lauro Vzconde eft for the Unted States n, de3facto separaton, from the famy
for sometme and returned to the Phppnes ony after the occurrence of voent deaths of
Estreta and her two daughters.
"To dspute the contenton that the spouses Vzconde were nancay ncapabe to buy the
property from the ate Rafae Ncoas, Lauro Vzconde cams that they have been engaged n
busness venture such as tax busness, canteen concessons and garment
manufacturng. However, no competent evdence has been submtted to ndubtaby support
the busness undertakngs adverted to.
"In ne, there s no sumcent evdence to show that the acquston of the property from
Rafae Ncoas was for a vauabe consderaton.
"Accordngy, the transfer of the property at Vaenzuea n favor of Estreta by her father was
gratutous and the sub|ect property n Paraaque whch was purchased out of the proceeds of
the sad transfer of property by the deceased Rafae Ncoas n favor of Estreta, s sub|ect to
coaton."
"WHEREFORE, the moton for reconsderaton s hereby DENIED."
|21|
(Underscorng added)
Pettoner ed a petton for certiorari and prohbton wth respondent Court of Appeas. In
ts decson of December 14, 1994, respondent Court of Appeas
|22|
dened the petton
stressng that the RTC correcty ad|udcated the queston on the tte of the Vaenzuea
property as "the |ursdcton of the probate court extends to matters ncdenta and coatera
to the exercse of ts recognzed powers n handng the settement of the estate of the
deceased (Cf.: Sec. 1, Rue 90, Revsed Rues of Court)."
|23|
Dssatsed, pettoner ed the
nstant petton for revew on certiorari. Fndng prima facie mert, the Court on December 4,
1995, gave due course to the petton and requred the partes to submt ther respectve
memoranda.
The core ssue hnges on the vadty of the probate courts Order, whch respondent Court of
Appeas sustaned, nufyng the transfer of the Vaenzuea property from Rafae to Estreta
and decarng the Paraaque property as sub|ect to coaton.
The appea s we taken.
Basc prncpes of coaton need to be emphaszed at the outset. Artce 1061 of the Cv
Code speaks of coaton. It states:
"Art. 1061. Every compusory her, who succeeds wth other compusory hers, must brng
nto the mass of the estate any property or rght whch he may have receved from the
decedent, durng the fetme of the atter, by way of donaton, or any other gratutous tte, n
order that t may be computed n the determnaton of the egtme of each her, and n the
account of the partton."
Coaton s the act by vrtue of whch descendants or other forced hers who ntervene n the
dvson of the nhertance of an ascendant brng nto the common mass, the property whch
they receved from hm, so that the dvson may be made accordng to aw and the w of the
testator.
|24|
Coaton s ony requred of compusory hers succeedng wth other compusory
hers and nvoves property or rghts receved by donaton or gratutous tte durng the
fetme of the decedent.
|25|
The purpose for t s presumed that the ntenton of the testator or
predecessor n nterest n makng a donaton or gratutous transfer to a forced her s to gve
hm somethng n advance on account of hs share n the estate, and that the predecessors
w s to treat a hs hers equay, n the absence of any expresson to the contrary.
|26|
Coaton does not mpose any en on the property or the sub|ect matter of coatonabe
donaton. What s brought to coaton s not the property donated tsef, but rather the vaue
of such property at the tme t was donated,
|27|
the ratonae beng that the donaton s a rea
aenaton whch conveys ownershp upon ts acceptance, hence any ncrease n vaue or any
deteroraton or oss thereof s for the account of the her or donee.
|28|
The attendant facts heren do no make a case of coaton. We nd that the probate court, as
we as respondent Court of Appeas, commtted reversbe errors.
Frst: The probate court erred n orderng the ncuson of pettoner n the ntestate estate
proceedng. Pettoner, a son-n-aw of Rafae, s one of Rafaes compusory hers. Artce
887 of the Cv Code s cear on ths pont:
"Art. 887. The foowng are compusory hers:
(1) Legtmate chdren and descendants, wth respect to ther egtmate parents and
ascendants;
(2) In defaut of the foowng, egtmate parents and ascendants, wth respect to ther
egtmate chdren and ascendants;
(3) The wdow or wdower;
(4) Acknowedged natura chdren, and natura chdren by ega cton;
(5) Other egtmate chdren referred to n artce 287.
"Compusory hers mentoned n Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are not excuded by those n Nos 1 and 2;
nether do they excude one another.
"In a cases of egtmate chdren, ther aton must be duy proved.
"The father or mother of egtmate chdren of the three casses mentoned, sha nhert
from them n the manner and to the extent estabshed by ths Code."
Wth respect to Rafaes estate, therefore, pettoner who was not even shown to be a credtor
of Rafae s consdered a thrd person or a stranger.
|29|
As such, pettoner may not be dragged
nto the ntestate estate proceedng. Nether may he be permtted or aowed to ntervene as
he has no personaty or nterest n the sad proceedng,
|30|
whch pettoner correcty argued
n hs manfestaton.
|31|
Second: As a rue, the probate court may pass upon and determne the tte or ownershp of
a property whch may or may not be ncuded n the estate proceedngs.
|32|
Such
13 | P a g e
determnaton s provsona n character and s sub|ect to na decson n a separate acton
to resove tte.
|33|
In the case at bench, however, we note that the probate court went beyond
the scope of ts |ursdcton when t proceeded to determne the vadty of the sae of the
Vaenzuea property between Rafae and Estreta and rued that the transfer of the sub|ect
property between the concerned partes was gratutous. The nterpretaton of the deed and
the true ntent of the contractng partes, as we as the presence or absence of consderaton,
are matter outsde the probate courts |ursdcton. These ssues shoud be ventated n an
approprate acton. We reterate:
"x x x we are of the opnon and so hod, that a court whch takes cognzance of testate or
ntestate proceedngs has power and |ursdcton to determne whether or not the propertes
ncuded theren or excuded therefrom beong prima facie to the deceased, athough such a
determnaton s not na or utmate n nature, and wthout pre|udce to the rght of the
nterested partes, n a proper acton, to rase the queston bearng on the ownershp or
exstence of the rght or credt."
|34|
Thrd: The order of the probate court sub|ectng the Paraaque property to coaton s
premature. Records ndcate that the ntestate estate proceedngs s st n ts ntatory
stage. We nd nothng heren to ndcate that the egtmate of any of Rafaes hers has been
mpared to warrant coaton. We thus advert to our rung n Udarbe v. |urado, 59 Ph. 11,
13-14, to wt:
"We are of the opnon that ths contenton s untenabe. In accordance wth the provsons of
artce 1035
|35|
of the Cv Code, t was the duty of the panths to aege and prove that the
donatons receved by the defendants were nomcous n whoe or n part and pre|udced the
egtmate or heredtary porton to whch they are entted. In the absence of evdence to that
ehect, the coaton sought s untenabe for ack of ground or bass therefor."
Fourth: Even on the assumpton that coaton s approprate n ths case the probate court,
nonetheess, made a reversbe error n orderng coaton of the Paraaque property. We note
that what was transferred to Estreta, by way of a deed of sae, s the Vaenzuea
property. The Paraaque property whch Estreta acqured by usng the proceeds of the sae
of the Vaenzuea property does not become coatonabe smpy by reason thereof. Indeed
coaton of the Paraaque property has no statutory bass.
|36|
The order of the probate court
presupposes that the Paraaque property was gratutousy conveyed by Rafae to
Estreta. Records ndcate, however, that the Paraaque property was conveyed for and n
consderaton of P900,000.00,
|37|
by Premer Homes, Inc., to Estreta. Rafae, the decedent,
has no partcpaton theren, and pettoner who nherted and s now the present owner of
the Paraaque property s not one of Rafaes hers. Thus, the probate courts order of
coaton aganst pettoner s unwarranted for the obgaton to coate s odged wth
Estreta, the her, and not to heren pettoner who does not have any nterest n Rafaes
estate. As t stands, coaton of the Paraaque property s mproper for, to repeat, coaton
covers ony propertes gratutousy gven by the decedent durng hs fetme to hs
compusory hers whch fact does not obtan anent the transfer of the Paraaque
property. Moreover, Rafae, n a pubc nstrument, vountary and wfuy waved any
"cams, rghts, ownershp and partcpaton as her"
|38|
n the Paraaque property.
Ffth: Fnay, t s fute for the probate court to ascertan whether or not the Vaenzuea
property may be brought to coaton. Estreta, t shoud be stressed, ded ahead of
Rafae. In fact, t was Rafae who nherted from Estreta an amount more than the vaue of
the Vaenzuea property.
|39|
Hence, even assumng that the Vaenzuea property may be
coated coaton may not be aowed as the vaue of the Vaenzuea property has ong been
returned to the estate of Rafae. Therefore, any determnaton by the probate court on the
matter serves no vad and bndng purpose.
8HEREFORE, the decson of the Court of Appeas appeaed from s hereby REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
______________
ARROYO 0s. VASGUE9 *, ARROYO
1R N(. L-1201B, August 11, 141
FACTS+
Marano Arroyo and Doores Vasquez de Arroyo were marred n 1910 and have ved together
as man and wfe unt |uy 4, 1920 when the wfe went away from ther common home wth
the ntenton of vng separate from her husband. Maranos ehorts to nduce her to resume
marta reatons were a n van. Thereafter, Marano ntated an acton to compe her to
return to the matrmona home and ve wth hm as a dutfu wfe. Doores averred by way of
defense and cross-compant that she had been compeed to eave because of the crue
treatment of her husband. She n turn prayed that a decree of separaton be decared and the
qudaton of the con|uga partnershp as we as permanent separate mantenance.
The tra |udge, upon consderaton of the evdence before hm, reached the concuson that
the husband was more to bame than hs wfe and that hs contnued -treatment of her
furnshed sumcent |ustcaton for her abandonment of the con|uga home and the
permanent breakng oh of marta reatons wth hm.
ISSUE+ Whether or not the courts can compe one of the spouses to cohabt wth each other
HELD+ NO.
It s not wthn the provnce of the courts of ths country to attempt to compe one of the
spouses to cohabt wth, and render con|uga rghts to, the other. Of course where the
property rghts of one of the par are nvaed, an acton for resttuton of such rghts can be
mantaned. But we are dsncned to sancton the doctrne that an order, enforcbe by
process of contempt, may be entered to compe the resttuton of the purey persona rghts
of consortium. At best such an order can be ehectve for no other purpose than to compe the
spouses to ve under the same roof; and the experence of these countres where the court of
|ustce have assumed to compe the cohabtaton of marred peope shows that the pocy of
the practce s extremey questonabe.
We are therefore unabe to hod that Marano B. Arroyo n ths case s entted to the
uncondtona and absoute order for the return of the wfe to the marta domce, whch s
sought n the pettory part of the compant; though he s, wthout doubt, entted to a |udca
decaraton that hs wfe has presented hersef wthout sumcent cause and that t s her duty
to return.
Therefore, reversng the |udgment appeaed from, n respect both to the orgna compant
and the cross-b, t s decared that Doores Vasquez de Arroyo has absented hersef from the
marta home wthout sumcent cause; and she s admonshed that t s her duty to return.
The panth s absoved from the cross-compant, wthout speca pronouncement as to costs
of ether nstance.
1.R. N(. 1B3320. F,6'u$'3 !, 4004H
14 | P a g e
MARIO J. MENDE9ONA $)* TERESITA M. MENDE9ONA, LUIS J. MENDE9ONA $)*
MARICAR L. MENDE9ONA $)* TERESITA ADAD VDA. DE MENDE9ONA, 'e(i(ioners,
vs. JULIO H. O9AMI9, RO#ERTO J. MONTALVAN, JOSE MA. O9AMI9, CARMEN H.
O9AMI9, PA9 O. MONTALVAN, MA. TERESA O.F. 9ARRA1A, CARLOS O. FORTICH, JOSE
LUIS O. ROS, PAULITA O. RODRI1UE9, $)* LOURDES O. LON, res'onden(s.
D E C I S I O N
DE LEON, JR., J.+
Before us s a petton for revew on certiorari of the Decson
|1|
and the Resouton
|2|
of the
Court of Appeas dated |uy 27, 1998 and May 19, 2000, respectvey, n CA-G.R. CV No.
39752 whch reversed and set asde the Decson
|3|
dated September 23, 1992 rendered n
favor of the pettoners by the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Cebu Cty, Branch 6 n Cv Case
No. CEB-10766.
Cv Case No. CEB-10766 s a sut for quetng of tte. It was nsttuted on September 25,
1991 by pettoner spouses Maro |.Mendezona and Teresta M. Mendezona as nta panths,
|4|
and n the amended compant ed on October 7, 1991, heren co-pettoner spouses Lus
|. Mendezona and Marcar L. Mendezona and Teresta Adad Vda. de Mendezona |oned as co-
panths.
|5|
In ther compant, the pettoners, as panths theren, aeged that pettoner spouses Maro
|. Mendezona and Teresta M. Mendezona, pettoner spouses Lus
|. Mendezona and Marcar L. Mendezona, and pettoner Teresta Adad Vda.
de Mendezona own a parce of and each n the Banad Estate, Lahug, Cebu Cty wth amost
smar areas of 3,462 square meters, 3,466 square meters and 3,468 square meters, covered
and descrbed n Transfer Certcate of Tte (TCT) Nos. 116834, 116835, and 116836
respectvey, of the Regstry of Deeds of Cebu Cty.
|6|
The pettoners utmatey traced ther ttes of ownershp over ther respectve propertes
from a notarzed Deed of Absoute Sae
|7|
dated Apr 28, 1989 executed n ther favor by
Carmen Ozamz for and n consderaton of the sum of One Mon Forty Thousand Pesos
(P1,040,000.00).
The pettoners ntated the sut to remove a coud on ther sad respectve ttes caused by
the nscrpton thereon of a notce of lispendens% whch came about as a resut of an ncdent
n Speca Proceedng No. 1250 of the RTC of Oroqueta Cty. Speca Proceedng No. 1250 s a
proceedng for guardanshp over the person and propertes of Carmen Ozamz ntated by
the respondents |uo H. Ozamz, |ose Ma. Ozamz, Carmen H. Ozamz,
|8|
Paz O. Montavan, Ma.
Teresa O.F. Zarraga, Caros O. Fortch, |ose Lus O. Ros, Pauta O. Rodrguez and Lourdes O.
Lon.
|9|
It appears that on |anuary 15, 1991, the respondents nsttuted the petton for guardanshp
wth the Regona Tra Court of OroquetaCty, aegng theren that Carmen Ozamz, then 86
years od, after an ness n |uy 1987, had become dsorented and coud not recognze most
of her frends; that she coud no onger take care of hersef nor manage her propertes by
reason of her fang heath, weak mnd and absent-mndedness. Maro Mendezona and
Lus Mendezona, heren pettoners who are nephews of Carmen Ozamz, and ParMendezona,
a sster of Carmen Ozamz, ed an opposton to the guardanshp petton.
In the course of the guardanshp proceedng, the pettoners and the oppostors thereto
agreed that Carmen Ozamz needed a guardan over her person and her propertes, and thus
respondent Paz O. Montavan was desgnated as guardan over the person of
Carmen Ozamzwhe pettoner Maro |. Mendezona, respondents Roberto |. Montavan and
|uo H. Ozamz were desgnated as |ont guardans over the propertes of the sad ward.
As guardans, respondents Roberto |. Montavan and |uo H. Ozamz ed on August 6, 1991
wth the guardanshp court ther "nventores and Accounts",
|10|
stng theren
Carmen Ozamzs propertes, cash, shares of stock, vehces and xed assets, ncudng a
10,396 square meter property known as the Lahug property. Sad Lahug property s the same
property covered by the Deed of Absoute Sae dated Apr 28, 1989 executed by
Carmen Ozamz n favor of the pettoners. Respondents Roberto |. Montavan and |uo
H. Ozamz caused the nscrpton on the ttes of pettoners a notce of lis pendens%
|11|
regardng Speca Proceedng No. 1250, thus gvng rse to the sut for quetng of tte, Cv
Case No. CEB-10766, ed by heren pettoners.
In ther Answer
|12|
n Cv Case No. CEB-10766 the respondents opposed the pettoners cam
of ownershp of the Lahug property and aeged that the ttes ssued n the pettoners names
are defectve and ega, and the ownershp of the sad property was acqured n bad fath
and wthout vaue nasmuch as the consderaton for the sae s grossy nadequate and
unconsconabe. Respondents further aeged that at the tme of the sae on Apr 28,
1989 Carmen Ozamz was aready ang and not n fu possesson of her menta facutes;
and that her propertes havng been paced n admnstraton, she was n ehect ncapactated
to contract wth pettoners.
The ssues for resouton were demted n the pre-tra to: (a) the proprety of recourse to
quetng of tte; (b) the vadty or nuty of the Deed of Absoute Sae dated Apr 28, 1989
executed by Carmen Ozamz n favor of heren pettoners; (c) whether the ttes over the
sub|ect parce of and n panths names be mantaned or shoud they be canceed and the
sub|ect parces of and reconveyed; and (d) damages and attorneys fees.
|13|
Tra on the merts ensued wth the partes presentng evdence to prove ther respectve
aegatons. Pettoners Maro Mendezona,Teresta Adad Vda. de Mendezona and
Lus Mendezona, as panths theren, tested on the crcumstances surroundng the
sae.Carmencta Cedeno and Martn Yungco, nstrumenta wtnesses to the Deed of Absoute
Sae dated Apr 28, 1989, and, Atty. AsunconBernades, the notary pubc who notarzed the
sad document, tested that on the day of executon of the sad contract that
Carmen Ozamzwas of sound mnd and that she vountary and knowngy executed the sad
deed of sae.
For the defendants, the testmones of respondent Paz O. Montavan, a sster of
Carmen Ozamz; Concepcon Agac-ac, an assstant of Carmen Ozamz; respondent
|uo Ozamz; Carona Lagura, a househeper of Carmen Ozamz; |oseto Guno, an appraser
of and; NefaPerddo, a part-tme bookkeeper of Carmen Ozamz, and the deposton of Dr.
Fath Go, physcan of Carmen Ozamz, were ohered n evdence.
The pettoners presented as rebutta wtnesses pettoners Maro Mendezona and
Lus Mendezona, to rebut the testmony of respondent |uo H. Ozamz; and, Dr. Wam Buot,
a doctor of neuroogy to rebut aspects of the deposton of Dr. Fath Go on the menta
capacty of Carmen Ozamz at the tme of the sae.
Durng the tra, the tra court found that the foowng facts have been duy estabshed:
|14|
(1) On Apr 28, 1989, Carmen Ozamz sod to her nephews, Maro, Antono and Lus, a
surnamed Mendezona, three (3) parces of resdenta and nCebu Cty, per a Deed of
Absoute Sae (Exh. D) for a consderaton of P1,040,000.00, n whch deed
the usufructuary rghts were reserved durng her fetme.
(2) The three parces of and were subsequenty transferred to the names of the three
vendees per TCTs Nos. 108729, 108730 and 108731 (Exhs. |, K & L, respectvey). A partton
agreement was entered nto by the three vendees (Exh. 3) and the parces of and are now
tted n the names of the panths.
Maro Mendezona - TCT No. 116834 (Exh. A);
Lus Mendezona - TCT No. 116835 (Exh. B);
Antono Mendezona - TCT No. 116836 (Exh. C);
(3) The reservaton of the usufructuary rghts to the vendor Carmen Ozamz durng her
fetme was conrmed by the panths-spouses Maro Mendezona andTeresta Moraza and
15 | P a g e
panths spouses Lus Mendezona and Marcar Longa n a sworn statement (Exh. I) executed
on October 15, 1990, whch was duy annotated on the ttes of the property;
(4) The capta gans tax was pad (Exh. H) on May 5, 1989 and a certcate (Exh. H-1) was
ssued by the Bureau of Interna Revenue authorzng the Regster of Deeds to transfer the
property to the vendees;
(5) A petton for guardanshp over the person and propertes of Carmen Ozamz (Exh. E)
was ed by a the defendants, (except the defendant RobertoMontavan) on |anuary 15,
1991 wth the Regona Tra Court of Oroqueta Cty, denomnated as Spec. Proc. No. 1250
and subsequenty, an "Inventores and Accounts" (Exh. F) was ed by court-apponted
guardans Roberto Montavan and |uo Ozamz, n whch the property was sted (Exh. F-1)
and a Notce ofLs Pendens was ed wth the Regster of Deeds of Cebu Cty on August 13,
1991 by sad |ont guardans. Panth Maro Mendezona, as another |ont guardan over
Carmen Ozamz, ed hs opposton (Exh. R) to the "Inventores and Accounts", wth
the Oroqueta Court as to the ncuson of the property (Exh.R-1).
(6) Pror to hs death, the deceased husband of panth Teresta Adad Mendezona was
granted a Genera Power of Attorney (Exh. 1) by Carmen Ozamz onMarch 23, 1988 and after
hs demse, Carmen Ozamz granted Maro Mendezona a Genera Power of Attorney (Exh. 2.)
on August 11, 1990. Both powers of attorney reate to the admnstraton of the property,
sub|ect of ths acton, n Cebu Cty.
On September 23, 1992 the tra court rendered ts decson n favor of the pettoners,
the dspostve porton of whch reads, to wt:
Wherefore, premses consdered, the Court s of the opnon and so decares that:
1. The property descrbed n the compant was sod, wth reservaton
of usufructuary rghts by Carmen Ozamz to the panths under a vad contract, vountary
and deberatey entered nto whe she was of sound mnd, for sumcent and good
consderaton, and wthout fraud, force, undue nuence or ntmdaton havng been
exercsed upon her, and consequenty, the Court orders the defendants heren to
acknowedge and recognze the panths tte to theaforected property and to refran from
further coudng the same;
2. That the one-thrd (1/3) share erroneousy tted to Antono Mendezona shoud be tted
n the name of Teresta Adad vda. de Mendezona as herparapherna property and the Regster
of Deeds of Cebu Cty s hereby ordered to do so;
3. The Notce of Ls Pendens ahectng the property shoud be emnated from the record
and the Regster of Deeds of Cebu Cty s ordered to expunge the same.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
On appea to the Court of Appeas, the appeate court reversed the factua ndngs of the
tra court and rued that the Deed of Absoute Sae dated Apr 28, 1989 was a smuated
contract snce the pettoners faed to prove that the consderaton was actuay pad, and,
furthermore, that at the tme of the executon of the contract the menta facutes of
Carmen Ozamz were aready serousy mpared. Thus, the appeate court decared that the
Deed of Absoute Sae of Apr 28, 1989 s nu and vod. It ordered the canceaton of the
certcates of tte ssued n the pettoners names and drected the ssuance of new
certcates of tte n favor of Carmen Ozamz or her estate.
Pettoners ed a moton for reconsderaton of the decson of the appeate court.
Subsequent thereto, the pettoners ed a moton for a new tra and/or for recepton of
evdence. They contended, among other thngs, that the appeate court totay gnored the
testmony of |udge Teodorco Duras regardng the menta condton of Carmen Ozamz a
month before the executon of the Deed of Absoute Sae n queston. The sad testmony was
taken n the Speca Proceedng No. 1250 n the Regona Tra Court of Oroqueta Cty.
However, |udgeDuras was not presented as a wtness n Cv Case No. CEB-10766 n
the Regona Tra Court of Cebu Cty. Pettoners aeged that |udge Durass testmony s a
newy-dscovered evdence whch coud not have been dscovered pror to the tra n the
court beow by the exercse of due dgence.
The appeate court dened both motons n ts Resouton dated May 19, 2000. Hence, the
nstant petton anchored on the foowng grounds:
|15|
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE APRIL 28, 1989 DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE WAS A SIMULATED CONTRACT.
A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IGNORING THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTIONS OF
ACTUAL AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR, AND OF THE REGULARITY AND
TRUTHFULNESS OF, THE NOTARIZED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE.
#.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING ON THE PETITIONERS THE BURDEN OF
PROVING PAYMENT, AND IN REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND RULE THAT IT WAS THE
RESPONDENTS - AS THE PARTIES ASSAILING THE DEED OF ABSOLUTESALE - WHO HAD FAILED
TO DISCHARGE THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION FOR THE
TRANSACTION.
C.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REFUSING TO RECEIVE IN EVIDENCE THE THREE
(3) CHECKS, WHICH PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE
LAHUG PROPERTY HAD BEEN PAID TO CARMEN OZAMIZ, AFTER ASKING FOR THEM AND
HAVING THEM PRESENTED TO IT IN OPEN COURT, THUS COOPERATING WITH RESPONDENTS
EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE CHECKS (WHICH THE COURT ITSELF AND RESPONDENTS
CHALLENGED PETITIONERS TO PRODUCE).
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT CARMEN OZAMIZS MENTAL
FACULTIES WERE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED WHEN SHE EXECUTED THE DEED OF
ABSOLUTE SALE ON APRIL 28, 1989.
A.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IGNORING THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT
CARMEN OZAMIZ WAS OF SOUND MIND AND HAD THE REOUISITE CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
WHEN SHE EXECUTED THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, AND IN REFUSING TO RULE THAT IT
WAS THE RESPONDENTS - AS THE PARTIES ALLEGING MENTAL INCAPACITY- WHO HAD FAILED
TO DISCHARGE THEIR BURDEN OF REBUTTING THAT PRESUMPTION.
#.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT AND GIVE DUE AND
PREPONDERANT WEIGHT TO UNREFUTED EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE UNREFUTED
TESTIMONIES OF THE INSTRUMENTAL WITNESSES AND OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC, THAT
CARMEN OZAMIZ EXECUTED THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE FREELY, VOLUNTARILY,
KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY.
C.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF
DR. FAITH GO ON THE MENTAL CONDITION OF CARMEN OZAMIZ ON THE DATE SHE EXECUTED
THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE.
D.
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN IGNORING, AND IN REFUSING TO RECEIVE IN
EVIDENCE, |UDGE TEODORICO DURIASS TESTIMONY (THAT CARMEN OZAMIZ WAS OF SOUND
MIND WHEN SHE EXECUTED ANOTHER CONTRACT BARELY A MONTH BEFORE SHE EXECUTED
16 | P a g e
THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE) ON THE GROUND THAT THAT TESTIMONY WAS FORGOTTEN
EVIDENCE.
We sha rst rue on the ssue of whether to consder the testmony of |udge Duras as newy
dscovered evdence. A moton for new tra upon the ground of newy dscovered evdence s
propery granted ony where there s concurrence of the foowng requstes, namey: (a) the
evdence had been dscovered after tra; (b) the evdence coud not have been dscovered
and produced durng tra even wth the exercse of reasonabe dgence; and (c) the
evdence s matera and not merey corroboratve, cumuatve or mpeachng and s of such
weght that f admtted, woud probaby ater the resut. A three (3) requstes must
characterze the evdence sought to be ntroduced at the new tra.
We nd that the requrement of reasonabe dgence has not been met by the pettoners. As
eary as the pre-tra of the case at bar, the name of |udge Duras has aready cropped up as a
possbe wtness for the defendants, heren respondents. That the respondents chose not to
present hm s not an ndca per se of suppresson of evdence, snce a party n a cv case s
free to choose who to present as hs wtness. Nether can |udge Duras testmony n another
case be consdered as newy dscovered evdence snce the facts to be tested to by
|udge Duras whch were exstng before and durng the tra, coud have been presented by
the pettoners at the tra beow.
|16|
The testmony of |udge Duras has been n exstence
watng ony to be ected from hm by questonng.
|17|
It has been hed that a ack of dgence s exhbted where the newy dscovered evdence
was necessary or proper under the peadngs, and ts exstence must have occurred to the
party n the course of the preparaton of the case, but no ehort was made to secure t; there
s a faure to make nqury of persons who were key to know the facts n queston,
especay where nformaton was not sought from co-partes; there s a faure to seek
evdence avaabe through pubc records; there s a faure to dscover evdence that s
wthn the contro of the companng party; there s a faure to foow eads contaned n
other evdence; and, there s a faure to utze avaabe dscovery procedures.
|18|
Thus, the
testmony of |udge Duras cannot be consdered as newy dscovered evdence to warrant a
new tra.
In ths petton at bench, heren pettoners essentay take excepton to two (2) man factua
ndngs of the appeate court, namey, (a) that the notarzed Deed of Absoute Sae
dated Apr 28, 1989 was a smuated contract, and (b) that Carmen Ozamzs menta
facutes were serousy mpared when she executed the sad contract on Apr 28, 1989. The
pettoners aege that both concusons are contrary or opposed to we-recognzed statutory
presumptons of reguarty en|oyed by a notarzed document and that a contractng party to a
notarzed contract s of sound and dsposng mnd when she executes the contract.
The respondents post a dherent vew. They contend that cear and convncng evdence
refuted the presumptons on reguarty of executon of the Deed of Absoute Sae and
exstence of consderaton thereof. Reyng upon the testmones of Paz
O. Montavan,Concepcon Agac-ac, Carona Lagura and Dr. Fath Go, they aver that they were
abe to show that Carmen Ozamz was aready physcay and mentay ncapactated snce
the atter part of 1987 and coud not have executed the sad Deed of Absoute Sae on Apr
28, 1989coverng the dsputed Lahug property. They aso aeged that no error s ascrbabe to
the appeate court for not consderng the aegedy rehearsed testmones of the
nstrumenta wtnesses and the notary pubc.
Factua ndngs of the appeate court are generay concusve on ths Court whch s not
a trer of facts. It s not the functon of the Supreme Court to anayze or wegh evdence a
over agan. However, ths rue s not wthout excepton. If there s a showng that the
appeate courts ndngs of facts companed of are totay devod of support n the record or
that they are so garngy erroneous as to consttute grave abuse of dscreton, ths Court
must dscard such erroneous ndngs of facts.
|19|
We nd that the excepton appes n the
case at bench.
Smuaton s dened as "the decaraton of a cttous w, deberatey made by agreement
of the partes, n order to produce, for the purposes of decepton, the appearances of a
|urdca act whch does not exst or s dherent from what that whch was reay
executed."
|20|
The requstes of smuaton are: (a) an outward decaraton of w dherent from
the w of the partes; (b) the fase appearance must have been ntended by mutua
agreement; and (c) the purpose s to deceve thrd persons.
|21|
None of these were ceary
shown to exst n the case at bar.
Contrary to the erroneous concusons of the appeate court, a smuated contract cannot be
nferred from the mere non-producton of the checks. It was not the burden of the pettoners
to prove so. It s sgncant to note that the Deed of Absoute Sae dated Apr 28, 1989s a
notarzed document duy acknowedged before a notary pubc. As such, t has n ts favor the
presumpton of reguarty, and t carres the evdentary weght conferred upon t wth respect
to ts due executon. It s admssbe n evdence wthout further proof of ts authentcty and
s entted to fu fath and credt upon ts face.
|22|
Payment s not merey presumed from the fact that the notarzed Deed of Absoute Sae
dated Apr 28, 1989 has gone through the reguar procedure as evdenced by the transfer
certcates of tte ssued n pettoners names by the Regster of Deeds. In other words,
whosoever aeges the fraud or nvadty of a notarzed document has the burden of provng
the same by evdence that s cear, convncng, and more than merey preponderant.
|23|
Therefore, wth ths we-recognzed statutory presumpton, the burden fe upon the
respondents to prove ther aegatons attackng the vadty and due executon of the sad
Deed of Absoute Sae. Respondents faed to dscharge that burden; hence, the presumpton
n favor of the sad deed stands. But more mportanty, that notarzed deed shows on ts face
that the consderaton of One Mon Forty Thousand Pesos (P1,040,000.00) was
acknowedged to have been receved by Carmen Ozamz.
Smuaton cannot be nferred from the aeged absence of payment based on the testmones
of Concepcon Agac-ac, assstant of Carmen Ozamz, and Nefa Perddo, part-tme bookkeeper
of Carmen Ozamz. The testmones of these two (2) wtnesses are unreabe and
nconsstent.
Whe Concepcon Agac-ac tested that she was aware of a the transactons of
Carmen Ozamz, she aso admtted that not a ncome of Carmen Ozamz passed through her
snce Antono Mendezona, as apponted admnstrator, drecty reported to Carmen Ozamz.
|24|
Wth respect to Nefa Perddo, she tested that most of the transactons that she recorded
refer ony to renta ncome and expenses, and the amounts thereof were reported to her
by Concepcon Agac-ac ony, not by Carmen Ozamz. She does not record deposts or
wthdrawas n the bank accounts of Carmen Ozamz.
|25|
Ther testmones hardy deserve any
credt and, hence, the appeate court mspaced reance thereon.
Consderng that Carmen Ozamz acknowedged, on the face of the notarzed deed, that she
receved the consderaton at One Mon Forty Thousand Pesos (P1,040,000.00), the
appeate court shoud not have paced too much emphass on the checks, the presentaton of
whch s not reay necessary. Besdes, the burden to prove aeged non-payment of the
consderaton of the sae was on the respondents, not on the pettoners. Aso, between ts
concuson based on nconsstent ora testmones and a duy notarzed document that en|oys
presumpton of reguarty, the appeate court shoud have gven more weght to the atter.
Spoken words coud be notorousy unreabe as aganst a wrtten document that speaks a
unform anguage.
|26|
Furthermore, the appeate court erred n rung that at the tme of the executon of the Deed
of Absoute Sae on Apr 28, 1989 the menta facutes of Carmen Ozamz were aready
17 | P a g e
serousy mpared.
|27|
It paced too much reance upon the testmones of the respondents
wtnesses. However, after a thorough scrutny of the transcrpts of the testmones of the
wtnesses, we nd that the respondents core wtnesses a made sweepng statements whch
faed to show the true state of mnd of Carmen Ozamz at the tme of the executon of the
dsputed document. The testmones of the respondents wtnesses on the menta capacty of
Carmen Ozamz are far from beng cear and convncng, to say the east.
Carona Lagura, a househeper of Carmen Ozamz, tested that when Carmen Ozamz was
confronted by Paz O. Montavan n |anuary 1989 wth the sae of the Lahug property,
Carmen Ozamz dened the same. She tested that Carmen Ozamz understood the queston
then.
|28|
However, ths decaraton s nconsstent wth her (Caronas) statement that snce
1988 Carmen Ozamz coud not fuy understand the thngs around her, that she was
physcay t but mentay coud not carry a conversaton or recognze persons who vsted
her.
|29|
Furthermore, the dsputed sae occurred on Apr 28, 1989 or three (3) months after ths
aeged confrontaton n |anuary 1989. Ths nconsstency was not expaned by the
respondents.
The reveaton of Dr. Fath Go dd not aso shed ght on the menta capacty of
Carmen Ozamz on the reevant day - Apr 28, 1989when the Deed of Absoute Sae was
executed and notarzed. At best, she merey reveaed that Carmen Ozamz was suherng from
certan nrmtes n her body and at tmes, she was forgetfu, but there was no categorca
statement that Carmen Ozamz succumbed to what the respondents suggest as her aeged
"second chdhood" as eary as 1987. The pettoners rebutta wtness, Dr. Wam Buot, a
doctor of neuroogy, tested that no concuson of menta ncapacty at the tme the sad
deed was executed can be nferred from Dr. Fath Goscnca notes nor can such fact be
deduced from the mere prescrpton of a medcaton for epsodc memory oss.
It has been hed that a person s not ncapactated to contract merey because of advanced
years or by reason of physca nrmtes. Ony when such age or nrmtes mpar her menta
facutes to such extent as to prevent her from propery, ntegenty, and fary protectng her
property rghts, s she consdered ncapactated.
|30|
The respondents uttery faed to show
adequate proof that at the tme of the sae on Apr 28, 1989 Carmen Ozamz had aegedy
ost contro of her menta facutes.
We note that the respondents sought to mpugn ony one document, namey, the Deed of
Absoute Sae dated Apr 28, 1989, executed by Carmen Ozamz. However, there are nne (9)
other mportant documents that were, sgned by Carmen Ozamz ether before or after Apr
28, 1989 whch were not assaed by the respondents.
|31|
Such s contrary to ther asserton of
compete ncapacty of Carmen Ozamz to hande her ahars snce 1987. We agree wth the
tra courts assessment that "t s unfar for the |respondents| to cam soundness of mnd of
Carmen Ozamz when t benets them and otherwse when t dsadvantages them."
|32|
A
person s presumed to be of sound mnd at any partcuar tme and the condton s presumed
to contnue to exst, n the absence of proof to the contrary.
|33|
Competency and freedom from
undue nuence, shown to have exsted n the other acts done or contracts executed, are
presumed to contnue unt the contrary s shown.
|34|
A the foregong consdered, we nd the nstant petton to be mertorous and the same
shoud be granted.
8HEREFORE, the nstant petton s hereby GRANTED and the assaed Decson and
Resouton of the Court of Appeas are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decson
dated September 23, 1992 of the Regona Tra Court of Cebu Cty, Branch 6, n Cv Case No.
CEB-10766 s REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
______________
CASES
MENDE9ONA VS O9AMIS
Panths are owners of parces of and. The got ther ther ownershp by the sae n ther favor
by Ozams, for 1.4 mon. They nsttuted an acton of quetng the tte, to remove e
pendent on the property. Respondents nstuted petton for guardanshp over Carmen
Ozams, who became dsorented at age of 86, and cannot manage propertes.
SC: Whoever aeges the nuty of notarzed deed has the burden of provng the exstence of
fraud by cear and convnce and not merey preponderance evdence.
There was no smuaton. Appeate court faed to prove that at the tme of sae, the menta
facutes of Carmen Ozams are serousy mpared.
A person s not ncapactated to contract merey because of advanced years or by reasons of
physca nrmtes. Ony when such age or nrmtes mpar her menta facutes to such
extent as to prevent her from propery and fary protectng her rghts, s she consdered
ncapactated.
A person s presumed to be of sound mnd At any partcuar tme and the condton s
presumed to contnue to exst, n the absence of proof to contrary. Competency and freedom
from undue nuence s presumed unt contrary s shown.
___________________
MENDEZONA V. OZAMIZ (REMEDIAL)
A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL upon the ground of newy dscovered evdence s propery granted
ony where there s concurrence of the foowng requstes:
1. the evdence had been dscovered after tra;
2. the evdence coud not have been dscovered and produced durng tra even wth
the exercse of reasonabe dgence; and
3. the evdence s matera and not merey corroboratve, cumuatve, or mpeachng
and s of such weght that f admtted, woud probaby ater the resut.
A 3 requstes must characterze the evdence sought to be ntroduced at the new tra.
SC nds that the requrement of reasonabe dgence has not been met by the pettoners. As
eary as the pre-tra of the case, the name |udge Duras has aready cropped up as a possbe
wtness for the defendants, heren respondents. That the respondent chose not to present hs
s not an ndca per se of suppresson of evdence, snce a party n a cv case s free to
choose who to present as hs wtness. Nether can |udge Duras' testmony n another case be
consdered as newy dscovered evdence snce the facts to be tested to by |udge Duras'
whch were exstng before and durng the tra, coud have been presented by the pettoners
at the tra The testmony of |udge Duras has been n exstence watng ony to be ected
from hm by questonng.
Factua ndngs of the appeate court are generay concusve on the SC whch s not a trer
of facts. It s not the functon of the SC to anayze or wegh evdence a over agan. However,
ths rue s not wthout excepton. If there s a showng that the appeate court's ndngs of
facts companed of are totay devod of support n the record or that they are so garngy
erroneous as to consttute grave abuse of dscreton, the SC must dscard such erroneous
ndngs of facts. SC nds that the excepton appes n the case at bench.
Smuaton s dened as :the decaraton of a cttous w, deberatey made by agreement
of the partes, n order to produce, for the purposes of decepton, the appearances of a
|urdca act whch does not exst or s dherent from that whch was reay executed. The
requstes of smuaton are:
1. an outward decaraton of w dherent from the w of the partes;
2. the fase appearance must have been ntended by mutua agreement; and
18 | P a g e
3. the purpose s to deceve thrd persons. None of these were ceary shown to exst n
the case at bar.
Contrary to the erroneous concusons of the appeate court, a smuated contract cannot be
nferred from the mere non-producton of the checks. It was not the burden of the pettoners
to prove so. It s sgncant to note that the deed of absoute sae s a notarzed document
duy acknowedged before a notary pubc. As such, t has n ts favor the presumpton of
reguarty and t carres the evdentary weght conferred upon t wth respect to ts due
executon. It s admssbe n evdence wthout further proof of ts authentcty and s entted
to fu fath and credt upon ts face.
________________
I1.R. N(. 134B1?. J$)u$'3 30, 4004H
MI1UEL :ATIPUNAN, INOCENCIO VALDE9, ED1ARDO #AL1UMA $)* LEOPOLDO
#AL1UMA, JR.,'e(i(ioners, vs. #RAULIO :ATIPUNAN, JR., res'onden(.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-1UTIERRE9, J.+
Before us s a petton for revew on certiorari
|1|
assang the Decson
|2|
of the Court of
Appeas dated |uy 31, 1997 n CA-GR CV No. 45928, "Brauo Katpunan, |r. vs. Mgue
Katpunan, Inocenco Vadez, Atty. Leopodo Baguma, Sr., Edgardo Baguma and Leopodo
Baguma, |r." whch set asde the Decson of the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Mana, Branch
28, n Cv Case No. 87-39891 for annument of a Deed of Absoute Sae.
The antecedents are:
Respondent Brauo Katpunan, |r. s the owner of a 203 square meter ot and a ve-door
apartment constructed thereon ocated at 385-F Matenza St., San Mgue, Mana. The ot s
regstered n hs name under TCT No. 109193
|3|
of the Regstry of Deeds of Mana. The
apartment unts are occuped by essees.
On December 29, 1985, respondent, asssted by hs brother, pettoner Mgue Katpunan,
entered nto a Deed of Absoute Sae
|4|
wth brothers Edgardo Baguma and Leopodo
Baguma, |r. (co-pettoners), represented by ther father Atty. Leopodo Baguma, Sr.,
nvovng the sub|ect property for a consderaton of P187,000.00. Consequenty,
respondents tte to the property was canceed and n eu thereof, TCT No. 168394
|5|
was
regstered and ssued n the names of the Baguma brothers. In |anuary, 1986, Atty. Baguma,
then st ave, started coectng rentas from the essees of the apartments.
On March 10, 1987, respondent ed wth the RTC of Mana, Branch 21,
|6|
a compant for
annument of the Deed of Absoute Sae, docketed as Cv Case No. 87-39891.
|7|
He averred
that hs brother Mgue, Atty. Baguma and Inocenco Vadez (defendants theren, now
pettoners) convnced hm to work abroad. They even brought hm to the NBI and other
government omces for the purpose of securng cearances and other documents whch ater
turned out to be fased. Through nsdous words and machnatons, they made hm sgn a
document purportedy a contract of empoyment, whch document turned out to be a Deed of
Absoute Sae. By vrtue of the sad sae, brothers Edgardo and Leopodo, |r. (co-defendants),
were abe to regster the tte to the property n ther names. Respondent further aeged that
he dd not receve the consderaton stated n the contract. He was shocked when hs sster
Agueda Katpunan-Saveano tod hm that the Baguma brothers sent a etter to the essees
of the apartment nformng them that they are the new owners. Fnay, he camed that the
defendants, now pettoners, wth evdent bad fath, conspred wth one another n takng
advantage of hs gnorance, he beng ony a thrd grader.
In ther answer, pettoners dened the aegatons n the compant, aegng that respondent
was aware of the contents of the Deed of Absoute Sae and that he receved the
consderaton nvoved; that he aso knew that the Baguma brothers have been coectng the
rentas snce December, 1985 but that he has not ob|ected or confronted them; and that he
ed the compant because hs sster, Agueda Saveano, urged hm to do so.
|8|
Twce respondent moved to dsmss hs compant (whch were granted) on the grounds that
he was actuay nstgated by hs sster to e the same; and that the partes have reached an
amcabe settement after Atty. Baguma, Sr. pad hm P2,500.00 as fu satsfacton of hs
cam. In grantng hs motons for reconsderaton, the tra court was convnced that
respondent dd not sgn the motons to dsmss vountary because of hs poor
comprehenson, as shown by the medca report of Dr. Annette Reva, a Resdent Psychatrst
at the Phppne Genera Hospta. Besdes, the tra court noted that respondent was not
asssted by counse n sgnng the sad motons, thus t s possbe that he dd not understand
the consequences of hs acton.
|9|
Eventuay the tra court set the case for pre-tra. The court kewse granted respondents
moton to appont Agueda Saveano as hs guardan ad litem$
|10|
After hearng, the tra court dsmssed the compant, hodng that respondent faed to prove
hs causes of acton snce he admtted that: (1) he obtaned oans from the Bagumas; (2) he
sgned the Deed of Absoute Sae; and (3) he acknowedged seng the property and that he
stopped coectng the rentas.
Upon appea by respondent, the Court of Appeas, on |uy 31, 1997, rendered the assaed
Decson, the dspostve porton of whch reads:
"WHEREFORE, the |udgment appeaed from s hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new
one entered annung the Deed of Sae. Consequenty, TCT No. 168394 s hereby decared
nu and vod and of no force and ehect. The Regster of Deeds of Mana s drected to cance
the same and restore TCT No. 109193 n the name of Brauo Katpunan.
"SO ORDERED."
In reversng the RTC Decson, the Court of Appeas rued:
"Upon cose scrutny of a the evdence on record, panth-appeants contenton nds
support n the certcaton dated August 4, 1987 ssued by Dr. Ana Mare Reva, a
psychatrst at the UP-PGH, who was presented as an expert wtness. Her ndngs expaned
the reason why panth-appeant showed a ot of nconsstences when he was put on the
stand. It supports the fact that panth-appeant s sow n comprehenson and has a very ow
IO. Based on such ndngs, the tra court was fauted for ts wrong assessment of appeants
menta condton. It arbtrary dsregarded the testmony of a sked wtness and made an
unsupported ndng contrary to her expert opnon.
Admttedy, expert wtnesses when presented to the court must be construed to have been
presented not to sway the court n favor of any of the partes, but to assst the court n the
determnaton of the ssue before t <Espiritu .s$ Court of (ppeals% 242 SCRA 362). Expert
opnons are not ordnary concusve. They are generay regarded as purey advsory n
character; the court may pace whatever weght they choose upon such testmony and may
re|ect t f they nd t nconsstent wth the facts n the case or otherwse unreasonabe (Basc
Evdence by Rcardo |. Francsco, pp. 202).
The tra court whose decson s now under revew refused to admt the experts testmony
and prefer to base ts decson on ts ndngs that contrary to the aegaton of the appeant,
he s nonetheess capabe of respondng to the questons expounded to hm whe on the
stand. In short, the court was swayed by ts own observaton of appeants demeanor on the
stand. Of course, the rue s to accord much weght to the mpressons of the tra |udge, who
had the opportunty to observe the wtnesses drecty and to test ther credbty by ther
demeanor on the stand <7eople .s$ Errojo% 229 SCRA 49). Such mpresson however, s
not per se the bass of a concuson, for t needs conformty wth the ndngs of facts reevant
to the case.
19 | P a g e
We nd t ndspensabe to gve credt to the ndngs of Dr. Ana Mare Reva, whose
testmony remans unshaken and unmpeached. The tests she made are reveang and
unrebutted and has a bearng on facts of the case.
It s a proven fact that Brauo reached ony Grade III due to hs very ow IO; that he s
terate; and that he can not read and s sow n comprehenson. Hs menta age s ony that
of a sx-year od chd. On the other hand, the documents presented by the appeees n ther
favor, i$e$% the deeds of mortgage and of sae, are a n Engsh. There s no showng that the
contracts were read and/or expaned to Brauo nor transated n a anguage he understood.
Artce 1332 of the Cv Code provdes:
Art. 1332. When one of the partes s unabe to read, or f the contract s n a anguage not
understood by hm, and mstake or fraud s aeged, the person enforcng the contract must
show that the terms thereof have been fuy expaned to the former.
Furthermore, f Brauo has a menta state of a sx year od chd, he can not be consdered as
fuy capactated. He fas under the category of ncompetent as dened n Secton 2, Rue
92 of the Rues of Court, whch reads:
Sec. 2. Meanng of Word Incompetent - Under ths rue, the word ncompetent ncudes
persons suherng the penaty of cv nterdcton or who are hosptazed epers, prodgas,
deaf and dumb who are unabe to read and wrte, those who are of unsound mnd, even
though they have ucd ntervas, and persons not beng of unsound mnd, but by reason of
age, dsease, weak mnd, and other smar causes, can not, wthout outsde ad, take care of
themseves and manage ther property, becomng thereby an easy prey for decet and
expotaton.
We aso note the admsson of defendant-appeee Mgue Katpunan, that he and Brauo
receved the consderatons of the sae, athough he dd not expan what porton went to
each other of them. Anyway, there s no reason why Mgue shoud receve part of the
consderaton, snce he s not a co-owner of the property. Everythng shoud have gone to
Brauo. Yet, Mgue dd not refute that he was gvng hm ony sma amounts (cons).
As to the aegaton of the scheme utzed n defraudng Brauo, nether Mgue nor Atty.
Baguma refuted the statement of Brauo that he was beng entced to go abroad - whch was
the aeged reason for the purported sae. Nothng was expaned about the aeged trp to
NBI, the fake passport, etc., nor of Mgues own pans to go abroad. It s then most probabe
that t was Mgue who wanted to go abroad and needed the money for t.
In vew of the foregong, t s apparent that the contract entered nto by Brauo and Atty.
Baguma s vodabe, pursuant to the provsons of Artce 1390 of the Cv Code, to wt:
Art. 1390. The foowng contracts are vodabe or annuabe, even though there may have
been no damage to the contractng partes:
(1) Those where one of the partes s ncapabe of gvng consent to a contract;
(2) Those where the consent s vtated by mstake, voence, ntmdaton, undue
nuence or fraud.
These contracts are bndng, uness they are annued by a proper acton n court, they are
susceptbe of ratcaton."
|11|
Pettoners ed a moton for reconsderaton but was dened. Hence, ths petton.
Pettoners, n seekng the reversa of the Court of Appeas Decson, rey heavy on the rue
that ndngs of fact by the tra courts are entted to fu fath and credence by the Appeate
Court. Pettoners contend that the Court of Appeas erred when t overturned the factua
ndngs of the tra court whch are ampy supported by the evdence on record.
The petton s devod of mert.
Whe t may be true that ndngs of a tra court, gven ts pecuar vantage pont to assess
the credbty of wtnesses, are entted to fu fath and credt and may not be dsturbed on
appea, ths rue s not nfabe, for t admts of certan exceptons. One of these exceptons s
when there s a showng that the tra court had overooked, msunderstood or msapped
some fact or crcumstance of weght and substance, whch, f consdered, coud materay
ahect the resut of the case.
|12|
Aso, when the factua ndngs of the tra court contradct
those of the appeate court, ths Court s constraned to make a factua revew of the records
and make ts own assessment of the case.
|13|
The nstant case fas wthn the sad excepton.
A contract of sae s born from the moment there s a meetng of mnds upon the thng whch
s the ob|ect of the contract and upon the prce.
|14|
Ths meetng of the mnds speaks of the
ntent of the partes n enterng nto the contract respectng the sub|ect matter and the
consderaton thereof.
|15|
Thus, the eements of a contract of sae are consent, ob|ect, and
prce n money or ts equvaent.
|16|
Under Artce 1330 of the Cv Code, consent may be
vtated by any of the foowng: (a) mstake, (2) voence, (3) ntmdaton, (4) undue
nuence, and (5) fraud.
|17|
The presence of any of these vces renders the contract vodabe.
Here, as borne by the facts on hand, respondent sgned the deed wthout the remotest dea
of what t was, thus:
"ATTY. SARMIENTO:
O After Mgue receved that money whch amount you do not remember how much, do you
remember havng sgned a document purported to be sae of property that whch you owned?
A Yes, I sgned somethng because they forced me to sgn.
COURT (To the wtness)
O Do you know how to amx your sgnature?
A Yes, Your Honor.
O You sgn your name here. (wtness s gven a pece of paper by the court wheren he was
made to sgn hs name)
ATTY. SARMIENTO:
O Y(u s$/* t7$t 3(u ',5,56,' 3(u 7$0, s/g),* $ *(%u5,)t. D/* 3(u %(5, t(
&)(< <7$t &/)* (= *(%u5,)t <$s t7$t <7/%7 3(u s/g),* $t t7$t t/5,J
A I *( )(t &)(<.
O Where dd you sgn that document?
A I sgned that document n the house of Senco.
O Where s ths house of Senco?
A It s |ust behnd our house at San Mgue.
O Nobody nformed you what document you were sgnng?
A N(6(*3 /)=('5,* 5, <7$t *(%u5,)t I <$s s/g)/)g.
O Who asked you to sgn that document?
A My brother Mgue and Senco asked me to sgn that document.
O You never bothered to ask your brother Mgue why you were sgnng that document?
A A%%('*/)g t( t7,5, /= I </.. )(t s/g), s(5,t7/)g </.. 7$;;,).
O Who partcuary tod you that f you w not sgn that document somethng w happen?
A Atty. Baguma. (wtness pontng to Atty. Baguma)
O You want to te the court that Atty. Baguma at that tme you sgned that document was
present?
A Yes, sr, he was there.
O What f any dd Atty. Baguma do when you were asked to sgn that document?
A He was askng me aso to sgn.
COURT (To the wtness)
O Were you threatened wth a gun or any nstrument?
A No, Your Honor.
O H(< <,', 3(u t7',$t,),*J
A I <$s s7(0,* $s/*, 63 S,)%/( $)* M/gu,. $)* I <$s su';'/s,* <73 t7,3 5$*,
5, s/g).
20 | P a g e
O Dd you fa down when you were shoved?
A I was made to move to the sde.
O And because of that you sgned that document that you were beng forced to sgn?
A Yes, sr.
O What knd of paper dd you sgn?
A A coupon bond paper.
O Was there somethng wrtten?
A There was somethng wrtten on t, but I do not know.
O Was t typewrtten?
A There was somethng typewrtten when t was shown to me but I do not know what t
was."
|18|
(Underscorng supped)
The crcumstances surroundng the executon of the contract manfest a vtated consent on
the part of respondent. Undue nuence was exerted upon hm by hs brother Mgue and
Inocenco Vadez (pettoners) and Atty. Baguma. It was hs brother Mgue who negotated
wth Atty. Baguma. However, they dd not expan to hm the nature and contents of the
document. Worse, they deprved hm of a reasonabe freedom of choce. It bears stressng
that he reached ony grade three. Thus, t was mpossbe for hm to understand the contents
of the contract wrtten n Engsh and embeshed n ega |argon. Even the tra court, n
renstatng the case whch t earer dsmssed, took cognzance of the medca ndng of Dr.
Reva (presented by respondents counse as expert wtness) who tested durng the
hearng of respondents moton for reconsderaton of the rst order dsmssng the compant.
Accordng to her, based on the tests she conducted, she found that respondent has a very
ow IO and a mnd of a sx-year od chd.
|19|
In fact, the tra court had to carfy certan
matters because Brauo was ether confused, forgetfu or coud not comprehend.
|20|
Thus, hs
ack of educaton, couped wth hs menta amcton, paced hm not ony at a hopeessy
dsadvantageous poston .is3=3.is pettoners to enter nto a contract, but vrtuay rendered
hm ncapabe of gvng ratona consent. To be sure, hs gnorance and weakness made hm
most vunerabe to the decetfu ca|ong and ntmdaton of pettoners. The tra court
obvousy erred when t dsregarded Dr. Revas testmony wthout any reason at a. It must
be emphaszed that pettoners dd not rebut her testmony.
Even the consderaton, f any, was not shown to be actuay pad to respondent. Extant from
the records s the fact that Mgue proted from the entre transacton and gave ony sma
amounts of money to respondent, thus:
"O D( 3(u &)(< 7(< 5u%7 5(),3 <$s g/0,) t( M/gu,. $)* ='(5 <7(5 */* t7$t
5(),3 %(5, ='(5J
A I *( )(t &)(< 7(< 5u%7, 6ut t7, 5(),3 %$5, ='(5 Att3. #$.gu5$.
O Y(u *( )(t &)(< 7(< 5u%7 $5(u)t <$s g/0,) 63 Att3. #$.gu5$ $)* =(' <7$t
%()s/*,'$t/() <$s t7, 5(),3 g/0,) 3(u $', )(t $<$', (= t7$tJ
A I $5 )(t $<$', 6,%$us, I <$s )(t t7,',, I *( )(t &)(< $)3t7/)g.
O Y(u <$)t t( t,.. t7, %(u't t7$t *,s;/t, t7$t /t /s 3(u 6,/)g t7, (<),' (= t7/s
;'(;,'t3 /t <$s M/gu,. <7( ),g(t/$t,* t7, $s&/)g (= 5(),3 ='(5 Att3. #$.gu5$J
A Y,s, /t /s ./&, t7$t.
O Were you consuted by your brother Mgue when he asked money from Atty. Baguma?
A No, sr, n the begnnng he kept t a secret then ater on he tod us.
O Y(u <$)t t( t,.. t7/s %(u't t7$t /t <$s ().3 <7,) 3(u' 6'(t7,' M/gu,. g$0, >3(u@
5(),3 t7$t 7, t(.* 3(u t7$t K<, 7$0, )(< t7, 5(),3 ='(5 Att3. #$.gu5$LJ
A N(, s/', I */* )(t ,0,) &)(< <7,', t7$t 5(),3 %$5, ='(5. H, <$s $6(ut t(
.,$0, =(' $6'($* <7,) 7, t(.* 5, t7$t 7, ',%,/0,* 5(),3 ='(5 Att3. #$.gu5$.
O D/* 3(u ',%,/0, $)3 $5(u)t ='(5 M/gu,. ,0,'3 t/5, 7, <$s g/0,) 63 Att3.
#$.gu5$J Y(u ',%,/0,* $.s( 5(),3 ='(5 M/gu,. ,0,'3 t/5, 7, <$s g/0,) 63 Att3.
#$.gu5$J
A Y,s, 7, <(u.* g/0, 5, s5$.. *,)(5/)$t/()s, K6$'3$L.
O When you sad "barya", woud you be abe to te the court how much ths barya you are
referrng to s?
A M$3 6, t<,)t3 ;,s(s, 5$3 6, t,) ;,s(s, 6ut t7,3 $', $.. .((s, %7$)g,.
O Te us how many tmes dd Mgue receve money from Atty. Baguma as much as you can
reca?
A I *( )(t &)(< 6,%$us, ,0,'3 t/5, 53 6'(t7,' M/gu,. $)* Att3. #$.gu5$ <(u.*
t'$)s$%t 6us/),ss, I <$s )(t ;',s,)t.
x x
x
O #,=(', (' $=t,' t7, s/g)/)g (= t7/s ;/,%, (= ;$;,' <,', 3(u g/0,) $)3 6/g
$5(u)t (= 5(),3 63 3(u' 6'(t7,' M/gu,. (' Att3. #$.gu5$ (' S,)%/(J
A A=t,' s/g)/)g t7$t *(%u5,)t, Att3. #$.gu5$ g$0, 5, s,0,'$. .((s, %7$)g,
K6$'3$L, )( ;$;,' 6/..s. A Must 7$)*=u. (= %(/)s.L
|21|
(Underscorng supped)
We are convnced that respondent was teng the truth that he dd not receve the purchase
prce. Hs testmony on ths pont was not controverted by Mgue. Moreover, Att3. #$.gu5$
$*5/tt,* t7$t /t <$s M/gu,. <7( ',%,/0,* t7, 5(),3 ='(5 7/5.
|22|
What Mgue gave
respondent was merey oose change or "barya-barya," grossy dsproportonate to the vaue
of hs property. We agree wth the concuson of the Court of Appeas that "t s then most
probabe that t was Mgue who wanted to go abroad and needed the money for t."
In the case of (rchipelago 1anagement and 1ar>eting Corp$ .s$ Court of (ppeals%
|23|
penned
by |ustce Artemo V. Panganban, ths Court sustaned the decson of the Court of Appeas
annung the deed of sae sub|ect thereof. In that case, Rosana (the owner) was convnced
by her second husband to sgn severa documents, purportedy an appcaton for the
reconsttuton of her burned certcate of tte. However, sad documents turned out to be a
Deed of Absoute Sae where t was stpuated that she sod her property for P 1,200,000.00, a
consderaton whch she dd not receve. The Court rued that Rosana, who was qute od at
that tme she sgned the deed, was trcked by her own husband, who empoyed fraud and
decet, nto beevng that what she was sgnng was her appcaton for reconsttuton of tte.
A contract where one of the partes s ncapabe of gvng consent or where consent s vtated
by mstake, fraud, or ntmdaton s not vod ab initio but ony vodabe and s bndng upon
the partes uness annued by proper Court acton. The ehect of annument s to restore the
partes to the status 4uo ante nsofar as egay and equtaby possbe-- ths much s dctated
by Artce 1398 of the Cv Code. As an excepton however to the prncpe of mutua
resttuton, Artce 1399 provdes that when the defect of the contract conssts n the
ncapacty of one of the partes, the ncapactated person s not obged to make any
resttuton, except when he has been beneted by the thngs or prce receved by hm. Thus,
snce the Deed of Absoute Sae between respondent and the Baguma brothers s vodabe
and hereby annued, then the resttuton of the property and ts fruts to respondent s |ust
and proper. Pettoners shoud turn over to respondent a the amounts they receved startng
|anuary, 1986 up to the tme the property sha have been returned to the atter. Durng the
pre-tra and as shown by the Pre-Tra Order, the contendng partes stpuated that the
Baguma brothers receved from the essees monthy rentas n the foowng amounts:
PERIOD AMOUNT OF RENTALS
|anuary, 1986 to
December, 1987 P 481.00 per month
|anuary, 1988 to
21 | P a g e
December, 1988 P2,100.00 per month
|anuary, 1989 to
present P3,025.00 per month
Artce 24 of the Cv Code en|ons courts to be vgant for the protecton of a party to a
contract who s paced at a dsadvantage on account of hs gnorance, menta weakness or
other handcap, ke respondent heren. We gve substance to ths mandate.
8HEREFORE, the petton s DENIED. The assaed Decson of the Court of Appeas dated
|uy 3, 1997 n CA-GR CV No. 45928 s AFFIRMED wth MODIFICATION n the sense that
pettoners Edgardo Baguma and Leopodo Baguma, |r., are ordered to turn over to
respondent Brauo Katpunan, |r. the rentas they receved for the ve-door apartment
correspondng to the perod from |anuary, 1986 up to the tme the property sha have been
returned to hm, wth nterest at the ega rate. Costs aganst pettoners.
SO ORDERED.
_____________________
MARRIA1E- MARRIA1E LICENSE
1(/t/$ 0s Ru,*$ >',=,' t( ;',0/(us %$s,@
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Navarro vs. )o*a+(oy
$M No. MTJ 9,-1088, July 19, 199,
FACTS+
Muncpa Mayor of Dapa, Surgao de Norte, Rodofo G. Navarro ed a compant on two
specc acts commtted by respondent Muncpa Crcut Tra Court |udge Hernando
Domagtoy on the grounds of gross msconduct, nemency n ohce and gnorance of the aw.
It was aeged that Domagtoy soemnzed marrage of Gaspar Tagadan and Aryn Bor|a on
September 27, 1994 despte the knowedge that the groom has a subsstng marrage wth
Ida Penaranda and that they are merey separated. It was tod that Ida eft ther con|uga
home n Bukdnon and has not returned and been heard for amost seven years. The sad
|udge kewse soemnze marrage of Forano Dadoy Sumayo and Gemma G. de Rosaro
outsde hs courts |ursdcton on October 27, 1994. The |udge hods hs omce and has
|ursdcton n the Muncpa Crcut Tra Court of Sta Monca-Burgos, Surgao de Norte but he
soemnzed the sad weddng at hs resdence n the muncpaty of Dapa ocated 40 to 50 km
away.
ISSUE+ 87,t7,' (' )(t t7, 5$''/$g,s s(.,5)/O,* <,', 0(/*.
HELD+
The court hed that the marrage between Tagadan and Bor|a was vod and bgamous there
beng a subsstng marrage between Tagadan and Penaranda. Abet, the atter was gone for
seven years and the spouse had a we-founded beef that the absent spouse was dead,
Tagadan dd not nsttute a summary proceedng as provded n the Cv Code for the
decaraton of presumptve death of the absentee, wthout pre|udce to the ehect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
Wth regard to the marrage of Sumayo and De Rosaro, the atter ony made the wrtten
request where t shoud have been both partes as stated n Artce 8 of the Famy Code.
Ther non-compance dd not nvadate ther marrage however, Domagtoy may be hed
admnstratvey abe.
_______________
NAVARRO VS. DOMA1TOY
4? SCRA 14
Ju.3 1, 1!
FACTS+
Companant Mayor Rodofo Navarro of Dapa, Surgao de Norte ed ths case to
the Supreme Court aganst respondent |udge Henando Domagtoy of MCTC of Monca-Burgos,
Surgao de Norte, for gross msconduct as we as nemcency and gnorance of the aw.
Frst, on Sept. 24, 1994, |udge Domagtoy soemnzed the marrage of Gaspar
Tagadan and Aryn Bor|a despte hs knowedge that Tagadan was merey separated from hs
wfe. Second, her performed a marrage ceremony between Forano Sumayo and Gemma
de Rosaro n October 1994 at respondent |udges resdence n Dapa, SDN. As to the rst,
Domagtoy contended that he merey reed on the amdavt ssued by the RTC |udge of
Bassey, Samar, whch stated that Tagadan and hs wfe have not seen each other for amost
seven years. However, the certed true copy of the marrage contract between Tagadan and
Bor|a showed that hs cv status was "separated".
ISSUE+
>1@ Whether or not a court may soemnze another marrage of a husband who was merey
separated from hs wfe for amost seven years.
(2) Whether or not a |udge may soemnze a marrage at hs resdence.
HELD+
(1) Artce 41 of the Famy Code expressy provdes that a marrage contracted by
any person durng the subsstence of a prevous marrage sha be nu and vod, uness
before the ceebraton of the subsequent marrage the pror spouse had been absent for four
consecutve years and the spouse present had a we-founded beef that the absent spouse
was aready dead. In case of dsappearance where there s danger of death under the
crcumstances set forth n the provsons of Artce 391 of the Cv Code, an absence of ony
two years sha be sumcent.
For the purpose of contractng the subsequent marrage under the precedng
paragraph, the spouse present must nsttute a summary proceedng as provded n the Code
for the decaraton of presumptve death. Absent ths |udca decaraton, he remans to be
marred to Pearanda. Wttngy or unwttngy, t was manfest error on the part of
respondent |udge to have accepted the |ond amdavt submtted by Tagadan. Such negect or
gnorance of the aw has resuted n a bgamous and therefore vod marrage.
(2) Art. 7. A marrage may be soemnzed by (1) any ncumbent member of the
|udcary wthn the courts |ursdcton xxx . Artce 8, however, states that marrages sha be
soemnzed pubcy n the chambers of the |udge or n open court, n the church, chape or
tempe, or n the omce of the consu-genera, consu or vce consu, as the case may be, and
not esewhere, except n cases of marrages contracted on the pont of death or n remote
paces n accordance wth Art. 29 of the Famy Code, or where both partes n whch case the
marrage may be soemnzed at a house or pace desgnated by them n a sworn statement to
that ehect.
There s no pretense that ether Sumayo or de Rosaro was at the pont of death or
n a remote pace. Moreover, the wrtten request presented addressed to the respondent
|udge s the "authorty of the soemnzng omcer". Under Art. 8, whch s ony a dscretonary
provson, refers ony to the venue of the marrage ceremony and does not ater or quafy the
22 | P a g e
authorty of the soemnzng omcer as provded n the precedng provson. Non-compance
herewth w not nvadate the marrage.
|udges who are apponted to specc |ursdcton may omcate n marrages ony
wthn sad areas and not beyond. Where a |udge soemnzes a marrage outsde hs courts
|ursdcton, there s a resutant rreguarty n the forma requste ad down n Artce 3 whch
whe t may not ahect the vadty of the marrage, may sub|ect the omcatng omca to
admnstratve abty.
|udge Domagtoy was suspended for sx months for demonstratng gross gnorance
of the aw.
NNNNNNNNN
T!N!BR% .& #$
#ivil a/ 0 1a*ily #ode 0 Bi+a*y 0 !2is(s even i3 one *arria+e is de4lared void
Tenebro contracted marrage wth Anca|as n 1990. The two ved together contnuousy and
wthout nterrupton unt the atter part of 1991, when Tenebro nformed Anca|as that he had
been prevousy marred to a certan Hda Vareyes n 1986. Pettoner thereafter eft the
con|uga dweng whch he shared wth Anca|as, statng that he was gong to cohabt wth
Vareyes. In 1993, pettoner contracted yet another marrage wth a certan Nda Vegas.
Anca|as thereafter ed a compant for bgamy aganst pettoner. Vegas countered that hs
marrage wth Vareyes cannot be proven as a fact there beng no record of such. He further
argued that hs second marrage, wth Anca|as, has been decared vod ab nto due to
psychoogca ncapacty. Hence he cannot be charged for bgamy.
ISSUE+ 87,t7,' (' )(t T,),6'( /s gu/.t3 (= 6/g$53.
HELD+
The prosecuton was abe to estabsh the vadty of the rst marrage. As a second or
subsequent marrage contracted durng the subsstence of pettoners vad marrage to
Vareyes, pettoners marrage to Anca|as woud be nu and vod ab nto competey
regardess of pettoners psychoogca capacty or ncapacty. Snce a marrage contracted
durng the subsstence of a vad marrage s automatcay vod, the nuty of ths second
marrage s not per se an argument for the avodance of crmna abty for bgamy.
Pertnenty, Artce 349 of the Revsed Pena Code crmnazes "any person who sha contract
a second or subsequent marrage before the former marrage has been egay dssoved, or
before the absent spouse has been decared presumptvey dead by means of a |udgment
rendered n the proper proceedngs". A pan readng of the aw, therefore, woud ndcate that
the provson penazes the mere act of contractng a second or a subsequent marrage durng
the subsstence of a vad marrage.
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Re'u5li4 vs. )ayo(
GR No. 176681, Mar47 28, 2008
FACTS+
|ose and Fesa Dayot were marred at the Pasay Cty Ha on November 24, 1986. In eu of a
marrage cense, they executed a sworn amdavt that they had ved together for at east
5years. On August 1990, |ose contracted marrage wth a certan Runa Pascua. They were
both empoyees of the Natona Statstcs and Coordnatng Board. Fesa then ed on |une
1993 an acton for bgamy aganst |ose and an admnstratve compant wth the Omce of the
Ombudsman. On the other hand, |ose ed a compant on |uy 1993 for annument and/or
decaraton of nuty of marrage where he contended that hs marrage wth Fesa was a
sham and hs consent was secured through fraud.
ISSUE+ Whether or not |oses marrage wth Fesa s vad consderng that they executed a
sworn amdavt n eu of the marrage cense requrement.
HELD+
CA ndubtaby estabshed that |ose and Fesa have not ved together for ve years at the
tme they executed ther sworn amdavt and contracted marrage. |ose and Fesa started
vng together ony n |une 1986, or barey ve months before the ceebraton of ther
marrage on November 1986. Fndngs of facts of the Court of Appeas are bndng n the
Supreme Court.
The soemnzaton of a marrage wthout pror cense s a cear voaton of the aw and
nvadates a marrage. Furthermore, "the fasty of the aegaton n the sworn amdavt
reatng to the perod of |ose and Fesas cohabtaton, whch woud have quaed ther
marrage as an excepton to the requrement for a marrage cense, cannot be a mere
rreguarty, for t refers to a quntessenta fact that the aw precsey requred to be deposed
and attested to by the partes under oath". Hence, |ose and Fesas marrage s vod ab
nto. The court aso rued that an acton for nuty of marrage s mprescrptby. The rght
to mpugn marrage does not prescrbe and may be rased any tme.
______________
R!89BI# .& )$:%T
(rticle ?+ - 7rescription
|ose was ntroduced to Fesa n 1986. He ater came to ve as a boarder n Fesas house,
the atter beng hs andady. Later, Fesa requested hm to accompany her to the Pasay Cty
Ha, so she coud cam a package sent to her by her brother from Saud. At the PCH, upon a
pre-arranged sgna from Fesa, a man bearng three foded peces of paper approached
them. They were tod that |ose needed to sgn the papers so that the package coud be
reeased to Fesa. He ntay refused to do so. However, Fesa ca|oed hm, and tod hm
that hs refusa coud get both of them ked by her brother who had earned about ther
reatonshp. Reuctanty, he sgned the peces of paper, and gave them to the man who
mmedatey eft. It was n February 1987 when he dscovered that he had contracted
marrage wth Fesa. He aeged that he saw a pece of paper yng on top of the tabe at the
saa of Fesas house. When he perused the same, he dscovered that t was a copy of hs
marrage contract wth Fesa. When he confronted Fesa, she sad she does not know of
such. Fesa dened |oses aegatons and defended the vadty of ther marrage. She
decared that they had mantaned ther reatonshp as man and wfe absent the egaty of
marrage n the eary part of 1980, but that she had deferred contractng marrage wth hm
on account of ther age dherence. In her pre-tra bref, Fesa expounded that whe her
marrage to |ose was subsstng, the atter contracted marrage wth a certan Runa Pascua
(Runa) on 31 August 1990. On 3 |une 1993, Fesa ed an acton for bgamy aganst |ose.
Subsequenty, she ed an admnstratve compant aganst |ose wth the Omce of the
Ombudsman, snce |ose and Runa were both empoyees of the Natona Statstcs and
Coordnatng Board. The Ombudsman found |ose admnstratvey abe for dsgracefu and
mmora conduct, and meted out to hm the penaty of suspenson from servce for one year
23 | P a g e
wthout emoument. The RTC rued aganst |ose camng that hs story s mpossbe and that
hs acton of fraud has aready prescrbed. It cted Artce 87 of the New Cv Code whch
requres that the acton for annument of marrage must be commenced by the n|ured party
wthn four years after the dscovery of the fraud.
ISSUE+ Whether or not the acton to e an acton to nufy a marrage due to fraud s sub|ect
to prescrpton.
HELD+ The OSG avers that |ose s deemed estopped from assang the egaty of hs
marrage for ack of a marrage cense. It s camed that |ose and Fesa had ved together
from 1986 to 1990, notwthstandng |oses subsequent marrage to Runa Pascua on 31
August 1990, and that t took |ose seven years before he sought the decaraton of nuty;
hence, estoppe had set n.T7/s /s ,''(),(us. An acton for nuty of marrage s
mprescrptbe. |ose and Fesas marrage was ceebrated sans a marrage cense. No other
concuson can be reached except that t s vod ab initio$ In ths case, the rght to mpugn a
vod marrage does not prescrbe, and may be rased any tme.
_______________
Ninal vs. Bayado+
328 &#R$ 122
FACTS+
Pepto Nna was marred wth Teodufa Beones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 chdren
namey Babyne, Ingrd and Arche, pettoners. Due to the shot ncted by Pepto to
Teodufa, the atter ded on Apr 24, 1985 eavng the chdren under the guardanshp of
Engrace Nna. 1 year and 8 months ater, Pepto and Norma Badayog got marred wthout
any marrage cense. They nsttuted an amdavt statng that they had ved together for at
east 5 years exemptng from securng the marrage cense. Pepto ded n a car accdent on
February 19, 1977. After hs death, pettoners ed a petton for decaraton of nuty of the
marrage of Pepto and Norma aegng that sad marrage was vod for ack of marrage
cense.
ISSUES+
1. Whether or not the second marrage of Pepto was vod?
2. Whether or not the hers of the deceased may e for the decaraton of the nuty of
Peptos marrage after hs death?
HELD+
The marrage of Pepto and Norma s vod for absence of the marrage cense. They cannot
be exempted even though they nsttuted an amdavt and camed that they cohabt for at
east 5 years because from the tme of Peptos rst marrage was dssoved to the tme of hs
marrage wth Norma, ony about 20 months had eapsed. Abet, Pepto and hs rst wfe had
separated n fact, and thereafter both Pepto and Norma had started vng wth each other
that has aready asted for ve years, the fact remans that ther ve-year perod cohabtaton
was not the cohabtaton contempated by aw. Hence, hs marrage to Norma s st vod.
Vod marrages are deemed to have not taken pace and cannot be the source of rghts. It
can be questoned even after the death of one of the partes and any proper nterested party
may attack a vod marrage.
N/)$.0s#$3$*(g
1R 13322"
1B M$'%7 4000
F/'st D/0/s/()
Just/%, Y)$',s-S$)t/$g(
F$%ts+
May the hers of a deceased person e a petton for the decaraton of nuty of hs marrage
after hs death?
26 September 1974 - PeptoNna marred TeodufaBeones.
24 Apr 1985 - Pepto shot Teodufa and the atter ded.
11 December 1986 - Pepto and Norma Bayadog got marred wthout any cense, statng n
an amdavt that they have ved together as husband and wfe for at east ve years and were
thus exempt from securng a marrage cense.
19 February 1997 - Pepto ded n a car accdent.
After ther father's death, Pettoners ed a decaraton of nuty of the marrage of Pepto to
Norma, aegng that the marrage was vod for ack of marrage cense. The case was ed
under the assumpton that the vadty or nvadty of the second marrage woud ahect
pettoner's successona rghts.
Norma ed a moton to dsmss on the ground that the pettoners have no cause of acton
snce they are not among the persons who coud e an acton for "annument of marrage"
under Artce 47 of the Famy Code.
|udge Marcos of the RTC of CEbu dsmssed the petton after ndng that the Famy Code s
"rather sent, obscure, nsumcent" n resovng the foowng ssues:
(1) Whether or not panths have a cause of acton aganst defendant n askng for the
decaraton of the nuty of marrage of ther deceased father, Pepto G. Na, wth her
specay so when at the tme of the ng of ths nstant sut, ther father Pepto G. Na s
aready dead;
(2) Whether or not the second marrage of panths' deceased father wth defendant s nu
and vod ab nto;
(3) Whether or not panths are estopped from assang the vadty of the second marrage
after t was dssoved due to ther father's death.
Hed:
The Court hed that the Od Cv Code s the appcabe aw to determne the vadty of the
two marrages as they both had been soemnzed before the Famy Code took ehect.
24 | P a g e
Accordngy, the Od Cv Code provded exceptons for the requrement of marrage cences,
one of whch s that provded n Artce 76, 14 referrng to the marrage of a man and a
woman who have ved together and excusvey wth each other as husband and wfe for a
contnuous and unbroken perod of at east ve years before the marrage. The ratonae why
no cense s requred n such case s to avod exposng the partes to humaton, shame and
embarrassment concomtant wth the scandaous cohabtaton of persons outsde a vad
marrage due to the pubcaton of every appcant's name for a marrage cense. The
pubcty attendng the marrage cense may dscourage such persons from egtmzng ther
status. 15 To preserve peace n the famy, avod the peepng and suspcous eye of pubc
exposure and contan the source of gossp arsng from the pubcaton of ther names, the
aw deemed t wse to preserve ther prvacy and exempt them from that requrement.
The Court rued that the marrage of Pepto wth Norma was vod ab nto because they dd
not ve as husband and wfe for ve years because when they started vng together,Pepto's
marrage to hs rst wfe was st subsstng. The
The Court sad that "the ve-year common-aw cohabtaton perod, whch s counted back
from the date of ceebraton of marrage, shoud be a perod of ega unon had t not been for
the absence of the marrage."
Ths 5-year perod shoud be the years mmedatey before the day of the marrage and t
shoud be a perod of cohabtaton characterzed by excusvty - meanng no thrd party was
nvoved at any tme wthn the 5 years and contnuty - that s unbroken.
Otherwse, f that contnuous 5-year cohabtaton s computed wthout any dstncton as to
whether the partes were capactated to marry each other durng the entre ve years, then
the aw woud be sanctonng mmoraty and encouragng partes to have common aw
reatonshps and pacng them on the same footng wth those who ved fathfuy wth ther
spouse.
In ths case, at the tme of Pepto and respondent's marrage, t cannot be sad that they have
ved wth each other as husband and wfe for at east ve years pror to ther weddng day.
From the tme Pepto's rst marrage was dssoved to the tme of hs marrage wth
respondent, ony about twenty months had eapsed.
Even assumng that Pepto and hs rst wfe had separated n fact, and thereafter both Pepto
and respondent had started vng wth each other that has aready asted for ve years, the
fact remans that ther ve-year perod cohabtaton was not the cohabtaton contempated
by aw. It shoud be n the nature of a perfect unon that s vad under the aw but rendered
mperfect ony by the absence of the marrage contract.
Pepto had a subsstng marrage at the tme when he started cohabtng wth respondent. It s
mmatera that when they ved wth each other, Pepto had aready been separated n fact
from hs awfu spouse. The subsstence of the marrage even where there was actua
severance of the a companonshp between the spouses cannot make any cohabtaton by
ether spouse wth any thrd party as beng one as "husband and wfe"
As to who can e a petton to decare the nuty of marrage, the Famy Code s sent.
The Court made a dstncton that vod and vodabe marrages are not dentca. Vodabe
marrages are those whch are vad unt otherwse decared by the court, whe marrages
that are vod ab nto are consdered as havng never to have taken pace and cannot be the
source of rghts.
Vodabe marrages can be generay rated or conrmed by free cohabtaton or prescrpton
whe the other can never be rated. A vodabe marrage cannot be assaed coateray
except n a drect proceedng whe a vod marrage can be attacked coateray.
Consequenty, vod marrages can be questoned even after the death of ether party but
vodabe marrages can be assaed ony durng the fetme of the partes and not after death
of ether, n whch case the partes and ther ohsprng w be eft as f the marrage had been
perfecty vad.
That s why the acton or defense for nuty s mprescrptbe, unke vodabe marrages
where the acton prescrbes. Ony the partes to a vodabe marrage can assa t but any
proper nterested party may attack a vod marrage. Vod marrages have no ega ehects
except those decared by aw concernng the propertes of the aeged spouses, regardng co-
ownershp or ownershp through actua |ont contrbuton and ts ehect on the chdren born to
such vod marrages as provded n Artce 50 n reaton to Artce 43 and 44 as we as Artce
51, 53 and 54 of the Famy Code. On the contrary, the property regme governng vodabe
marrages s generay con|uga partnershp and the chdren conceved before ts annument
are egtmate.
|ursprudence under the Cv Code states that no |udca decree s necessary n order to
estabsh the nuty of a marrage.
"A vod marrage does not requre a |udca decree to restore the partes to ther orgna
rghts or to make the marrage vod but though no sentence of avodance be absoutey
necessary, yet as we for the sake of good order of socety as for the peace of mnd of a
concerned, t s expedent that the nuty of the marrage shoud be ascertaned and decared
by the decree of a court of competent |ursdcton."
______________________
C$s,+ J$/5, S,0/..$ 0s. C$'5,./t$ C$'*,)$s
N$tu',+ P,t/t/() =(' R,0/,< () C,'t/('$'/ >RTC+ /)0$./*P CA ',0,'s,* $)* *,%.$',* /t
0$./*@
F$%ts+
There are two facts gven by both the panth and the respondent:
- There was a Cv Marrage contracted n the Cty Ha of Mana
- Thereafter a Regous Ceremony was Conducted n Ouezon Cty
- Panth averred that he was forced to enter nto marrage wth the respondent
- Respondent averred that the panth and took her away from her parents and
arranged a weddng for them
- Panth aeges that he dd not procure a marrage cense
- Due to rreconcabe dherences, panth and respondent were separated,
thereupon panth obtaned a dvorce decree and subsequenty marred n the US
- It was attested by dherent wtnesses that t was the panths famy that arranged
the marrage.
25 | P a g e
- RTC decared the marrage vod for ack of a marrage cense, because they found
out that there was no exstng cense on record
- CA reversed the decson due to the fact that t was not substantay proven that
there was no marrage cense ssued. There were erratc probems wth regard to
the records because records were not found due to the absence of the handng
omcer.
Issue: ;7e(7er or no( a valid *arria+e li4ense /as issued in a44ordan4e /i(7 la/
(o (7e 'ar(ies 7erein 'rior (o (7e 4ele5ra(ion o3 (7e *arria+es in <ues(ion=
H,.*+ SC agrees wth the rung of CA t7, $6s,)%, (= t7, .(g6((& /s )(t %()%.us/0,
;'((= (= )()-/ssu$)%, (= M$''/$g, L/%,)s,. It can aso mean, as SC beeved true n the
case at bar, that the ogbook |ust cannot be found. In the absence of showng of dgent
ehorts to search for the sad ogbook, SC cannot easy accept that absence of the same aso
means non-exstence or fasty of entres theren.
F/)$..3, t7, 'u., /s s,tt.,* t7$t ,0,'3 /)t,)*5,)t (= t7, .$< (' =$%t .,$)s t(<$'*
t7, 0$./*/t3 (= t7, 5$''/$g,, t7, /)*/ss(.u6/./t3 (= t7, 5$''/$g, 6()*s. The courts
ook upon ths presumpton wth great favor. It s not to be ghty repeed; on the contrary,
the presumpton s of great weght. The Court s mndfu of the pocy of the 1987 Consttuton
to protect and strengthen the famy as the basc autonomous soca nsttuton and marrage
as the foundaton of the famy. T7us, $)3 *(u6t s7(u.* 6, ',s(.0,* /) =$0(' (= t7,
0$./*/t3 (= t7, 5$''/$g,.
T7, ;$'t/,s 7$0, %(5;('t,* t7,5s,.0,s $s 7us6$)* $)* </=, $)* ./0,* t(g,t7,'
=(' s,0,'$. 3,$'s ;'(*u%/)g t<( (Ds;'/)gs, )(< $*u.ts t7,5s,.0,s. It took |ame
severa years before he ed the petton for decaraton of nuty. Admttedy, he marred
another ndvdua sometme n 1991.We are not ready to reward pettoner by decarng the
nuty of hs marrage and gve hm hs freedom and n the process aow hm to prot from
hs own decet and perdy.
Our Consttuton s commtted to the pocy of strengthenng the famy as a basc soca
nsttuton. Our famy aw s based on the pocy that marrage s not a mere contract, but a
soca nsttuton n whch the State s vtay nterested. The State can nd no stronger anchor
than on good, sod and happy fames. The break-up of fames weakens our soca and
mora fabrc; hence, ther preservaton s not the concern of the famy members aone.
"The bass of human socety throughout the cvzed word s marrage. Marrage n ths
|ursdcton s not ony a cv contract, but t s a new reaton, an nsttuton n the
mantenance of whch the pubc s deepy nterested. Consequenty, every ntendment of the
aw eans toward egazng matrmony. 7ersons dwelling together in apparent matrimon2 are
presumed% in the absence of an2 counter presumption or e.idence special to the case% to be
in fact married. The reason s that such s the common order of socety, and f the partes
were not what they thus hod themseves out as beng, they woud be vng n the constant
voaton of decency and of aw. A presumpton estabshed by our Code of Cv Procedure s
`that a man and a woman deportng themseves as husband and wfe have entered nto a
awfu contract of marrage.' #emper praesumitur pro matrimonio - Aways presume
marrage."
T7/s Mu'/s;'u*,)t/$. $tt/tu*, t(<$'*s 5$''/$g, /s 6$s,* () t7, 'ri*a
3a4ie ;',su5;t/() t7$t $ 5$) $)* $ <(5$) *,;('t/)g t7,5s,.0,s $s 7us6$)* $)*
</=, 7$0, ,)t,',* /)t( $ .$<=u. %()t'$%t (= 5$''/$g,.
P,t/t/() /s D,)/,*. Ju*g5,)t (= CA /s $Q'5,* 63 SC.
NNNNNNNNNNNNN
SYED A9HAR A##AS, Pettoner, vs. 1LORIA 1OO A##AS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 183896 |anuary 30, 2013
SUMMARY
Pakstan natona annung marrage to Fpna aegng no vad marrage cense.
FACTS
Pettoner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) seeks annument of hs marrage to Gora Goo-Abbas
(Gora), aegng the absence of a marrage cense, as provded for n Art. 4, Famy Code, as
a ground. In the Marrage Contract of Gora and Syed, t s stated that ML 9969967, ssued at
Carmona, Cavte, was presented to the soemnzng omcer. At the tra court, Syed, a
Pakstan ctzen, tested that he met Gora n Tawan and marred her there, and arrved n
the Phppnes, where hs mother-n-aw entered hm nto a ceremony whch he camed that
he dd not know was a marrage unt Gora tod hm ater. He further tested that he dd not
go to Carmona, Cavte to appy for a marrage cense, and that he had never resded n that
area. The record n the MCRof Carmona certes that 9969967 was the number of another
marrage cense ssued to another coupe. Thus, the Pasay Cty RTC hed that no vad
marrage cense was ssued by the MCR of Carmona, Cavte n favor of Gora and Syed, as
ML 9969967, and the same MCR had certed that no marrage cense had been ssued for
Gora and Syed. It aso took nto account the fact that nether party was a resdent of
Carmona, Cavte, the pace where ML 9969967 was ssued, n voaton of Artce 9 of the
Famy Code. As the marrage was not one of those exempt from the cense requrement, and
that the ack of a vad marrage cense s an absence of a forma requste, the marrage of
Gora and Syed on |anuary 9, 1993 was vod ab nto.Gora appeaed to the CA, whch
granted her appea and decared her marrage to Syed vad and subsstng. Syed ed a MFR
to the CA, whch was dened. Hence, the current petton to the SC.
ISSUE
W/N the absence of a vad marrage cense st renders a marrage vad
DECISION
The Court cted Arts. 3, 4, and 35(3) of the Famy Code. Respondent Gora faed to present
the actua marrage cense, or a copy thereof, and reed on the marrage contract as we as
the testmones of her wtnesses to prove the exstence of sad cense. To prove that no such
cense was ssued, Syed turned to the omce of the MCR of Carmona whch had aegedy
ssued sad cense, whch ssued a certcaton to the ehect that no such marrage cense for
Gora and Syed was ssued, and that the sera number of the marrage cense pertaned to
another coupe.In the case of Caro v. Caro, foowng the case of Repubc, t was hed that
the certcaton of the LCR that ther omce had no record of a marrage cense was adequate
to prove the non-ssuance of sad cense. The case of Caro further hed that the presumed
vadty of the marrage of the partes had been overcome, and that t became the burden of
the party aegng a vad marrage to prove that the marrage was vad, and that the
requred marrage cense had been secured. Gora has faed to dscharge that burden, and
the ony concuson that can be reached s that no vad marrage cense was ssued. A the
evdence cted by the CA to show that a weddng ceremony was conducted and a marrage
contract was sgned does not operate to cure the absence of a vad marrage cense. Artce
4 of the Famy Code s cear.As the marrage cense, a forma requste, s ceary absent, the
marrage of Gora and Syed s vod ab nto.
______________
Sus$) N/%*$( C$'/R( 0s. Sus$) Y,, C$'/R(
26 | P a g e
GR No. 132529
February 2, 2001

FACTS+
SPO4 Santago CAro marred pettoner Susan Ncdao on |une 20, 1969, wth
whom he had two chdren, Sahee and Sandee. On November 10, 1982, SPO4 Caro aso
marred respondent Susan Yee. In 1988, SPO4 Caro became bedrdden due to dabetes and
tubercuoss, and ded on November 23, 1992, under the care of Susan Yee who spent for hs
medca and bura expenses. Both Susans ed cams for monetary benets and nanca
assstance from varous government agences pertanng to the deceased. Ncdao was abe
to coect P146,000 from MBAI, PCCVI, commutaton, NAPOLCOM and Pag-bg, whe Yee
receved a tota of P21,000 from GSIS bura and SSS bura nsurance.
On December 14, 1993, Yee ed for coecton of money aganst NIcdao, prayng
that Ncdao be ordered to return to her at east one-haf of the P146,000 NIcdao had
coected. For fang to e her answer, NIcdao was decared n defaut.
Yee admtted that her marrage to the deceased took pace durng the subsstence
of and wthout rst obtanng a |udca decaraton of nuty of the marrage between Ncdao
and Caro. But she camed good fath, havng no knowedge of the prevous marrage unt
at the funera where she met Ncdao who ntroduced hersef as the wfe of the deceased. Yee
submtted that Caros marrage to Ncdao was vod because t was soemnzed wthout the
requred marrage cense.
ISSUES+ (1) Whether or not the subsequent marrage s nu and vod;
(2) Whether or not, f yes to above, the wfe of the deceased s entted to coect
the death benets from government agences despte the nuty of ther marrage.
HELD+
Under Artce 40 of the Famy Code, the nuty of a prevous marrage may be
nvoked for purposes of remarrage on the bass soey of a na |udgment decarng such
marrage vod. Meanng, where the absoute nuty of a prevous marrage s sought to be
nvoked for purposes of contractng a second marrage, the soe bass acceptabe n aw, for
sad pro|ected marrage to be free from ega nrmty, s a na |udgment decarng the
prevous marrage vod. However, for purposes other than remarrage, no |udca acton s
necessary to decare a marrage an absoute nuty. For other purposes, such as but not
mted to the determnaton of hershp, egtmacy or egtmacy of a chd, settement of
estate, dssouton of property regme, or a crmna case for that matter, the court may pass
upon the vadty of marrage even after the death of the partes thereto, and even n a sut
not drecty nsttuted to queston the vadty of sad marrage, so ong as t s essenta to the
determnaton of the case.
Under the Cv Code whch was the aw n force when the marrage of pettoner
and the deceased was soemnzed n 1969, a vad marrage cense s a requste of marrage,
and the absence therof, sub|ect to certan exceptons, renders the marrage vod ab initio.
It does not foow, however, that snce the marrage of Ncdao and the deceased
was vod ab initio, the death benets woud now be awarded to Yee. To reterate, under
Artce 40 of the Famy Code, for purposes of remarrage, there must be a pror |udca
decaraton of the nuty of a prevous marrage, though vod, before a party can enter nto a
second marrage; otherwse, the second marrage woud aso be vod.
One of the ehects of the decaraton of nuty of marrage s the separaton of the
property of the spouses accordng to the appcabe property regme. Consderng that the
two marrages are vod ab initio, the appcabe property regme woud be not absoute
communty nor con|uga partnershp of property, but governed by the provsons of Artces
147 and 148 of the Famy Code, on Property Regme of Unons Wthout Marrage.
_______________
REPU#LIC VS. CA 43! SCRA 4?2
FACTS+
Respondent Angena M. Castro and Edwn F. Cardenas were marred n a cv ceremony
performed by a Cty Court |udge of Pasg Cty and was ceebrated wthout the knowedge of
Castro's parents.Defendant Cardenas personay attended the procurng of the documents
requred for the ceebraton of the marrage, ncudng the procurement of the marrage
cense.
The coupe dd not mmedatey ve together as husband and wfe snce the marrage was
unknown to Castro's parents. They decded to ve together when Castro dscovered she was
pregnant. The cohabtaton asted ony for four months. Thereafter, the coupe parted ways.
Desrng to foow her daughter n the U.S, Castro wanted to put n order he marta status
before eavng for the U.S. She then dscovered that there was no marrage cense ssued to
Cardenas pror to the ceebraton of ther marrage as certed by the Cv Regstrar of Pasg,
Metro Mana.
Respondent then ed a petton wth the RTC of Ouezon Cty seekng for the |udca
decaraton of nuty of her marrage camng that no marrage cense was ever ssued to
them pror to the soemnzaton of ther marrage.
The tra court dened the petton hodng that the certcaton was nadequate to estabsh
the aeged non-ssuance of a marrage cense pror to the ceebraton of the marrage
between the partes. It rued that the "nabty of the certfyng omca to ocate the marrage
cense s not concusve to show that there was no marrage cense ssued. On appea, the
decson of the tra court was reversed.
ISSUE+
Is the marrage vad? Is there such a thng as a "secret marrage"?
HELD+
At the tme of the sub|ect marrage was soemnzed on |une 24, 1970, the aw governng
marta reatons was the New Cv Code. The aw provdes that no marrage cense sha be
soemnzed wthout a marrage cense rst ssued by the oca cv regstrar. Beng one of the
essenta requstes of a vad marrage, absence of a cense woud render the marrage vod
ab nto.
It w be remembered that the sub|ect marrage was a cv ceremony performed by a |udge
of a cty court. The sub|ect marrage s one of those commony known as a "secret marrage"
- a egay non-exstent phrase but ordnary used to refer to a cv marrage ceebrated
wthout the knowedge of the reatves and/or frends of ether or both of the contractng
partes. The records show that the marrage between Castro and Cardenas as ntay
unknown to the parents of the former.
27 | P a g e
1.R. N(. 10??B0 Ju.3 ?, 13
IRENEO 1. 1ERONIMO, pettoner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS $)* ANTONIO ESMAN, respondents.
0enjamin 1$ /acana2 for the petitioner$
(lfredo G$ (blaa for respondent$

DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Ths s an appea by certiorari under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court from the decson of the
Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 33850
1
whch amrmed the |udgment of the Regona Tra
Court, Branch 68, Pasg, Metro Mana n Speca Proceedng No. 10036 decarng vad the
marrage between Gracana Geronmo and Antono A. Esman and appontng the atter as the
admnstrator of the estate of the deceased Gracana Geronmo.
The ndngs of fact of the tra court, adopted by the pubc respondent Court of Appeas, are
as foows:
Ths w resove Ireneo Geronmo's petton for etter of admnstraton of the estate of
Gracana Geronmo-Esman.
On |une 29, 1987, a petton was ed by pettoner namng as one of the hers oppostor
Antono A. Esman and descrbng the atter as "husband of the deceased". On Apr 4, 1988,
an amended petton was ed by pettoner namng as one of the survvng hers Antono A.
Esman and now descrbng the atter as the "ve-n partner of the deceased" after ndng out
that the marrage between oppostor and the decedent was a "nuty for want of a marrage
cense".
It s undsputed that the decedent ded on |une 2, 1987 wthout a w eavng no descendants
nor ascendants. She was survved by her two brothers Tomas and Ireneo, her nephew
Savador and her husband-oppostor Antono A. Esman. . . . However, the husband's capacty
to nhert and admnster the property of the decedent s now beng questoned n vew of the
dscovery by the pettoner that the marrage between oppostor and the decedent was
ceebrated wthout a marrage cense.
The prncpa ssue now whch has to be resoved by ths Court before t can appont a |udca
admnstrator s whether or not the marrage between Gracana Geronmo and Antono A.
Esman was vad.
Pettoner contends that the marrage between her (sic) deceased sster and oppostor
Antono A. Esman was nu and vod snce there was no marrage cense ssued to the partes
at the tme the marrage was ceebrated. In fact, pettoner contends that a certcaton
ssued by the Loca Cv Regstrar of Pateros shows that the marrage cense number was not
stated n the marrage contract (Exh. "I"); and that the marrage contract tsef does now (sic)
show the number of the marrage cense ssued (Exh. "|"). Moreover, marrage cense
number 5038770 whch was ssued to the deceased and the oppostor by the Cv Regstrar
of Pateros, Rza was not reay ssued to Pateros before the marrage was ceebrated but to
Pasg n October 1959.
On the other hand, oppostor contends that the arguments rased by pettoner are mere
concoctons; that a cose scrutny of the aforementoned documents (Exh. "I" and "|") woud
show that except for the phrases "not stated" and "not recorded" the two certed copes of
the marrage contract ssued by the Cv Regstrar of Pateros, Rza (now Metro Mana) and
the Parsh Church of San Roque were the same as the certed copy of the marrage contract
whch was attached to the orgna petton whch named the oppostor as the husband of the
deceased; that pettoner smpy asked that these phrases be ncorporated to sut hs uteror
motve; that even the omsson of the marrage cense number on the Regstry of Marrages
n the Loca Cv Regstrar s not fata n tsef and s not concusve proof that no marrage
cense was actuay sgned on |anuary 7, 1955 to Gracana Geronmo and Antono A. Esman;
and that the marrage cense form ssued to the Muncpaty of Pateros are prnted by the
Bureau of Prntng wth serazed numbers and dstrbuted to varous provnces or
muncpates thru proper requstons whch sera numbers even f aready used n the
prntng of the marrage cense forms n the past years are used agan n the prntng of the
same forms n the succeedng years.
Varous wtnesses were presented by oppostor to prove that ndeed the deceased and
oppostor were marred. Davd Montenegro, an empoyee of the Natona Archves & Records
Secton, tested that a copy of the marrage contract between Antono A. Esman and
Gracana Geronmo ceebrated on |anuary 7, 1955, s on e wth ther omce.
Msgr. Moses Andrade, parsh prest of Barasoan, Maoos, Buacan, tested that he was
asked to come over to teach n Guadaupe semnary and stayed n Pasg as assstant prest of
the parsh of Immacuate Concepcon from 1975 to 1983. Here, he came to know the spouses
Gracana Geronmo and Antono A. Esman whom he attended to sprtuaty, conducted mass
for, gave communon, and vsted them socay. He had occasons to go to the coupe's
garment busness, Gragero Lngere, and observed that the coupe were qute cose wth each
other and wth the peope workng n ther busness.
Marcana Cuevas, assstant supervsor of the coupe's garment busness tested that she was
aware of the marrage whch took pace between Gracana Geronmo and Antono A. Esman;
that they ved together as husband and wfe n Bambang, Pasg, after the weddng; and that
s the oppostor who has been successfuy supervsng the ngere busness after the death
of Gracana Geronmo.
|ue Reyes, suppy omcer of the governor's omce tested that she s n charge of a
accountabe forms beng taken n the fourteen (14) muncpates of the provnce of Rza
whch ncude marrage censes; and pad no. 83 coverng marrage censes nos. 5038751 to
5038800 was taken by the Muncpaty of Pateros way back n October 9, 1953.
Forencana Santos, assstant oca cv regstrar of Pateros, Metro Mana, tested that n the
entry of marrage book of Pateros, partcuary page no. 23 of book no. 2 and reg. no. 51,
there s no coumn for the marrage cense; that they started puttng the marrage cense
ony n 1980; that they have a copy of the questoned marrage contract n whch the
marrage cense number s recorded; and that the records of 1959 were ost durng a
typhoon, but they sent a copy of the marrage contract to the archves secton.
Oppostor Antono A. Esman tested that he was marred to Gracana Geronmo on |anuary 7,
1955 n Pateros and were (sic) ssued marrage cense no. 5038770; and that he was
ntroduced by the deceased to the pubc as her awfu husband. (Decson, pp. 1-3)
4
In amrmng the |udgment of the tra court, the pubc respondent stated:
It may be conceded that |Exhbts "I" and "|"| of the pettoner-appeant do not bear the
number of the marrage cense reatve to the marrage of Gracana Geronmo and the heren
oppostor-appeee. But at best, such non-ndcaton of the number coud ony serve to prove
that the number was not recorded. It coud not be accepted as convncng proof of non-
ssuance of the requred marrage cense. On the other hand, the marrage cense number
(No. 5038776, |sic| dated |anuary 7, 1955) does appear n the certed archves copy of the
marrage contract (Exhbt 7 and sub-markngs). The non-ndcaton of the cense number n
the certed copes presented by the pettoner-appeant coud not be deemed as fata .is3a3
.is the ssue of the vadty of the marrage n queston because there s nothng n the aw
whch requres that the marrage cense number woud (sic) be ndcated n the marrage
contract tsef.
3
Unfazed by hs successve defeats, and mantanng hs adamantne stand that the marrage
between Gracana Geronmo and Antono Esman s vod, and, perforce, the atter had no rght
28 | P a g e
to be apponted as the admnstrator of the estate of the former, the pettoner artfuy seeks
to avod any factua ssue by now posng the foowng queston n ths petton: "Can there be
a vad marrage where one of the essenta requstes - cense - s absent?" Doubtess, the
query has been framed so as to apparenty present a queston of aw. In reaty, however, the
queston assumes that there was no marrage cense, whch s, of course, a factua
contenton. Both the tra court and the pubc respondent found and rued otherwse.
In 07I Credit Corporation .s$ Court of (ppeals,
B
whch coated representatve cases on the
rue of concusveness of the ndngs of fact of the Court of Appeas and the exceptons
thereto, we stated:
Setted s the rue that ony questons of aw may be rased n a petton for certiorari under
Rue 45 of the Rues of Court. The |ursdcton of ths Court n cases brought to t from the
Court of Appeas s mted to revewng and revsng errors of aw mputed to t, ts ndngs of
fact beng concusve. It s not the functon of ths Court to anayze or wegh such evdence a
over agan, ts |ursdcton beng mted to revewng errors of aw that mght have been
commtted by the ower court. Barrng, therefore, a showng that the ndngs companed of
are totay devod of support n the record, or that they are so garngy erroneous as to
consttute serous abuse of dscreton, they must stand.
There are, however, exceptons to ths rue, namey:
(1) When the concuson s a ndng grounded entrey on specuaton, surmses and
con|ectures; (2) When the nference made s manfesty mstaken, absurd or mpossbe; (3)
When there s a grave abuse of dscreton; (4) When the |udgment s based on a
msapprehenson of facts; (5) When the ndngs of facts are conctng; (6) When the Court of
Appeas, n makng ts ndngs, went beyond the ssues of the case and the same s contrary
to the admssons of both appeant and appeee; (7) When the ndngs of the Court of
Appeas are contrary to those of the tra court; (8) When the ndngs of endngs of fact are
concusons wthout ctaton of specc evdence on whch they are based; (9) When the facts
set forth n the petton as we as n the pettoner's man and repy brefs are not dsputed by
the respondents; and (10) When the ndng of fact of the Court of Appeas s premsed on the
supposed absence of evdence and s contradcted by the evdence on record.
Pettoner fas to convnce us that the nstant case fas under any of the above exceptons.
On ths score aone, the petton must nevtaby fa. However, f ony to dsabuse the mnd of
the pettoner, we sha proceed to dscuss the ssue regardng the aeged absence of a
marrage cense.
Pettoner contends that there was no marrage cense obtaned by the spouses Esman
because the copes of the marrage contract he presented (Exhbts "I" and "|") dd not state
the marrage cense number. The aw n such reasonng s a too obvous. Moreover, ths was
refuted by the respondent when he presented a copy of the marrage contract on e wth the
Natona Archves and Records Secton (Exhbt "7") where the marrage cense number (No.
5038770, dated 7 |anuary 1955) does appear. Pettoner tred to assa ths pece of evdence
by presentng Exhbt "V," a certcaton of the Omce of the Loca Cv Regstrar of Pasay Cty
that Marrage Lcense No. 5038770 was ssued on 1 October 1976 n favor of Edwn G.
Toentno and Evangena Guadz. Ths was sumcenty expaned by the Court of Appeas thus:
It s a known fact, and t s of |udca notce, that a prnted accountabe forms of the
Government ke the Marrage Lcense (Muncpa Form 95-A) come from the Natona Prntng
Omce and are prnted wth sera numbers. These forms are dstrbuted upon proper
requston by the cty/muncpa treasurers concerned. But the sera numbers prnted or used
n a partcuar year are the same numbers used n the succeedng years when the same
forms are agan prnted for dstrbuton. However, the dstrbuton of the seray-numbered
forms do not foow the same pattern.
Ths s exacty what happened to Marrage Lcense No. 5038770 whch the appeant refused
to acknowedge. Thus, t appears that whe marrage Lcense No. 5038770 was requstoned
and receved by the Muncpaty of Pateros on October 09, 1953 thru the Omce of the
Provnca Treasurer of Rza (as expaned by Mrs. |uta Reyes and borne out by Exhbts "1"
and "2") and ater used by Antono A. Esman and Gracana Geronmo n ther marrage on
|anuary 07, 1955, another, marrage cense bearng the same number (No. 5038770) was
aso ssued to the muncpaty of Pasg n October, 1959 (Exhbt "L-1"). Subsequenty, st
another marrage cense bearng No. 503877() was aso ssued to the Treasurer of Pasay Cty
on |une 29, 1976 (Exhbt "U-1") that was used by a certan Edwn G. Toentno and Evangena
Guadz (Exhbt "V"). (Appeee's Bref, pp. 31-32)
?
At most, the evdence adduced by the pettoner coud ony serve to prove the non-recordng
of the marrage cense number but certany not the non-ssuance of the cense tsef.
WHEREFORE, the nstant petton s DENIED and the decson appeaed from s hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
Costs aganst the pettoner.
SO ORDERED.
___________
EDUARDO P. MANUEL, pettoner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. 165842
November 29, 2005
FACTS:
Ths case s a petton for revew on certorar of the decson of Court of Appeas amrmng the
decson of the Regona Tra Court of Baguo Cty, convctng the pettoner for the crme of
bgamy.
Eduardo P. Manue, heren pettoner, was rst marred to Rubyus Gaa on |uy 18, 1975,
who, accordng to the former, was charged wth estafa n 1975 and thereafter mprsoned and
was never seen agan by hm after hs ast vst. Manue met Tna B. Gandaera n |anuary
1996 when the atter was ony 21 years od. Three months after ther meetng, the two got
marred through a cv weddng n Baguo Cty wthout Gandaeras knowedge of Manues
rst marrage. In the course of ther marrage, thngs got rocky and Gandaera earned that
Eduardo was n fact aready marred when he marred hm. She then ed a crmna case of
bgamy aganst Eduardo Manue. The atters defense beng that hs decaraton of "snge" n
hs marrage contract wth Gandaera was done because he beeved n good fath that hs
rst marrage was nvad and that he dd not know that he had to go to court to seek for the
nucaton of hs rst marrage before marryng Tna. The Regona Tra Court rued aganst
hm sentencng hm of mprsonment of from 6 years and 10 months to ten years, and an
amount 0f P200,000.00 for mora damages.
Eduardo appeaed the decson to the CA where he aeged that he was not crmnay abe
for bgamy because when he marred the prvate companant, he dd so n good fath and
wthout any macous ntent. The CA rued aganst the pettoner but wth modcaton on the
RTCs decson. Imprsonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecunary
reward for mora damages was amrmed.
Hence, ths petton.
ISSUES:
29 | P a g e
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeas commtted reversbe error of aw when t rued that
pettoners wfe cannot be egay presumed dead under Artce 390 of the Cv Code as there
was no |udca decaraton of presumptve death as provded for under Artce 41 of the
Famy Code.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeas commtted reversbe error of aw when t amrmed the
award of Php200,000.00 as mora damages as t has no bass n fact and n aw.
RULINGS:
1. The petton s dened for ack of mert. The pettoner s presumed to have acted wth
mace or ev ntent when he marred the prvate companant. As a genera rue, mstake of
fact or good fath of the accused s a vad defense n a prosecuton for a feony by doo; such
defense negates mace or crmna ntent. However, gnorance of the aw s not an excuse
because everyone s presumed to know the aw. Ignoranta egs nemnem excusat. Where a
spouse s absent for the requste perod, the present spouse may contract a subsequent
marrage ony after securng a |udgment decarng the presumptve death of the absent
spouse to avod beng charged and convcted of bgamy; the present spouse w have to
adduce evdence that he had a we-founded beef that the absent spouse was aready dead.
Such |udgment s proof of the good fath of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent
marrage; thus, even f the present spouse s ater charged wth bgamy f the absentee
spouse reappears, he cannot be convcted of the crme. The court rues aganst the pettoner.
2. The Court rues that the pettoners coectve acts of fraud and decet before, durng and
after hs marrage wth the prvate companant were wfu, deberate and wth mace and
caused n|ury to the atter. The Court thus decares that the pettoners acts are aganst
pubc pocy as they undermne and subvert the famy as a soca nsttuton, good moras
and the nterest and genera wefare of socety. Because the prvate companant was an
nnocent vctm of the pettoners perdy, she s not barred from camng mora damages.
Consderng the attendant crcumstances of the case, the Court nds the award of
P200,000.00 for mora damages to be |ust and reasonabe.
____________
PERIDO 0s PERIDO
M$'%7 14, 12? - )/L(
FACTS+
1. Luco Perdo marred twce durng hs fetme. Hs rst wfe was Benta Taorong, wth
whom he begot three (3) chdren: Fex, Ismae, and Margarta. After Benta ded
Luco marred Marcena Baguat, wth whom he had ve (5) chdren: Eusebo, |uan,
Mara, Sofrona and Gonzao.
2. On August 15, 1960 the chdren and grandchdren of the rst and second marrages
of Luco Perdo executed a document denomnated as "Decaraton of Hershp and
Extra-|udca Partton," where they parttoned among themseves ots nherted by
them from Luco Perdo.
3. The chdren beongng to the rst marrage of Luco Perdo ed a compant n the
Court of Frst Instance aganst the chdren of the second marrage, to annu the
"Decaraton of Hershp and Extra-|udca Partton".
4. Pettoners aeged that the chdren beongng to the second marrage were
egtmate.
5. The tra court hed that the 5 chdren of Perdo were a egtmate and t annued
the "Decaraton of Hershp and Extra-|udca Partton".
6. The panths appeaed to the Court of Appeas, aegng that the tra court erred (1)
n decarng that the 5 chdren were and (2) n decarng that Luco Perdo was the
excusve owner of Lots because the sad ots were the con|uga partnershp property
of Luco Perdo and hs rst wfe, Benta Taorong.
7. The court of Appeas amrmed the decson of the ower court. Now, the nstant
petton.
ISSUE-s $)* RULIN1+
1. A', t7, ? %7/.*',) (= Lu%/( P,'/*( t( M$'%,./)$ #$./gu$t .,g/t/5$t,J YES because:
there was sumcent evdence that Lucos rst wfe ded before he marred Marcena and the
presumpton that persons vng together husband
a. and wfe are marred to each other specay where egtmacy of the ssue s
nvoved, and may overcome ony by convncng proof on the part aegng that t s
egtmate.
PERSONS RELATION+ P',su5;t/() (= M$''/$g, ,s;,%/$..3 /) .,g/t/5$%3 (= %7/.*',)
6,%$us,+
- The bass of human socety throughout the cvzed word s that of marrage.
- Marrage s a new reaton, an nsttuton n the mantenance of whch the pubc s
deepy nterested.
- Every ntendment of the aw eans toward egazng matrmony.
- Because f they are not marred, they woud he vng n the constant voaton of
decency and of aw.
- A presumpton estabshed by our Code of Cv Procedure s "that a man and woman
deportng themseves as husband and wfe have entered nto a awfu contract of
marrage."
b. The pettoners wtnesss faed to prove the egtmacy of second marrage.
4. 8ON t7, .(ts /) ./t/g$t/() $', t7, ,C%.us/0, ;'(;,'t/,s (= Lu%/( P,'/*( $)* )(t
%()Mug$. ;'(;,'t/,sJ
a. The ands were a decared n the name of Luco Perdo whch he nherted from hs
grandmother except Lot no. 459 whch he bought durng hs second marrage.
b. By at of aw sad Propertes shoud be dvded accordngy among hs ega hers.
_______________________________
1.R. N(. 10304". O%t(6,' 10, 12H
CARLOTA DEL1ADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA, 'e(i(ioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS
OF MACIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, )$5,.3+ 1UILLERMO R. DAMIAN S JOSE R.
DAMIANP HEIRS OF HORTENCIA RUSTIA CRU9, )$5,.3+ TERESITA CRU9-
SISON. HORACIO R. CRU9, JOSEFINA CRU9-RODIL, AMELIA CRU9-ENRIGUE9 $)*
FIDEL R. CRU9, JR.P HEIRS OF ROMAN RUSTIA, )$5,.3+ JOSEFINA RUSTIA-ALA#ANO,
VIR1INIA RUSTIA-PARAISO, ROMAN RUSTIA, JR., SER1IO RUSTIA, FRANCISCO
RUSTIA, LETICIA RUSTIA-MIRANDAP 1UILLERMINA R. RUSTIA $)* 1UILLERMA
RUSTIA-ALARAS, res'onden(s.
D E C I S I O N
30 | P a g e
TORRES, JR., J.+
Assaed n ths petton for revew on certiorari s the Resouton of Court of Appeas Seventh
Dvson n CA-G.R. SP No. 23415 promugated on November 27, 1991, grantng the prvate
respondents upon petton for certiorari and mandamus. The appeate court had rued for
the approva of the prvate respondents record on appea, thus pavng the way for the
contnuance of ther appea from the decson of the Regona Tra Court of Mana Branch 55
n SP Case No. 97668.
On May 8, 1975, Lusa Degado, Vda. De Danao ed a Petton for Letters of Admnstraton of
the ntestate estate of the deceased spouses |osefa Degado, who ded on September 8,
1972, and Dr. Guermo Rusta who ded on February 28, 1974. The case was docketed as SP
Case No. 97668. The petton was ed by Lusa Degado on behaf of the survvng ssters,
brothers, nephews, neces and grand-nephews and grand-neces of |osefa Degado. In due
course, the petton was opposed by Marcana Rusta Vda. De Daman, Hortenca Rusta-Cruz,
(ssters of the deceased Dr. Guermo Rusta); |osena Abano, Vrgna Rusta-Paraso, Roman
Rusta, |r., Sergo Rusta Francsco Rusta, Letca Rusta Mranda, (chdren of the ate Roman
Rusta, brother of the deceased Dr. Guermo Rusta); and Guermna Rusta Rusta (de
facto adopted daugther of |osefa Degado and Guermo Rusta).
Wth the permsson of the tra court, Guerma S. Rusta-(Aaras) was aowed to ntervene n
the proceedngs upon her asserton of the status of an acknowedged natura chd, and thus,
the ony survvng chd and soe her, of Dr. Guermo |. Rusta.
On |anuary 14, 1976, oppostor Hortenca Rusta-Cruz ded and was substtuted n the estate
proceedngs by her husband Fde Cruz and ther ve chdren Teresta, Horaco, |osena,
Amea and Fde, |r. In tme, oppostor Marcana Rusta Vda. De Daman aso ded and was
substtuted by her chdren Guermo and |ose.
On Apr 3, 1978, Lusa Degado ed an Amended Petton for Latters of Admnstraton, ths
tme aegng that the deceased |osefa Degado and Guermo Rusta had been vng
contnuousy as husband and wfe, but wthout the benet of marrage.
In the ensung proceedngs, the partes presented ther respectve evdence upon the
foowng ssues, as enumerated by the estate court:
1. Whether or not the deceased |osefa Degado was egay marred to Dr. Guermo Rusta;
2. In the negatve, whether or not the pettoner and the other camants to the estate of the
ate |osefa Degado are entted to her estate, f any;
3. Whether or not the ntervenor was acknowedged as a natura or egtmate chd by the
deceased Dr. Guerma Rusta n hs fetme;
4. Whether or not the oppostor Guerma Rusta has any rght or nterest n the estate n
controversy;
5. Whether or not the estate of |osefa Degado was egay setted; and
6. Who s entted to the estates admnstraton?
|1|
On March 14, 1988, heren pettoner Carota Degado Vda. De Dea Rosa was substtuted for
her sster, the pettoner Lusa Vda. de Danao, who had ded on May 18, 1987.
On May 11, 1990, the Regona Tra Court of Mana Branch 55, n the proceedngs for |ont
admnstraton of estate of the ate |osefa Degado and Dr. Guermo Rusta, rendered ts
decson
|2|
appontng heren pettoner Carota Vda. De Dea Rosa as admnstrator of the
estates of the two mentoned deceased. The dspostve porton of the tra courts decson
reads:
"WHEREFORE, n vew of a the foregong, pettoner (Carota Degado Vda. De Dea Rosa)
and her co-camants to the estate of the ate |osefa Degado sted n the petton, and
enumerated esewhere n ths Decson, are hereby decared as the ony ega hers of the sad
|osefa Degado who ded ntestate n the Cty of Mana on September 8, 1972, and entted to
partton the same among themseves n accordance wth the proportons referred to n ths
Decson.
"Smary, the ntervenor Guerma S. Rusta s hereby decared as the soe and ony
survvng her of the ate Dr. Guermo Rusta, and thus, entted to the entre estate of the
sad decedent, to the excuson of the oppostors and the other partes thereto.
"The Amdavt of Sef-Ad|udcaton of the estate of |osefa Degado executed by the ate
Guermo |. Rusta on |une 15, 1973 s hereby SET ASIDE, and decared of no force and ehect.
"As the estates of both decedents have not as yet been setted, and ther settement are
consdered consodated n ths proceedng n accordance wth aw, a snge admnstrator
therefore s both proper and necessary, and, as the pettoner Carota Degado Vda. de Dea
Rosa has estabshed her rght to the appontment as admnstratrx of the estates, the Court
hereby APPOINTS her as the ADMINISTRATRIX of the ntestate estate of the deceased |OSEFA
DELGADO n reaton to the estate of DR. GUILLERMO |. RUSTIA.
"Accordngy, et the correspondng LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ssue to the pettoner
CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA upon her ng of the requste bond n the sum of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
"Fnay, oppostor GUILLERMINA RUSTIA RUSTIA s hereby ordered to cease and desst from
her acts of admnstraton of the sub|ect estates, and s kewse ordered to turn over to the
apponted Admnstratrx a her coectons of the rentas and ncome due on the assets of the
estates n queston, ncudng a documents, papers, records and ttes pertanng to such
estates to the pettoner and apponted Admnstratrx CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA
ROSA, mmedatey upon recept of ths Decson. The same oppostor s hereby requred to
render an accountng of her actua admnstraton of the estates n controversy wthn a
perod of sxty (60) days from recept hereof.
"SO ORDERED."
In due tme, the prvate respondents (oppostors beow) ed a notce of appea on May 20,
1990, thereby notfyng the court of ther ntenton to appea the decson. The Record on
Appea was ed wth the tra court on |une 21, 1990, thrty-one (31) days from the tme
counse for prvate respondents counse receved the courts decson. On September 25,
1990, the Regona Tra Court of Mana Branch 55, the Hon. Hermogenes R. Lwag, dened
due course to, and dsmssed the appea on the ground that the Record on Appea was ed a
day ate, pursuant to Batas Pambansa 129 and the Interm Rues.
Prvate respondents assaed the rung n a petton for certiorari and mandamus, ed wth
the Supreme Court on October 20, 1990. However, n a Resouton dated November 5, 1990,
ths Court referred the petton to the Court of Appeas, the atter then havng concurrent
|ursdcton wth the Court over the petton. The petton was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
23415. On March 20, 1991, the respondent appeate court rued that the appea was not
perfected n tme, and the tra courts decson had thus become na and executory. The
court observed that the perfecton of an appea wthn the tme prescrbed by the rues s a
|ursdctona requrement, and faure to do the same removes from the appeate court any
|ursdcton over the acton.
However, on moton for reconsderaton by the prvate respondents ed on Apr 11, 1991,
and after hearng the partes respectve ora arguments, the appeate court reversed tsef,
and rued that n the ght of speca crcumstances attendng the proceedngs eadng to the
ssuance of the etters of admnstraton, and n the nterest of substanta |ustce, the prvate
respondents appea shoud be gven due course.
|3|
In ts Resouton dated November 27, 1991, the Court of Appeas hed that the tra court
shoud have proceeded wth cauton n consderng the aowance of prvate respondents
appea, as every party-tgant shoud be ahorded ampe opportunty for the proper and |ust
determnaton of hs cause, free from the constrants of techncates. The court cted
31 | P a g e
Supreme Court rungs furtherng exceptona nstances where deay n ng a record on
appea, n order to perfect an appea, was gnored, when, on ts face, the appea appears to
be mpressed wth mert.
"WHEREFORE, the decson dated March 21, 1991 s hereby RECONSIDERED the petton for
certorar and mandamus s GRANTED, the Order of respondent Court dated September 25,
1990 s ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and another one s rendered APPROVING the Record on
Appea and GIVING DUE COURSE to the appea nterposed by oppostors-appeants-
pettoners from the decson of respondent court rendered on May 11, 1990 n SP-97668.
"SO OREDERD."
Pettoner Carota Degado Vda. de Dea Rosa s now before us, nsstng on the na and
executory nature of the tra courts May 11, 1990 decson namng her as admnstrator of
the sub|ect estates. She argues that the Court of Appeas erred n settng asde the tra
courts decson dsmssng the prvate respondents appea, as the takng of an appea and
the ng of the record on appea wthn the regementary perod s mandatory and
|ursdctona n nature, and the prvate respondents faure to compy wth such requrement
renders ther appea nugatory.
"A. It s cear and patent error for the Court of Appeas to have granted the petton for
certorar and mandamus of respondents Guerma R. Rusta and the hers of Marcana Vda.
de Daman, athough Hermogenes R. Lwag acted wthn hs |ursdcton and n accordance
wth the aw when he dsmssed the appea of Guerma R. Rusta et. a. snce they ed ther
record on appea beyond the regementary perod of thrty (30) days.
"B. The Court of appeas commtted grave abuse of dscreton n settng asde the order of
September 25, 1990 of |udge Hermogenes R. Lwag, whch dsmssed the appea of
respondents Guerma R. Rusta et. a. contrary to aw and setted |ursprudence that the
takng of an appea ncudng the ng of the record on appea wthn the regementary perod
s mandatory and |ursdctona.
"C. The Court of Appeas acted wthout |ursdcton and wth grave abuse of dscreton n
approvng the record on appea of Guerma R. Rusta et. a. athough t was ed beyond the
thrty (30) day regementary perod.
"D. The Court of Appeas acted wthout |ursdcton and commtted grave abuse and
reversbe error n gvng due course to the appea of Guermna R. Rusta et. a. athough
ther record on appea was ed out of tme.
1. |udge Hermogenes R. Lwag dd not commt grave abuse of dscreton nor acted wthout or
n excess of |ursdcton n ssung the order of September 25, 1990 whch, dened due course
to the appea of respondents hers of Marcana Vda. de Daman and accordngy dsmssed
the appea.
2. Mandamus cannot and shoud not be granted to set asde the order of September 25, 1990
to compe |udge Hermogenes R. Lwag to gve due course to the appea of respondent hers
of Marcana Vda. de Daman."
The genera rue st hods, that the rght to appea s not a natura rght, but statutory. The
appeate |ursdcton of the courts s conferred by aw, and must be exercsed n the manner
and n accordance wth the provsons thereof and such |ursdcton s acqured by the
appeate court over the sub|ect matter and partes by the perfecton of the appea.
|4|
However, dsmssa of appeas based on purey technca grounds s frowned upon by the
courts as t s ther pocy to encourage hearngs of appeas on the merts.
|5|
As a rue, perods prescrbed to do certan acts must be foowed. However, under
exceptona crcumstances, a deay n the ng of an appea may be excused on grounds of
substanta |ustce.
|6|
Even assumng that the prvate respondents record on appea was ed a day ate, strong
consderaton of substanta sgncance are manfest, as attested to by the appeate courts
ndngs, whch urge ths Court to reax the strngent appcaton of technca rues n the
exercse of our equty |ursdcton, n spte of the apparent neggence of counse. The
appeate courts dscusson s hereby reproduced:
"A ook at oppostors Record on Appea whch was aso forwarded wth the case records,
shows that t conssts of 361 pages. It was dated Ouezon Cty, for Mana, Phppnes, 20
|une 1990. On ts page 360, counse for oppostors-appeants submtted that the Record on
Appea together wth the evdence be certed to ths Court. Counse aso submtted that the
Record on Appea and the Notce of Appea be heard and approved on Frday, |une 29,
1991. Page 361 of the Record on Appea shows that a copy thereof was sent by regstered
ma to counse for prvate respondents. The record on Appea, therefore, can speak for tsef,
that t was aready prepared, competed, nshed and sgned by counse for oppostors on
|une 20, 1990, or wthn the 30-day regementary perod from counses recept of the
decson sought to be appeaed. Though the Record on Appea shoud have been presented
on or before |une 20, 1990, but was submtted on the foowng day, |une 21, the ntent of
counse for oppostors to compy strcty wth rues governng the manner and perod for
perfectng the appea as we as to avod needess deays so necessary to the ordery and
speedy dscharge of |udca busness s manfest. Aso counse have ed a moton for
extenson for more tme to submt the Record on Appea, whch s aowabe under the rues,
she dd not to do so but deemed t best to e the Record on Appea. Ths s aso a cear
manfestaton of her not to deay the proceedngs.
"A ook at the case records aso show that n between |une 21- when the Record on Appea
was ed, - up to September 25 - when the Record on Appea was dsapproved and the
appea was dsmssed - there were numerous peadngs submtted before respondent court
as we as certan proceedngs had and taken n connecton therewth whch must have
contrbuted to the deay n the resouton of the Record on Appea. Intervenor Guerma
Rusta ed a moton for reconsderaton of the decson and an ampcatory arguments (sc)
n support of her moton. The respondent court heard her moton for reconsderaton as we
as granted counses tme wthn whch to submt ther comment/opposton/repy and
Guerma ed her re|onder. Prvate respondent Carota Vda. de Dea Rosa then ed an
urgent ex-parte moton for mpementaton of the decson namng and appontng her as
admnstratrx and a repy to oppostors opposton to her urgent ex-parte moton. The
respondent court ssued an order consderng the urgent ex-parte moton submtted for
resouton. Prvate respondent Carota agan ed an urgent ex-parte moton for
mpementaton of the porton of the decson appontng her as admnstratrx. Intervenor
Guerma Rusta aso ed a moton prayng that she be apponted as speca admnstratrx
and a moton to dsmss the appea. Prvate respondent Carota aso ed her comment on
the Record on Appea, submttng that xxx the record on appea submtted by oppostors xxx
be admtted, however askng that t ncudes the documents passed upon by the tra
court. Intervenor Guerma Rusta then ed an omnbus moton. Prvate respondent ed an
ex-parte moton prayng for the dsmssa of the appea n con|uncton wth the pea of
ntervenor Guerma Rusta. Oppostors ed an opposton to the omnbus moton. The court
had two hearngs concernng the omnbus moton. Intervenor Guerma then ed a re|onder
to the opposton ed by oppostors. On September 25, 1991, or after a these peadngs
were ed and the proceedngs were hed that respondent court ssued the order denyng due
course to the record on appea and dsmssed the appea. It s observed, therefore, that
durng that ntervenng perod, the respondent court ahorded consderabe tme and
opportunty and patence to the prvate respondents recourses whch asted for more than
three (3) months, yet t resoved to dsapprove the Record on Appea as we as to dsmss
oppostors appea because the record on appea was ed 1-day ate, thereby showng that
respondent court was too strngent n appyng the rues on oppostors, when even n the
32 | P a g e
nta comment by counse for respondent Carota to the Record on Appea, he submtted that
the record on appea be admtted despte the fact that the counse was furnshed a copy of
the record on appea and must have found out that t was submtted on |une 21, 1990."
The respondent court kewse ponted out the tra courts pronouncements as to certan
matters of substance, reatng to the determnaton of the hers of the decedents and the
party entted to admnstraton of ther estate, whch were to be rased n the appea, but
were barred absoutey by the dena of the Record on Appea upon the too technca ground
of ate ng. The court partcuary referred to the mportance, from the ega standpont, of
the queston of the veracty of the decedents status as husband and wfe. Lkewse, the
status of ntervenor Guerma S. Rusta, who cams to be a natura chd of Dr. Guermo
Rusta wth one Amparo Sagarbarra, and that of oppostor Guermna R. Rusta, who on the
other hand cams to have been acknowedged by Guermo Rusta as hs daughter, concern
egtmacy of chdren, and the resouton of ther status demands coser
consderaton. Summng up, the appeate court decared:
"In the ght of the pecuar facts emboded n the peadngs and documents and records of
the man case, the arguments/ssues rased and argued durng the hearng, as we as the
numerous authortes n pont, most mportanty, on the substanta mpcaton/ehect of the
dsmssa of the appea |ust because the record on appea was presented 1-day ate, and the
merts of the oppostors cause, We nd t |ustabe to reconsder Our decson and reverse
and set asde the order of respondent court dated September 25, 1990."
We are restatng the nstances wheren we aowed the contnuance of an appea n some
cases were a narrow and strngent appcaton of the rues woud have dened t, when to do
so woud serve the demands of substanta |ustce and n the exercse of equty |ursdcton.
In Castro vs. Court of Appeas,
|7|
reterated n Veasco .s. Gayapa, |r.,
|8|
We stressed the
mportance and rea purpose of appea and rued:
"An appea s an essenta part of our |udca system. We have advsed the courts to proceed
wth cauton so as not to deprve a party of the rght to appea (Natona Waterworks and
Sewerage Authorty .s. Muncpaty of Lbmanan, 97 SCRA 138) and nstructed that every
party tgant shoud be ahorded the ampest opportunty for the proper and |ust dsposton of
hs cause, freed from the constrants of techncates (A-One Feeds, Inc. .s. Court of Appeas,
100 SCRA 590).
"The rues of procedure are not to be apped n a very rgd and technca sense. The rues of
procedure are used ony to hep secure, not overrde substanta |ustce. (Gregoro .s. Court
of Appeas, 72 SCRA 120). Therefore, we rued n Repubc .s. Court of Appeas (83 SCRA
453) that a sx-day deay n the perfecton of the appea does not warrant ts dsmssa. And
agan n Ramos .s. Bagasao, 96 SCRA 395), ths Court hed that the deay of four (4) days n
ng a notce of appea and a moton for extenson of tme to e a record on appea can be
excused on the bass of equty."
The emergng trend n the rungs of ths Court s to ahord every party-tgant the ampest
opportunty for the proper and |ust determnaton of hs cause, free from the constrants of
techncates.
|9|
In Cawt .s. Court of Appeas,
|10|
the Court observed that n the eary case of Berkenkotter .s.
Court of Appeas, promugated on September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 228, we departed from the
rgd nterpretaton of Secton 6, Rue 41 of the Rues of Court to the ehect that faure to state
and/or show n the Record on Appea that the appea was perfected on tme s a sumcent
cause for the dsmssa of the appea.
In ths nstance, prvate respondents ntenton to rase vad ssues n the appea s apparent
and shoud not have been construed as an attempted to deay or proong the admnstraton
proceedngs. Surey, the natura and ega course for them woud have been to e a moton
for extenson of tme wthn whch to submt ther Record on Appea, and under usua practce
such request woud have been granted. However, counse for prvate respondents nstead
contnued wth the ng of the Record on Appea wth the tra court for approva, abet
beatedy, n the beef that ths measure was a more emcent recourse as the Record on
Appea, whch conssted of 361 pages, woud be submtted for approva earer than f the
tme for the submsson of the same was extended. Unfortunatey, pettoner and the
ntervenor pounded on ths technca apse to further ther own nterests, whch from a
readng of the peadngs and evdence on record, does not appear ndubtaby vad.
I) t7, /)%,;t/() (= t7/s $%t/() =(' /ssu$)%, (= .,tt,'s (= $*5/)/st'$t/(), ;,t/t/(),'Fs
;',*,%,ss(' $..,g,* t7$t J(s,=$ D,.g$*( $)* D'. 1u/..,'5( Rust/$ <,', .,g$..3
5$''/,*, ().3 t( </t7*'$< su%7 su65/ss/() .$t,' 63 $ 6,.$t,* $5,)*,* ;,t/t/(),
$*0$)%/)g t7$t t7, t<( <,', ),0,' $%tu$..3 5$''/,*, 6ut <,', ().3 ./0/)g t(g,t7,'
$s 7us6$)* $)* </=,. Such change of stance was accepted by the tra court, upon the
|ustcaton that no record of marrage of |osefa Degado and Dr. Guermo Rusta coud be
found, and that t was hghy rreguar that the two coud ceebrate mportant occasons n
grand fashon, when no whh was made of ther own marrage. In corroboraton, the
testmones of certan "cose frends" of |osefa Degado dscose that the marrage between
|osefa and Guermo, aegedy, never occurred.
It bears mentonng that the records kewse dscose testmones pontng out the exstence
of marrage between the decedents. Needess to state, t s presumed n our |ursdcton that a
man and a woman deportng themseves as husband and wfe have entered nto a awfu
contract of marrage. Ths s the common order of socety, and can ony be rebutted by
sumcent contrary evdence.
In another ven, the proprety of the appontment of Carota Vda de Daman as soe
admnstrator of the estates of the decedents s put to queston, especay n ght of the tra
courts ndng that |osefa Degado and Dr. Guermo Rusta were not marred to each
other. It has been observed that the estates of deceased spouses may be setted n a snge
proceedng,
|11|
but n a other nstances, even f the deceased persons are reated as
ascendants and decendants, ther separate estates must be setted n dherent proceedngs.
|12|
The reason for ths s the avodance of opportunty of encroachment nto the estate eft by
one decedent by the hers of another, especay n nstances, such as ths petton, were
dherent hers are determned for dherent decedents.
As =(' t7, st$tus (= 1u/..,'5$ Rust/$-A.$'$s $s $) $%&)(<.,*g,* %7/.* (= D'.
1u/..,'5( Rust/$, A't/%., 12?, /) %()Mu)%t/() </t7 A't/%., 123 $)* 124 (= t7, F$5/.3
C(*, ;'(0/*,s =(' t7, 5,$)s =(' ;'(0/)g A./$t/():
Art. 175. Iegtmate chdren may estabsh ther egtmate aton n the same way and on
the same, evdence as egtmate chdren.
The acton must be brought wthn the same perod speced n Artce 173, except when the
acton s based on the second paragraph of 172, n whch case the acton may be brought
durng the fetme of the aeged parent. (289a) (Underscorng Ours)
x xx
Art. 172. The aton of egtmate chdren s estabshed by any of the foowng:
(1) The record of brth appearng, n the cv regster or a na |udgment; or
(2) An admsson of egtmate aton s a pubc document or a prvate handwrtten
nstrument and sgned by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregong evdence, the egtmate aton sha be proved by:
(1) The open and contnuous possesson of the status of a egtmate chd; or
(2) Any other means aowed by the Rues of Court and speca aws. (265a, 266a, 267a)
xxx
Art. 173. The acton to cam egtmacy may be brought by the chd durng hs or her fetme
and sha be transmtted to the hers shoud the chd de durng mnorty or n a state of
33 | P a g e
nsanty. In these cases, the hers sha have a perod of ve years wthn whch to nsttute
the acton.
The acton aready commenced by the chd sha survve notwthstandng the death of ether
or both of the partes. (286a)
The cases reed upon n the tra courts decson, pontng to a chds acton for estabshng
aton even beyond the putatve parents death are moded by the enactment of the
above-cted provsons of the Famy Code, whch cte dente perods wthn whch such
actons must be nterposed. The acknowedgment of Guerma Aaras as an acknowedged
(egtmate) chd of Dr. Guermo Rusta, represents a cruca bar n the cam of the prvate
respondents, as under Artces 988
|13|
and 1003
|14|
of the Cv Code.
A revew of the tra courts decson s needed, n vew of the above-demonstrated
dvergence of the evdence and arguments presented.
8HEREFORE, n vew of the foregong consderatons, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the
Resouton dated November 27, 1991 of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. SP No. 23415, for the
APPROVAL of the prvate respondents Record on Appea and the CONTINUANCE of the appea
from the Mana, Branch LV Regona Tra Courts May 11, 1990 decson.
SO ORDERED.
NNNNNNNNNNN
1.R. N(. 14B0. O%t(6,' 30, 12H
MANUEL 1. REYES, MILA 1. REYES, DANILO 1. REYES, LYN A1APE, MARITES A1APE,
ESTA#ANA 1ALOLO, $)* CELSA A1APE, 'e(i(ioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND
JULIO VIVARES,res'onden(s.
D E C I S I O N
TORRES, JR., J.+
Uness egay awed, a testators ntenton n hs ast w and testament s ts "fe and sou"
whch deserves reverenta observance.
The controversy before us deas wth such a case.
Pettoners Manue G. Reyes, Ma G. Reyes, Dano G. Reyes, Lyn Agape, Martes Agape,
Estebana Gaoo and Cesa Agape, the oppostors n Speca Proceedngs No. 112 for the
probate of the w of Torcuato |. Reyes, assa n ths petton for revew the decson of the
Court of Appeas
|1|
dated November 29, 1995, the dspostve porton of whch reads:
"WHEREFORE, premses consdered, the |udgment appeaed from aowng or admttng the
w of Torcuato |. Reyes to probate and drectng the ssuance of Letter Testamentary n favor
of pettoner |uo A. Vvares as executor wthout bond s AFFIRMED but moded n that the
decaraton that paragraph II of the Torcuato Reyes' ast w and testament, ncudng
subparagraphs (a) and (b) are nu and vod for beng contrary to aw s hereby SET ASIDE,
sad paragraphs (a) and (b) are decared VALID. Except as above moded, the |udgment
appeaed from s AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
|2|
The antecedent facts:
On |anuary 3, 1992, Torcuato |. Reyes executed hs ast w and testament decarng theren
n part, to wt:
"xxx
II. I gve and bequeath to my wfe Asuncon "Onng" R. Reyes the foowng propertes to wt:
a. A my shares of our persona propertes consstng among others of |eweres, cons,
antques, statues, tabewares, furntures, xtures and the budng;
b. A my shares consstng of one haf (1/2) or 50% of a the rea estates I own n common
wth my brother |ose, stuated n Muncpates of Mamba|ao, Mahnog, Gunsban, Sagay a
n Camgun; rea estates n Lunao, Gnoong, Caamuan, Sugbongcogon, Booc-Booc,
Knogunatan, Bangoan, Sta. Ines, Caesta, Tasayan, a n the provnce of Msams
Orenta."
|3|
The w conssted of two pages and was sgned by Torcuato Reyes n the presence of three
wtnesses: Antono Veoso, Gora Borromeo, and Soedad Gaputan. Prvate respondent |uo
A. Vvares was desgnated the executor and n hs defaut or ncapacty, hs son Roch Aan S.
Vvares.
Reyes ded on May 12, 1992 and on May 21, 1992, prvate respondent ed a petton for
probate of the w before the Regona Tra Court of Mamba|ao, Camgun. The pettoner was
set for hearng and the order was pubshed n the Mndanao Day Post, a newspaper of
genera crcuaton, once a week for three consecutve weeks. Notces were kewse sent to
a the persons named n the petton.
On |uy 21, 1992, the recognzed natura chdren of Torcuato Reyes wth Estebana Gaoo,
namey Manue, Ma, and Dano a surnamed Reyes, and the deceaseds natura chdren
wth Cesa Agape, namey Lyn and Martes Agape, ed an opposton wth the foowng
aegatons: a) that the ast w and testament of Reyes was not executed and attested n
accordance wth the formates of aw; and b) that Asuncon Reyes Ebare exerted undue and
mproper nuence upon the testator at the tme of the executon of the w. The opposton
further averred that Reyes was never marred to and coud never marry Asuncon Reyes, the
woman he camed to be hs wfe n the w, because the atter was aready marred to Lupo
Ebare who was st then ave and ther marrage was never annued. Thus Asuncon can
not be a compusory her for her open cohabtaton wth Reyes was voatve of pubc moras.
On |uy 22, 1992, the tra court ssued an orderng decarng that t had acqured |ursdcton
over the petton and, therefore, aowed the presentaton of evdence. After the presentaton
of evdence and submsson of the respectve memoranda, the tra court ssued ts decson
on Apr 23, 1993.
The tra court decared that the w was executed n accordance wth the formates
prescrbed by aw. It, however, rued that Asuncon Reyes, based on the testmones of the
wtnesses, was never marred to the deceased Reyes, and, therefore, ther reatonshp was
an aduterous one. Thus:
"The admsson n the w by the testator to the ct reatonshp between hm and
ASUNCION REYES EBARLE who s somebody eses, wfe, s further bostered, strengthened,
and conrmed by the drect testmones of the pettoner hmsef and hs two "attestng"
wtnesses durng the tra.
In both cases, the common denomnator s the mmora meretrecous, aduterous and
aduterous and ct reatonshp exstng between the testator and the devsee pror to the
death of the testator, whch consttuted the soe and prmary consderaton for the devse or
egacy, thus makng the w ntrnscay nvad."
|4|
The w of Reyes was admtted to probate except for paragraph II (a) and (b) of the w whch
was decared nu and vod for beng contrary to aw and moras. Hence, |uo Vvares ed an
appea before the Court of Appeas wth the aegaton that the oppostors faed to present
any competent evdence that Asuncon Reyes was egay marred to another person durng
the perod of her cohabtaton wth Torcuato Reyes.
On November 29, 1995, the Court of Appeas promugated the assaed decson whch
amrmed the tra courts decson admttng the w for probate but the modcaton that
paragraph II ncudng subparagraphs (a) and (b) were decared vad. The appeee court
stated:
"Consderng that the oppostors never showed any competent, documentary or otherwse
durng the tra to show that Asuncon "Onng" Reyes marrage to the testator was nexstent
or vod, ether because of a pre-exstng marrage or aduterous reatonshp, the tra court
gravey erred n strkng down paragraph II (a) and (b) of the sub|ect Last W and Testament,
34 | P a g e
as vod for beng contrary to aw and moras. Sad decaratons are not sumcent to destroy
the presumpton of marrage. Nor s t enough to overcome the very decaraton of the
testator that Asuncon Reyes s hs wfe."
|5|
Dssatsed wth the decson of the Court of Appeas, the oppostors ed ths petton for
revew.
Pettoners contend that the ndngs and concuson of the Court of Appeas was contrary to
aw, pubc pocy and evdence on record. Torcuato Reyes and Asuncon "Onng" Reyes were
coatera reatves up to the fourth cv degree. Wtness Gora Borromeo tested that Onng
Reyes was her cousn as her mother and the atters father were sster and brother. They
were aso neces of the ate Torcuato Reyes. Thus, the purported marrage of the deceased
Reyes and Onng Reyes was vod ab initio as t was aganst pubc pocy pursuant to Artce
38 (1) of the Famy Code. Pettoners further aeged that Onng Reyes was aready marred
to Lupo Ebare at the tme she was cohabtng wth the testator hence, she coud never
contact any vad marrage wth the atter. Pettoners argued that the testmones of the
wtnesses as we as the persona decaraton of the testator, hmsef, were sumcent to
destroy the presumpton of marrage. To further support ther contenton, pettoners
attached a copy of the marrage certcate of Asuncon Reyes and Lupo Ebare.
|6|
The petton s devod of mert.
As a genera rue, courts n probate proceedngs are mted to pass ony upon the extrnsc
vadty of the w sought to be probated.
|7|
Thus, the court merey nqures on ts due
executon, whether or not t compes wth the formates prescrbed by aw, and the
testamentary capacty of the testator. It does not determne nor even by mpcaton
pre|udge the vadty or emcacy of the ws provsons.
|8|
The ntrnsc vadty s not
consdered snce the consderaton thereof usuay comes ony after the w has been proved
and aowed. There are, however, notabe crcumstances wheren the ntrnsc vadty was
rst determned as when the defect of the w s apparent on ts face and the probate of the
w may become a useess ceremony f t s ntrnscay nvad.
|9|
The ntrnsc vadty of a w
may be passed upon because "practca consderatons" demanded t as when there s
preterton of hers or the testamentary provsons are doubtfu egaty.
|10|
Where the partes
agree that the ntrnsc vadty be rst determned, the probate court may aso do so.
|11|
Parenthetcay, the rue on probate s not nexbe and absoute. Under exceptona
crcumstances, the probate court s not poweress to do what the stuaton constrans t to do
and pass upon certan provsons of the w.
|12|
The case at bar arose from the nsttuton of the petton for the probate of the w of the ate
Torcuato Reyes. Perforce, the ony ssues to be setted n the sad proceedng were: (1)
whether or not the testator had animus testandi; (2) whether or not vces of consent
attended the executon of the w; and (3) whether or not the formates of the w had been
comped wth. Thus, the ower court was not asked to rue upon the ntrnsc vadty or
emcacy of the provsons of the w. As a resut, the decaraton of the testator that Asuncon
"Onng" Reyes was hs wfe dd not have to be scrutnzed durng the probate
proceedngs. The proprety of the nsttuton of Onng Reyes as one of the devsees/egatees
aready nvoved nqury on the ws ntrnsc vadty and whch need not be nqured upon by
the probate court.
The ower court erroneousy nvoked the rung n Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeas (139
SCRA 206) n the nstant case. In the case aforesad, the testator hmsef, acknowedged hs
ct reatonshp wth the devsee, to wt:
"Art. IV. That snce 1952, I have been vng, as man and wfe, wth one Soa |. Nepomuceno,
whom I decare and avow to be entted to my ove an |sc| ahecton, for a the thngs whch
she has done for me, now and n the past; that whe Soa |. Nepomuceno has wth my fu
knowedge and consent, dd comfort and represent mysef as her own husband, n truth and
n fact, as we as n the eyes of the aw, I coud not bnd her to me n the hoy bonds of
matrmony because of my aforementoned prevous marrage."
Thus, the very tenor of the w nvadates the egacy because the testator admtted he was
dsposng of the propertes to a person wth whom he had been vng n concubnage.
|13|
To
remand the case woud ony be a waste of tme and money snce the egaty or defect was
aready patent. Ths case s dherent from the Nepomuceno case. Testator Torcuato Reyes
merey stated n hs w that he was bequeathng some of hs persona and rea propertes to
hs wfe, Asuncon "Onng" Reyes. There was never an open admsson of any ct
reatonshp. In the case of Nepomuceno, the testator admtted that he was aready
prevousy marred and that he had an aduterous reatonshp wth the devsee.
We agree wth the Court of Appeas that the tra court reed on uncorroborated testmona
evdence that Asuncon Reyes was st marred to another durng the tme she cohabted wth
the testator. The testmones of the wtnesses were merey hearsay and even uncertan as to
the whereabouts or exstence of Lupo Ebare, the supposed husband of Asuncon. Thus:
"The foregong testmony cannot go aganst the decaraton of the testator that Asuncon
"Onng" Reyes s hs wfe. In Avarado v. Cty Government of Tacoban (supra) the Supreme
Court stated that the decaraton of the husband s competent evdence to show the fact of
marrage.
Consderng that the oppostors never showed any competent evdence, documentary or
otherwse durng the tra to show that Asuncon "Onng" Reyes marrage to the testator was
nexstent or vod, ether because of a pre-exstng marrage or aduterous reatonshp, the
tra court gravey erred n strkng down paragraph II (a) and (b) of the sub|ect Last W and
Testament, as vod for beng contrary to aw and moras. Sad decaratons are not sumcent
to destroy the presumpton of marrage. Nor s t enough to overcome the very decaraton of
the testator that Asuncon Reyes s hs wfe."
|14|
In the eegant anguage of |ustce Moreand wrtten decades ago, he sad-
"A w s the testator speakng after death. Its provsons have substantay the same force
and ehect n the probate court as f the testator stood before the court n fu fe makng the
decaratons by word of mouth as they appear n the w. That was the speca purpose of the
aw n the creaton of the nstrument known as the ast w and testament. Men wshed to
speak after they were dead and the aw, by the creaton of that nstrument, permtted them
to do so. xxx A doubts must be resoved n favor of the testators havng meant |ust what he
sad." (Santos .s. Manarang, 27 Ph. 209).
Pettoners tred to refute ths concuson of the Court of Appeas by presentng beatedy a
copy of the marrage certcate of Asuncon Reyes and Lupo Ebare. Ther faure to present
the sad certcate before the probate court to support ther poston that Asuncon Reyes had
an exstng marrage wth Ebare consttuted a waver and the same evdence can no onger
be entertaned on appea, much ess n ths petton for revew. Ths Court woud no try the
case a new or sette factua ssues snce ts |ursdcton s conned to resovng questons of
aw whch have been passed upon by the ower courts. The setted rue s that the factua
ndngs of the appeate court w not be dsturbed uness shown to be contrary to the
evdence on the record, whch pettoners have not shown n ths case.
|15|
Consderng the foregong premses, we sustan the ndngs of the appeate court t
appearng that t dd not commt a reversbe error n ssung the chaenged decson.
ACCORDIN1LY, decson appeaed from dated November 29, 1995, s hereby AFFIRMED and
the nstant petton for revew s DENIED for ack of mert.
SO ORDERED.
___________
SECOND DIVISION
1.R. N(. 123?B0, J$)u$'3 44, 401B
35 | P a g e
PERE1RINA MACUA VDA. DE AVENIDO, 7etitioner, .$ TECLA HOY#IA
AVENIDO, !espondent$
D E C I S I O N
PERE9, J.+
Ths s a Petton for Revew on Certiorari under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court, assang the 31
August 2005 Decson
1
of the Court of Appeas (CA) n CA-G.R. CV No. 79444, whch reversed
the 25 March 2003 Decson
2
of the Regona Tra Court (RTC), Branch 8 of Davao Cty, n a
compant for Decaraton of Absoute Nuty of Marrage docketed as Cv Case No. 26, 908-
98.
T7e 1a4(s
Ths case nvoves a contest between two women both camng to have been vady marred
to the same man, now deceased.
Respondent Teca Hoyba Avendo (Teca) nsttuted on 11 November 1998, a Compant for
Decaraton of Nuty of Marrage aganst Peregrna Macua Vda. de Avendo (Peregrna) on the
ground that she (Teca), s the awfu wfe of the deceased Eustaquo Avendo (Eustaquo). In
her compant, Teca aeged that her marrage to Eustaquo was soemnzed on 30 September
1942 n Tabon, Boho n rtes omcated by the Parsh Prest of the sad town. Accordng to
her, the fact of ther marrage s evdenced by a Marrage Certcate recorded wth the Omce
of the Loca Cv Regstrar (LCR) of Tabon, Boho. However, due to Word War II, records
were destroyed. Thus, ony a Certcaton
3
was ssued by the LCR.
Durng the exstence of Teca and Eustaquos unon, they begot four (4) chdren, namey:
Cmaco H. Avendo, born on 30 March 1943; Aponaro H. Avendo, born on 23 August 1948;
Edtha A. Ausa, born on 26 |uy 1950, and Eustaquo H. Avendo, |r., born on 15 December
1952. Sometme n 1954, Eustaquo eft hs famy and hs whereabouts was not known. In
1958, Teca and her chdren were nformed that Eustaquo was n Davao Cty vng wth
another woman by the name of Buenaventura Sayson who ater ded n 1977 wthout any
ssue.
In 1979, Teca earned that her husband Eustaquo got marred to another woman by the
name of Peregrna, whch marrage she cams must be decared nu and vod for beng
bgamous - an acton she sought to protect the rghts of her chdren over the propertes
acqured by Eustaquo.
On 12 Apr 1999, Peregrna ed her answer to the compant wth countercam,
4
essentay
averrng that she s the ega survvng spouse of Eustaquo who ded on 22 September 1989
n Davao Cty, ther marrage havng been ceebrated on 30 March 1979 at St. |ude Parsh n
Davao Cty. She aso contended that the case was nsttuted to deprve her of the propertes
she owns n her own rght and as an her of Eustaquo.
Tra ensued.
Teca presented testmona and documentary evdence consstng
of:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
1) Testmones of Adena Avendo-Ceno (Adena), Cmaco Avendo (Cmaco) and Teca
hersef to substantate her aeged pror exstng and vad marrage wth (sc) Eustaquo;
2) Documentary evdence such as the foowng:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
a. Certcaton of Loss/Destructon of Record of Marrage from 1900 to 1944 ssued by
the Omce of the Cv Regstrar, Muncpaty of Tabon, Boho;
5
craawbrary
b. Certcaton of Submsson of a copy of Certcate of Marrage to the Omce of the
Cv Regstrar Genera, Natona Statstcs Omce (NSO), R. Magsaysay Bvd., Sta
Mesa, Mana;
6
craawbrary
c. Certcaton that Cv Regstry records of brths, deaths and marrages that were
actuay ed n the Omce of the Cv Regstrar Genera, NSO Mana, started ony n
1932;
7
craawbrary
d. Certcaton that Cv Regstry records submtted to the Omce of the Cv Regstrar
Genera, NSO, from 1932 to the eary part of 1945, were totay destroyed durng the
beraton of Mana;
8
craawbrary
e. Certcaton of Brth of Aponaro Avendo;
9
craawbrary
f. Certcaton of Brth of Eustaquo Avendo, |r.;
10
craawbrary
g. Certcaton of Brth of Edtha Avendo;
11
craawbrary
h. Certcaton of Marrage between Eustaquo Sr., and Teca ssued by the Parsh Prest
of Tabon, Boho on 30 September 1942;
12
craawbrary
. Certcaton that record of brth from 1900 to 1944 were destroyed by Second Word
War ssued by the Omce of the Muncpa Regstrar of Tabon, Boho, that they
cannot furnsh as requested a true transcrpton from the Regster of Brth of Cmaco
Avendo;
13
craawbrary
|. Certcate of Baptsm of Cmaco ndcatng that he was born on 30 March 1943 to
spouses Eustaquo and Teca;
14|
k. Eectronc copy of the Marrage Contract between Eustaquo and Peregrna.
15
On the other hand, Peregrna tested on, among others, her marrage to Eustaquo that took
pace n Davao Cty on 3 March 1979; her fe as a wfe and how she took care of Eustaquo
when he aready had poor heath, as we as her knowedge that Teca s not the ega wfe,
but was once a common aw wfe of Eustaquo.
16
Peregrna kewse set forth documentary
evdence to substantate her aegatons and to prove her cam for damages, to
wt:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
1) Marrage Contract
17
between Pregrna and the ate Eustaquo showng the date of
marrage on 3 March 1979;
2) Amdavt of Eustaquo executed on 22 March 1985 decarng hmsef as snge when he
contracted marrage wth the pettoner athough he had a common aw reaton wth one
Teca Hoyba wth whom he had four (4) chdren namey: Cmaco, Tburco, Edtha and
Eustaquo, |r., a surnamed Avendo;
18
3) Letter of Atty. Edgardo T. Mata dated 15 Apr 2002, addressed to the Cv Regstrar of
the Muncpaty of Aegra, Surgao de Norte;
19
and
4) Certcaton dated 25 Apr 2002 ssued by Cota P. Umpg, n her capacty as the Cv
Regstrar of Aegra, Surgao de Norte.
20
In addton, as bass for the countercam, Peregrna averred that the case was ntated n bad
fath so as to deprve her of the propertes she owns n her own rght and as an her of
Eustaquo; hence, her enttement to damages and attorneys fees.
On 25 March 2003, the RTC rendered a Decson
21
denyng Tecas petton, as we as
Peregrnas counter-cam. The dspostve porton thereof reads:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
36 | P a g e
For The Foregong, the petton for the KDECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIA1ELed
by pettoner TECLA HOY#IA AVENIDO aganst respondent PERE1RINA MACUAs
hereby DENIED.
The KCOUNTERCLAIML ed by respondent PERE1RINA MACUA aganst pettonerTECLA
HOY#IA AVENIDO s hereby DISMISSED.
22
Not convnced, Teca appeaed to the CA rasng as error the tra courts aeged dsregard of
the evdence on the exstence of her marrage to Eustaquo.
In ts 31 August 2005 Decson,
23
the CA rued n favor of Teca by decarng the vadty of her
marrage to Eustaquo, whe pronouncng on the other hand, the marrage between Peregrna
and Eustaquo to be bgamous, and thus, nu and vod. The CA
rued:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
The court a 4uo commtted a reversbe error when t dsregarded (1) the testmones of
|Adena|, the sster of EUSTAOUIO who tested that she personay wtnessed the weddng
ceebraton of her oder brother EUSTAOUIO and |Teca| on 30 September 1942 at Tabon,
Boho; |Cmaco|, the edest son of EUSTAOUIO and |Teca|, who tested that hs mother
|Teca| was marred to hs father, EUSTAOUIO, and |Teca| hersef; and (2) the documentary
evdence mentoned at the outset. It shoud be stressed that the due executon and the oss
of the marrage contract, both consttutng the condition sine 4ua non, for the ntroducton of
secondary evdence of ts contents, were shown by the very evdence the tra court has
dsregarded.
24
Peregrna now questons the sad rung assgnng as error, among others, the faure of the
CA to apprecate the vadty of her marrage to Eustaquo. For ts part, the Omce of the
Soctor Genera (OSG), n ts Memorandum
25
dated 5 |une 2008, rases the foowng ega
ssues:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
1. Whether or not the court can vady rey on the "presumpton of marrage" to
overturn the vadty of a subsequent marrage;
2. Whether or not secondary evdence may be consdered and/or taken cognzance of,
wthout proof of the executon or exstence and the cause of the unavaabty of the
best evdence, the orgna document; and
3. Whether or not a Certcate of Marrage ssued by the church has a probatve vaue
to prove the exstence of a vad marrage wthout the prest who ssued the same
beng presented to the wtness stand.
26
&ur !uling
Essentay, the queston before us s whether or not the evdence presented durng the tra
proves the exstence of the marrage of Teca to Eustaquo.
The tra court, n rung aganst Tecas cam of her pror vad marrage to Eustaquo reed on
Tecas faure to present her certcate of marrage to Eustaquo. Wthout such certcate, the
tra court consdered as useess the certcaton of the Omce of the Cv Regstrar of Tabon,
Boho, that t has no more records of marrages durng the perod 1900 to 1944. The same
thng was sad as regards the Certcaton ssued by the Natona Statstcs Omce of Mana.
The tra court observed:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
Upon vercaton from the NSO, Omce of the Cv Regstrar Genera, Mana, t, kewse,
ssued a Certcaton (Exhbt "B") statng that:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
records from 1932 up to eary part of 1945 were totay destroyed durng the beraton of
Mana on February 4, 1945. What are presenty ed n ths omce are records from the atter
part of 1945 to date, except for the cty of Mana whch starts from 1952. Hence, ths omce
has no way of verfyng and coud not ssue as requested, certed true copy of the records of
marrage between |Eustaquo| and |Teca|, aeged to have been marred on 30th September
1942, n Tabon, Boho.
27
In the absence of the marrage contract, the tra court dd not gve credence to the testmony
of Teca and her wtnesses as t consdered the same as mere sef-servng assertons.
Superor sgncance was gven to the fact that Teca coud not even produce her own copy of
the sad proof of marrage. Reyng on Secton 3 (a) and Secton 5, Rue 130 of the Rues of
Court, the tra court decared that Teca faed to prove the exstence of the rst marrage.
The CA, on the other hand, concuded that there was a presumpton of awfu marrage
between Teca and Eustaquo as they deported themseves as husband and wfe and begot
four (4) chdren. Such presumpton, supported by documentary evdence consstng of the
same Certcatons dsregarded by the tra court, as we as the testmona evdence
especay that of Adena Avendo-Ceno, created, accordng to the CA, sumcent proof of the
fact of marrage. Contrary to the tra courts rung, the CA found that ts apprecaton of the
evdence presented by Teca s we n accord wth Secton 5, Rue 130 of the Rues of Court.
We uphod the reversa by the CA of the decson of the tra court. Oute recenty,
n (@onue.o .$ Intestate Estate of !odolfo G$ Aalandoni,
28
we sad, ctng precedents,
that:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
Whe a marrage certcate s consdered the prmary evdence of a marta unon, t s not
regarded as the soe and excusve evdence of marrage. |ursprudence teaches that the fact
of marrage may be proven by reevant evdence other than the marrage certcate. Hence,
even a persons brth certcate may be recognzed as competent evdence of the marrage
between hs parents.
The error of the tra court n rung that wthout the marrage certcate, no other proof of the
fact can be accepted, has been apty deneated n Bda de Aacob .$ Court of (ppeals.
29

Thus:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
It shoud be stressed that the due executon and the oss of the marrage contract, both
consttutng the conditio sine 4ua non for the ntroducton of secondary evdence of ts
contents, were shown by the very evdence they have dsregarded. They have thus confused
the evdence to show due executon and oss as "secondary" evdence of the marrage.
In Cernae .$ 1cgrath, the Court cared ths msconcepton thus:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
x x x |T|he court beow was entrey mstaken n hodng that paro evdence of the executon
of the nstrument was barred. The court confounded the e"ecution and the contents of the
document. It s the contents, x x x whch may not be prove|n| by secondary evdence when
the nstrument tsef s accessbe. Proofs of the executon are not dependent on the exstence
or non-exstence of the document, and, as a matter of fact, such proofs of the contents: due
executon, besdes the oss, has to be shown as foundaton for the nroducton of secondary
evdence of the contents.
x x x x
37 | P a g e
Evdence of the executon of a document s, n the ast anayss, necessary coatera or
prmary. It generall2 consists of parol testimon2 or e"trinsic papers$ E.en when the document
is actuall2 produced% its authencit2 is not necessaril2% if at all% determined from its face or
recital of its contents but b2 parol e.idence$ At the most, faure to produce the document,
when avaabe, to estabsh ts executon may ehect the weght of the evdence presented
but not the admssbty of such evdence.
The Court of Appeas, as we as the tra court, tred to |ustfy ts stand on ths ssue by
reyng on 'im Tanhu .$ !amolete. But even there, we sad that "marrage may be prove|n| by
other competent evdence.
Truy, the executon of a document may be proven by the partes themseves, by the
swearng omcer, by wtnesses who saw and recognzed the sgnatures of the partes; or even
by those to whom the partes have prevousy narrated the executon thereof. The Court has
aso hed that "|t|he oss may be shown by any person who |knows| the fact of ts oss, or by
any one who ha|s| made, n the |udgment of the court, a sumcent examnaton n the pace
or paces where the document or papers of smar character are usuay kept by the person n
whose custody the document ost was, and has been unabe to nd t; or who has made any
other nvestgaton whch s sumcent to satsfy the court that the nstrument |has| ndeed
|been| ost."
In the present case, due executon was estabshed by the testmones of Adea Pap, who
was present durng the marrage ceremony, and of pettoner hersef as a party to the event.
The subsequent oss was shown by the testmony and the amdavt of the omcatng prest,
Monsgnor Yana, as reevant, competent and admssbe evdence. Snce the due executon
and the oss of the marrage contract were ceary shown by the evdence presented,
secondary evdence-testmona and documentary-may be admtted to prove the fact of
marrage.
30
As correcty stated by the appeate court:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
In the case at bench, the ceebraton of marrage between |Teca| and EUSTAOUIO was
estabshed by the testmona evdence furnshed by |Adena| who appears to be present
durng the marrage ceremony, and by |Teca| hersef as a vng wtness to the event. The
oss was shown by the certcatons ssued by the NSO and LCR of Tabon, Boho. These are
reevant, competent and admssbe evdence. Snce the due executon and the oss of the
marrage contract were ceary shown by the evdence presented, secondary evdence -
testmona and documentary - may be admtted to prove the fact of marrage. In PUGEDA v.
TRIAS, the Supreme Court hed that Dmarriage ma2 be pro.en b2 an2 competent and
rele.ant e.idence$ The testimon2 b2 one of the parties to the marriage or b2 one of the
witnesses to the marriage has been held to be admissible to pro.e the fact of marriage$ The
person who o;ciated at the solemniation is also competent to testif2 as an e2ewitness to
the fact of marriage$E
x x x x
The court a 4uo commtted a reversbe error when t dsregarded (1) the testmones of
|Adena|, the sster of EUSTAOUIO who tested that she personay wtnessed the weddng
ceebraton of her oder brother EUSTAOUIO and |Teca| on 30 September 1942 at Tabon,
Boho; |Cmaco|, the edest son of EUSTAOUIO and |Teca|, who tested that hs mother
|Teca| was marred to hs father, EUSTAOUIO, and |Teca| hersef; and (2) the documentary
evdence mentoned at the outset. It shoud be stressed that the due executon and the oss
of the marrage contract, both consttutng the condition sine 4ua non for the ntroducton of
secondary evdence of ts contents, were shown by the very evdence the tra court has
dsregarded.
31
The startng pont then, s the presumpton of marrage.
As eary as the case of (dong .$ Cheong #eng Gee,
32
ths Court has eucdated on the
ratonae behnd the presumpton:chanRobesVrtuaawbrary
The bass of human socety throughout the cvzed word s that of marrage. Marrage n
ths |ursdcton s not ony a cv contract, but t s a new reaton, an nsttuton n the
mantenance of whch the pubc s deepy nterested. Consequenty, every ntendment of the
aw eans toward egazng matrmony. Persons dweng together n apparent matrmony are
presumed, n the absence of any counter-presumpton or evdence speca to the case, to be
n fact marred. The reason s that such s the common order of socety, and f the partes
were not what they thus hod themseves out as beng, they woud be vng n the constant
voaton of decency and of aw. A presumpton estabshed by our Code of Cv Procedure s
that a man and a woman deportng themseves as husband and wfe have entered nto a
awfu contract of marrage. (Sec. 334, No. 28) #emper 3 praesumitur pro matrimonio - Aways
presume marrage.
In the case at bar, the estabshment of the fact of marrage was competed by the
testmones of Adena, Cmaco and Teca; the unrebutted fact of the brth wthn the
cohabtaton of Teca and Eustaquo of four (4) chdren couped wth the certcates of the
chdrens brth and baptsm; and the certcatons of marrage ssued by the parsh prest of
the Most Hoy Trnty Cathedra of Tabon, Boho.
8HEREFORE, the Petton s DENIED and the assaed Decson of the Court of Appeas n
CA-G.R. CV No. 79444 s AFFIRMED. The marrage between pettoner Peregrna Macua
Avendo and the deceased Eustaquo Avendo s hereby decared NULL and VOID. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
_________
1.R. N(. 4010!1 Ju.3 3, 4013
SALLY 1O-#AN1AYAN, Pettoner,
vs.
#ENJAMIN #AN1AYAN, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court s a petton for revew
1
assang the 17 August 2011 Decson
2
and the 14
March 2012 Resouton
3
of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 94226.
The Antecedent Facts
On 15 March 2004, Ben|amn Bangayan, |r. (Ben|amn) ed a petton for decaraton of a
non-exstent marrage and/or decaraton of nuty of marrage before the Regona Tra Court
of Mana, Branch 43 (tra court). The case was docketed as Cv Case No. 04109401.
Ben|amn aeged that on 10 September 1973, he marred Azucena Aegre (Azucena) n
Caoocan Cty. They had three chdren, namey, Rzayn, Emmamyn, and Ben|amn III.
In 1979, Ben|amn deveoped a romantc reatonshp wth Say GoBangayan (Say) who was
a customer n the auto parts and suppes busness owned by Ben|amns famy. In December
38 | P a g e
1981, Azucena eft for the Unted States of Amerca. In February 1982, Ben|amn and Say
ved together as husband and wfe. Says father was aganst the reatonshp. On 7 March
1982, n order to appease her father, Say brought Ben|amn to an omce n Santoan, Pasg
Cty where they sgned a purported marrage contract. Say, knowng Ben|amns marta
status, assured hm that the marrage contract woud not be regstered.
Ben|amn and Says cohabtaton produced two chdren, Bernce and Bentey. Durng the
perod of ther cohabtaton, they acqured the foowng rea propertes:
(1) property under Transfer Certcate of Tte (TCT) No. 61722 regstered n the names of
Ben|amn and Say as spouses;
(2) propertes under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 regstered n the name of Ben|amn, marred
to Say;
(3) propertes under Condomnum Certcate of Tte (CCT) Nos. 8782 and 8783 regstered n
the name of Say, marred to Ben|amn; and
(4) propertes under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 regstered n the name of Say as a
snge ndvdua.
The reatonshp of Ben|amn and Say ended n 1994 when Say eft for Canada, brngng
Bernce and Bentey wth her. She then ed crmna actons for bgamy and fascaton of
pubc documents aganst Ben|amn, usng ther smuated marrage contract as evdence.
Ben|amn, n turn, ed a petton for decaraton of a non-exstent marrage and/or
decaraton of nuty of marrage before the tra court on the ground that hs marrage to
Say was bgamous and that t acked the forma requstes to a vad marrage. Ben|amn aso
asked the tra court for the partton of the propertes he acqured wth Say n accordance
wth Artce 148 of the Famy Code, for hs appontment as admnstrator of the propertes
durng the pendency of the case, and for the decaraton of Bernce and Bentey as
egtmate chdren. A tota of 44 regstered propertes became the sub|ect of the partton
before the tra court. Asde from the seven propertes enumerated by Ben|amn n hs
petton, Say named 37 propertes n her answer.
After Ben|amn presented hs evdence, Say ed a demurrer to evdence whch the tra
court dened. Say ed a moton for reconsderaton whch the tra court aso dened. Say
ed a petton for certorar before the Court of Appeas and asked for the ssuance of a
temporary restranng order and/or n|uncton whch the Court of Appeas never ssued. Say
then refused to present any evdence before the tra court ctng the pendency of her petton
before the Court of Appeas. The tra court gave Say severa opportuntes to present her
evdence on 28 February 2008, 10 |uy 2008, 4 September 2008, 11 September 2008, 2
October 2008, 23 October 2008, and 28 November 2008. Despte repeated warnngs from the
tra court, Say st refused to present her evdence, promptng the tra court to consder the
case submtted for decson.
The Decson of the Tra Court
In a Decson
4
dated 26 March 2009, the tra court rued n favor ofBen|amn. The tra court
gave weght to the certcaton dated 21 |uy 2004 from the Pasg Loca Cv Regstrar, whch
was conrmed durng tra, that ony Marrage Lcense Seres Nos. 6648100 to 6648150 were
ssued for the month of February 1982 and the purported Marrage Lcense No. N-07568 was
not ssued to Ben|amn and Say.
5
The tra court rued that the marrage was not recorded
wth the oca cv regstrar and the Natona Statstcs Omce because t coud not be
regstered due to Ben|amns subsstng marrage wth Azucena.
The tra court rued that the marrage between Ben|amn and Say was not bgamous. The
tra court rued that the second marrage was vod not because of the exstence of the rst
marrage but because of other causes, partcuary, the ack of a marrage cense. Hence,
bgamy was not commtted n ths case. The tra court dd not rue on the ssue of the
egtmacy status of Bernce and Bentey because they were not partes to the case. The tra
court dened Says cam for spousa support because she was not marred to Ben|amn. The
tra court kewse dened support for Bernce and Bentey who were both of ega age and dd
not ask for support.
On the ssue of partton, the tra court rued that Say coud not cam the 37 propertes she
named n her answer as part of her con|uga propertes wth Ben|amn. The tra court rued
that Say was not egay marred to Ben|amn. Further, the 37 propertes that Say was
camng were owned by Ben|amns parents who gave the propertes to ther chdren,
ncudng Ben|amn, as advance nhertance. The 37 ttes were n the names of Ben|amn and
hs brothers and the phrase "marred to Say Go" was merey descrptve of Ben|amns cv
status n the tte. As regards the two ots under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860, the tra court
found that they were bought by Ben|amn usng hs own money and that Say faed to prove
any actua contrbuton of money, property or ndustry n ther purchase. The tra court found
that Say was a regstered co-owner of the ots covered by TCT Nos. 61722, N-193656, and
253681 as we as the two condomnum unts under CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783. However, the
tra court rued that the ot under TCT No. 61722 and the two condomnum unts were
purchased from the earnngs of Ben|amn aone. The tra court rued that the propertes
under TCT Nos. 61722, 61720, and 190860 and CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 were part of the
con|uga partnershp of Ben|amn and Azucena, wthout pre|udce to Ben|amns rght to
dspute hs con|uga state wth Azucena n a separate proceedng.
The tra court further rued that Say acted n bad fath because she knew that Ben|amn was
marred to Azucena. Appyng Artce 148 of the Famy Code, the tra court forfeted Says
share n the propertes covered under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 n favor of Bernce and
Bentey whe Ben|amns share reverted to hs con|uga ownershp wth Azucena.
The dspostve porton of the tra courts decson reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the marrage of BEN|AMIN BANGAYAN, |R. and SALLY S. GO on March 7, 1982
at Santoan, Pasg, Metro Mana s hereby decared NULL and VOID AB INITIO. It s further
decared NONEXISTENT.
Respondents cam as co-owner or con|uga owner of the thrtyseven (37) propertes under
TCT Nos. 17722, 17723, 17724, 17725, 126397, RT-73480, and RT-86821; n Mana, TCT Nos.
188949, 188950, 188951, 193035, 194620, 194621, 194622, 194623, 194624, 194625,
194626, 194627, 194628, 194629, 194630, 194631, 194632, 194633, 194634, 194635,
194636, 194637, 194638, 194639, 198651, 206209, 206210, 206211, 206213 and 206215 s
DISMISSED for ack of mert. The regstered owners, namey: Ben|amn B. Bangayan, |r.,
Roberto E. Bangayan, Rcardo B. Bangayan and Rodrgo B. Bangayan are the owners to the
excuson of "Say Go" Consequenty, the Regstry of Deeds for Ouezon Cty and Mana are
drected to deete the words "marred to Say Go" from these thrty-seven (37) ttes.
Propertes under TCT Nos. 61722, 61720 and 190860, CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 are propertes
acqured from pettoners money wthout contrbuton from respondent, hence, these are
propertes of the pettoner and hs awfu wfe. Consequenty, pettoner s apponted the
admnstrator of these ve (5) propertes. Respondent s ordered to submt an accountng of
her coectons of ncome from these ve (5) propertes wthn thrty (30) days from notce
hereof. Except for ot under TCT No. 61722, respondent s further drected wthn thrty (30)
days from notce hereof to turn over and surrender contro and possesson of these propertes
ncudng the documents of tte to the pettoner.
On the propertes under TCT Nos. N-193656 and N-253681, these propertes are under co-
ownershp of the partes shared by them equay. However, the share of respondent s
decared FORFEITED n favor of Bernce Go Bangayan and Bentey Go Bangayan. The share of
the pettoner sha beong to hs con|uga ownershp wth Azucena Aegre. The qudaton,
partton and dstrbuton of these two (2) propertes sha be further processed pursuant to
Secton 21 of A.M. No. 02-11-10 of March 15, 2003.
39 | P a g e
Other propertes sha be ad|udcated n a ater proceedng pursuant to Secton 21 of A.M. No.
02-11-10.
Respondents cam of spousa support, chdren support and countercams are DISMISSED for
ack of mert. Further, no decaraton of the status of the partes chdren.
No other reef granted.
Furnsh copy of ths decson to the partes, ther counses, the Tra Prosecutor, the Soctor
Genera and the Regstry of Deeds n Mana, Ouezon Cty and Caoocan.
SO ORDERED.
6
Say ed a Vered and Vgorous Moton for Inhbton wth Moton for Reconsderaton. In ts
Order dated 27 August 2009,
7
the tra court dened the moton. Say appeaed the tra
courts decson before the Court of Appeas.
The Decson of the Court of Appeas
In ts 17 August 2011 Decson, the Court of Appeas party granted the appea. The Court of
Appeas rued that the tra court dd not err n submttng the case for decson. The Court of
Appeas noted that there were sx resettngs of the case, a made at the nstance of Say, for
the nta recepton of evdence, and Say was duy warned to present her evdence on the
next hearng or the case woud be deemed submtted for decson. However, despte the
warnng, Say st faed to present her evdence. She nssted on presentng Ben|amn who
was not around and was not subpoenaed despte the presence of her other wtnesses.
The Court of Appeas re|ected Says aegaton that Ben|amn faed to prove hs acton for
decaraton of nuty of marrage. The Court of Appeas rued that Ben|amns acton was
based on hs pror marrage to Azucena and there was no evdence that the marrage was
annued or dssoved before Ben|amn contracted the second marrage wth Say. The Court
of Appeas rued that the tra court commtted no error n decarng Ben|amns marrage to
Say nu and vod.
The Court of Appeas rued that the property reatons of Ben|amn and Say was governed by
Artce 148 of the Famy Code. The Court of Appeas rued that ony the propertes acqured
by the partes through ther actua |ont contrbuton of money, property or ndustry sha be
owned by them n common n proporton to ther respectve contrbuton. The Court of
Appeas rued that the 37 propertes beng camed by Say rghtfuy beong to Ben|amn and
hs sbngs.
As regards the seven propertes camed by both partes, the Court of Appeas rued that ony
the propertes under TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 regstered n the name of Ben|amn beong
to hm excusvey because he was abe to estabsh that they were acqured by hm soey.
The Court of
Appeas found that the propertes under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 and under CCT Nos.
8782 and 8783 were excusve propertes of Say n the absence of proof of Ben|amns actua
contrbuton n ther purchase. The Court of Appeas rued that the property under TCT No.
61722 regstered n the names of Ben|amn and Say sha be owned by them n common, to
be shared equay. However, the share of Ben|amn sha accrue to the con|uga partnershp
under hs exstng marrage wth Azucena whe Says share sha accrue to her n the
absence of a cear and convncng proof of bad fath.
Fnay, the Court of Appeas rued that Say faed to present cear and convncng evdence
that woud show bas and pre|udce on the part of the tra |udge that woud |ustfy hs
nhbton from the case.
The dspostve porton of the Court of Appeas decson reads:
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, the nstant appea s PARTLY GRANTED. The assaed
Decson and Order dated March 26, 2009 and August 27, 2009, respectvey, of the Regona
Tra Court of Mana, Branch 43, n Cv Case No. 04-109401 are hereby AFFIRMED wth
modcaton decarng TCT Nos. 61720 and 190860 to be excusvey owned by the pettoner-
appeee whe the propertes under TCT Nos. N-193656 and 253681 as we as CCT Nos. 8782
and 8783 sha be soey owned by the respondent-appeant. On the other hand, TCT No.
61722 sha be owned by them and common and to be shared equay but the share of the
pettoner-appeee sha accrue to the con|uga partnershp under hs rst marrage whe the
share of respondent-appeant sha accrue to her. The rest of the decson stands.
SO ORDERED.
8
Say moved for the reconsderaton of the Court of Appeas decson. In ts 14 March 2012
Resouton, the Court of Appeas dened her moton.
Hence, the petton before ths Court.
The Issues
Say rased the foowng ssues before ths Court:
(1) Whether the Court of Appeas commtted a reversbe error n amrmng the tra courts
rung that Say had waved her rght to present evdence;
(2) Whether the Court of Appeas commtted a reversbe error n amrmng the tra courts
decson decarng the marrage between Ben|amn and Say nu and vod ab nto and non-
exstent; and
(3) Whether the Court of Appeas commtted a reversbe error n amrmng wth modcaton
the tra courts decson regardng the property reatons of Ben|amn and Say.
The Rung of ths Court
The petton has no mert.
Waver of Rght to Present Evdence
Say aeges that the Court of Appeas erred n amrmng the tra courts rung that she
waved her rght to present her evdence. Say aeges that n not aowng her to present
evdence that she and Ben|amn were marred, the tra court abandoned ts duty to protect
marrage as an nvoabe nsttuton.
It s we-setted that a grant of a moton for contnuance or postponement s not a matter of
rght but s addressed to the dscreton of the tra court.
9
In ths case, Says presentaton of
evdence was schedued on28 February 2008. Thereafter, there were sx resettngs of the
case: on 10 |uy 2008, 4 and 11 September 2008, 2 and 28 October 2008, and 28 November
2008. They were a made at Says nstance. Before the schedued hearng of 28 November
2008, the tra court warned Say that n case she st faed to present her evdence, the
case woud be submtted for decson. On the date of the schedued hearng, despte the
presence of other avaabe wtnesses, Say nssted on presentng Ben|amn who was not
even subpoenaed on that day. Says counse nssted that the tra court coud not dctate on
the prorty of wtnesses to be presented, dsregardng the tra courts pror warnng due to
the numerous resettngs of the case. Say coud not compan that she had been deprved of
her rght to present her evdence because a the postponements were at her nstance and
she was warned by the tra court that t woud submt the case for decson shoud she st
fa to present her evdence on 28 November 2008.
We agree wth the tra court that by her contnued refusa to present her evdence, she was
deemed to have waved her rght to present them. As ponted out by the Court of Appeas,
Says contnued faure to present her evdence despte the opportuntes gven by the tra
court showed her ack of nterest to proceed wth the case. Further, t was cear that Say was
deayng the case because she was watng for the decson of the Court of Appeas on her
petton questonng the tra courts dena of her demurrer to evdence, despte the fact that
the Court of Appeas dd not ssue any temporary restranng order as Say prayed for. Say
coud not accuse the tra court of fang to protect marrage as an nvoabe nsttuton
because the tra court aso has the duty to ensure that tra proceeds despte the deberate
deay and refusa to proceed by one of the partes.
10
Vadty of the Marrage between Ben|amn and Say
40 | P a g e
Say aeges that both the tra court and the Court of Appeas recognzed her marrage to
Ben|amn because a marrage coud not be nonexstent and, at the same tme, nu and vod
ab nto. Say further aeges that f she were aowed to present her evdence, she woud
have proven her marrage to Ben|amn. To prove her marrage to Ben|amn, Say asked ths
Court to consder that n acqurng rea propertes, Ben|amn sted her as hs wfe by
decarng he was "marred to" her; that Ben|amn was the nformant n ther chdrens brth
certcates where he stated that he was ther father; and that Ben|amn ntroduced her to hs
famy and frends as hs wfe. In contrast, Say cams that there was no rea property
regstered n the names of Ben|amn and Azucena. Say further aeges that Ben|amn was
not the nformant n the brth certcates of hs chdren wth Azucena.
Frst, Ben|amns marrage to Azucena on 10 September 1973 was duy estabshed before the
tra court, evdenced by a certed true copy of ther marrage contract. At the tme Ben|amn
and Say entered nto a purported marrage on 7 March 1982, the marrage between
Ben|amn and Azucena was vad and subsstng.
On the purported marrage of Ben|amn and Say, Teresta Overos (Overos), Regstraton
Omcer II of the Loca Cv Regstrar of Pasg Cty, tested that there was no vad marrage
cense ssued to Ben|amn and Say. Overos conrmed that ony Marrage Lcence Nos.
6648100 to 6648150 were ssued for the month of February 1982. Marrage Lcense No. N-
07568 dd not match the seres ssued for the month. Overos further tested that the oca
cv regstrar of Pasg Cty dd not ssue Marrage Lcense No. N-07568 to Ben|amn and Say.
The certcaton from the oca cv regstrar s adequate to prove the non-ssuance of a
marrage cense and absent any suspcous crcumstance, the certcaton en|oys probatve
vaue, beng ssued by the omcer charged under the aw to keep a record of a data reatve
to the ssuance of a marrage cense.
11
Ceary, f ndeed Ben|amn and Say entered nto a
marrage contract, the marrage was vod from the begnnng for ack of a marrage cense.
12
It was aso estabshed before the tra court that the purported marrage between Ben|amn
and Say was not recorded wth the oca cv regstrar and the Natona Statstcs Omce. The
ack of record was certed by |ueta B. |aver, Regstraton Omcer IV of the Omce of the Loca
Cv Regstrar of the Muncpaty of Pasg;
13
Teresta R. Ignaco, Chef of the Archves Dvson
of the Records Management and Archves Omce, Natona Commsson for Cuture and the
Arts;
14
and Lourdes |. Hufana, Drector III, Cv Regstraton Department of the Natona
Statstcs Omce.
15
The documentary and testmona evdence proved that there was no
marrage between Ben|amn and Say. As ponted out by the tra court, the marrage
between Ben|amn and Say "was made ony n |est"
16
and "a smuated marrage, at the
nstance of Say, ntended to cover her up from expected soca humaton comng from
reatves, frends and the socety especay from her parents seen as Chnese
conservatves."
17
In short, t was a cttous marrage.
The fact that Ben|amn was the nformant n the brth certcates of Bernce and Bentey was
not a proof of the marrage between Ben|amn and Say. Ths Court notes that Ben|amn was
the nformant n Bernces brth certcate whch stated that Ben|amn and Say were marred
on 8 March 1982
18
whe Say was the nformant n Benteys brth certcate whch aso
stated that Ben|amn and Say were marred on 8 March 1982.
19
Ben|amn and Say were
supposedy marred on 7 March 1982 whch dd not match the dates reected on the brth
certcates.
We see no nconsstency n ndng the marrage between Ben|amn and Say nu and vod ab
nto and, at the same tme, non-exstent. Under Artce 35 of the Famy Code, a marrage
soemnzed wthout a cense, except those covered by Artce 34 where no cense s
necessary, "sha be vod from the begnnng." In ths case, the marrage between Ben|amn
and Say was soemnzed wthout a cense. It was duy estabshed that no marrage cense
was ssued to them and that Marrage Lcense No. N-07568 dd not match the marrage
cense numbers ssued by the oca cv regstrar of Pasg Cty for the month of February
1982. The case ceary fas under Secton 3 of Artce 35
20
whch made ther marrage vod ab
nto. The marrage between Ben|amn and Say was aso non-exstent. Appyng the genera
rues on vod or nexstent contracts under Artce 1409 of the Cv Code, contracts whch are
absoutey smuated or cttous are "nexstent and vod from the begnnng."
21
Thus, the
Court of Appeas dd not err n sustanng the tra courts rung that the marrage between
Ben|amn and Say was nu and vod ab nto and non-exstent.
Except for the modcaton n the dstrbuton of propertes, the Court of Appeas amrmed n
a aspects the tra courts decson and rued that "the rest of the decson stands."
22
Whe
the Court of Appeas dd not dscuss bgamous marrages, t can be geaned from the
dspostve porton of the decson decarng that "the rest of the decson stands" that the
Court of Appeas adopted the tra courts dscusson that the marrage between Ben|amn
and Say s not bgamous.*Fwphi* The tra court stated:
On whether or not the partes marrage s bgamous under the concept of Artce 349 of the
Revsed Pena Code, the marrage s not bgamous. It s requred that the rst or former
marrage sha not be nu and vod. The marrage of the pettoner to Azucena sha be
assumed as the one that s vad, there beng no evdence to the contrary and there s no
trace of nvadty or rreguarty on the face of ther marrage contract. However, f the
second marrage was vod not because of the exstence of the rst marrage but for other
causes such as ack of cense, the crme of bgamy was not commtted. In Peope v. De Lara
|CA, 51 O.G., 4079|, t was hed that what was commtted was contractng marrage aganst
the provsons of aws not under Artce 349 but Artce 350 of the Revsed Pena Code.
Concudng, the marrage of the partes s therefore not bgamous because there was no
marrage cense. The darng and repeated stand of respondent that she s egay marred to
pettoner cannot, n any nstance, be sustaned. Assumng that her marrage to pettoner has
the marrage cense, yet the same woud be bgamous, cvy or crmnay as t woud be
nvadated by a pror exstng vad marrage of pettoner and Azucena.
23
For bgamy to exst, the second or subsequent marrage must have a the essenta requstes
for vadty except for the exstence of a pror marrage.
24
In ths case, there was reay no
subsequent marrage. Ben|amn and Say |ust sgned a purported marrage contract wthout
a marrage cense. The supposed marrage was not recorded wth the oca cv regstrar and
the Natona Statstcs Omce. In short, the marrage between Ben|amn and Say dd not exst.
They ved together and represented themseves as husband and wfe wthout the benet of
marrage.
Property Reatons Between Ben|amn and Say
The Court of Appeas correcty rued that the property reatons of Ben|amn and Say s
governed by Artce 148 of the Famy Code whch states:
Art. 148. In cases of cohabtaton not fang under the precedng Artce, ony the propertes
acqured by both of the partes through ther actua |ont contrbuton of money, property, or
ndustry sha be owned by them n common n proporton to ther respectve contrbutons. In
the absence of proof to the contrary, ther contrbutons and correspondng shares are
presumed to be equa. The same rue and presumpton sha appy to |ont deposts of money
and evdences of credt.
If one of the partes s vady marred to another, hs or her share n the co-ownershp sha
accrue to the absoute communty of con|uga partnershp exstng n such vad marrage. If
the party who acted n bad fath s not vady marred to another, hs or her share sha be
forfeted n the manner provded n the ast paragraph of the precedng Artce.
The foregong rues on forfeture sha kewse appy even f both partes are n bad fath.
Ben|amn and Say cohabtated wthout the benet of marrage. Thus, ony the propertes
acqured by them through ther actua |ont contrbuton of money, property, or ndustry sha
41 | P a g e
be owned by them n common n proporton to ther respectve contrbutons. Thus, both the
tra court and the Court of Appeas correcty excuded the 37 propertes beng camed by
Say whch were gven by Ben|amns father to hs chdren as advance nhertance. Says
Answer to the petton before the tra court even admtted that "Ben|amns ate father
hmsef conveyed a number of propertes to hs chdren and ther respectve spouses whch
ncuded Say x x x."
25
As regards the seven remanng propertes, we rue that the decson of the Court of Appeas
s more n accord wth the evdence on record. Ony the property covered by TCT No. 61722
was regstered n the names of Ben|amn and Say as spouses.
26
The propertes under TCT
Nos. 61720 and 190860 were n the name of Ben|amn
27
wth the descrptve tte "marred to
Say." The property covered by CCT Nos. 8782 and 8783 were regstered n the name of
Say
28
wth the descrptve tte "marred to Ben|amn" whe the propertes under TCT Nos. N-
193656 and 253681 were regstered n the name of Say as a snge ndvdua. We have
rued that the words "marred to" precedng the name of a spouse are merey descrptve of
the cv status of the regstered owner.
29
Such words do not prove co-ownershp. Wthout
proof of actua contrbuton from ether or both spouses, there can be no co-ownershp under
Artce 148 of the Famy Code.
30
Inhbton of the Tra |udge
Say questons the refusa of |udge Roy G. Gronea (|udge Gronea) to nhbt hmsef from
hearng the case. She cted the faure of |udge Gronea to accommodate her n presentng
her evdence. She further aeged that |udge Gronea practcay abeed her as an
opportunst n hs decson, showng hs partaty aganst her and n favor of Ben|amn.
We have rued that the ssue of vountary nhbton s prmary a matter of conscence and
sound dscreton on the part of the |udge.
31
To |ustfy the ca for nhbton, there must be
extrnsc evdence to estabsh bas, bad fath, mace, or corrupt purpose, n addton to
papabe error whch may be nferred from the decson or order tsef.
32
In ths case, we have
sumcenty expaned that |udge Gronea dd not err n submttng the case for decson
because of Says contnued refusa to present her evdence.
We revewed the decson of the tra court and whe |udge Gronea may have used
uncompmentary words n wrtng the decson, they are not enough to prove hs pre|udce
aganst Say or show that he acted n bad fath n decdng the case that woud |ustfy the ca
for hs vountary nhbton.
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 17 August 2011 Decson and the 14 March 2012 Resouton of
the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 94226.
NOLLORA VS REPU#LIC
Posted by kaye ee on 7:00 PM
G.R. No. 191425 September 7, 2011 |Artce 349 Revsed Pena Code - Bgamy; Artce 35 -
Marrage vod ab nto|
FACTS:
Whe |esusa Pnat Noora was st n Saud Araba, she heard rumors that her husband of two
years has another wfe. She returned to the Phppnes and earned that ndeed, Atano O.
Noora, |r., contracted second marrage wth a certan Rowena Geradno on December 8,
2001.
|esusa ed an nstant case aganst Atano and Rowena for bgamy. When asked about the
mora damages she suhered, she decared that money s not enough to assuage her
suherngs. Instead, she |ust asked for return of her money n the amount of P 50,000.
Atano admtted havng contracted 2 marrages, however, he camed that he was a Musm
convert way back to 1992. He presented Certcate of Converson and Pedge of Converson,
provng that he aegedy converted as a Musm n |anuary 1992. And as a Musm convert, he
s aegedy entted to marry wves as aowed under the Isam beef.
Accused Rowena aeged that she was a vctm of bgamous marrage. She camed that she
does not know |esusa and ony came to know her when the case was ed. She nssted that
she s the one awfuy marred to Noora because she beeved hm to be snge and a
Cathoc, as he tod her so pror to ther marrage. After she earned of the rst marrage of
her husband, she earned that he s a Musm convert. After earnng that Noora was a
Musm convert, she and he aso got marred n accordance wth the Musm rtes.
ISSUE+
Whether or not the second marrage s bgamous.
RULIN1+
Yes, the marrage between the Noora and Geradno s bgamous under Artce 349 of the
Revsed Pena Code, and as such, the second marrage s consdered nu and vod ab nto
under Artce 35 of the Famy Code.
The eements of the crme of bgamy are a present n the case: that 1) Atano s egay
marred to |esusa; 2) that ther marrage has not been egay dssoved pror to the date of
the second marrage; 3)that Atano admtted the exstence of hs second marrage to
Rowena; and 4) the second marrage has a the essenta requstes for vadty except for the
ack of capacty of Atano due to hs pror marrage.
Before the tra and appeate courts, Atano put up hs Musm regon as hs soe defense.
Grantng arguendo that he s ndeed of Musm fath at the tme of ceebraton of both
marrages, he cannot deny that both marrage ceremones were not conducted n accordance
wth Artces 14, 15, 17 up to 20 of the Code of Musm Persona Laws .
In Artce 13 (2) of the Code of Musm Persona Laws states that any marrage between a
Musm and a non-Musm soemnzed not n accordance wth the Musm aw, hence the
Famy Code of the Phppnes sha appy. Noora's regous amaton or hs cam that hs
marrages were soemnzed accordng to Musm aw. Thus, regardess of hs professed
regon, he cannot cam exempton from abty for the crme of bgamy.
Hs second marrage dd not compy wth the Artce 27 of the Musm Persona Laws of the
Phppnes provdng: "|N|o Musm mae can have more than one wfe uness he can dea
wth them n equa companonshp and |ust treatment as en|oned by Isamc Law and ony n
exceptona cases." Ony wth the permsson of the Shar'a Crcut Court can a Musm be
permtted to have a second, thrd or fourth wfe. The cerk of court sha serve a copy to the
wfe or wves, and shoud any of them ob|ects, an Agama Arbtraton Counc sha be
consttuted. If the sad counc fas to secure the wfe's consent to the proposed marrage, the
Court sha sub|ect to Artce 27, decde whether on not to sustan her ob|ecton (Art. 162,
Musm Persona Laws)
Atano asserted n hs marrage certcate wth Rowena that hs cv status s "snge." Both
of hs marrage contracts do not state that he s a Musm. Athough the truth or fasehood of
42 | P a g e
the decaraton of one's regon n the marrage s not an essenta requrement for marrage,
hs omssons are sumcent proofs of hs abty for bgamy. Hs fase decaraton about hs
cv status s thus further compounded by these omssons.
It s not for hm to nterpret the Shar'a aw, and n apparent attempt to escape crmna
abty, he receebrated ther marrage n accordance wth the Musm rtes. However, ths
can no onger cure the crmna abty that has aready been voated.
_____________
1.R. N(. 1304 Ju), 1, 4011
ATTY. MARIETTA D. 9AMORANOS, Pettoner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES $)*
SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Respondents.
1.R. N(. 130"
ATTY. MARIETTA D. 9AMORANOS, Pettoner, vs.SAMSON R. PACASUM,
SR., Respondent.
1.R. N(. 1B02?
SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., Pettoner, vs.ATTY. MARIETTA D.
9AMORANOS, Respondent.
Facts:
These are three (3) consodated pettons for revew on certorar under Rue 45, assang the
Decson dated |uy 30, 2010 of the Court of Appeas (CA), dsmssng the petton for
certorar ed by pettoner Atty. Maretta D. Zamoranos (Zamoranos), thus, amrmng the
Order of the Regona Tra Court (RTC), Lanao de Norte for Bgamy ed by pettoner Samson
R. Pacasum, Sr.
On May 3, 1982, Zamoranos wed |esus de Guzman, a Musm convert, n Isamc rtes. Pror
thereto, Zamoranos was a Roman Cathoc who had converted to Isam on Apr 28, 1982.
Subsequenty, on |uy 30, 1982, the two wed agan, ths tme, n cv rtes before |udge
Perfecto Laguo (Laguo) of the RTC, Ouezon Cty.
A tte after a year, on December 18, 1983, Zamoranos and De Guzman obtaned a dvorce
by taaq. The court hed that after evauatng the testmones of the partes, t s fuy
convnced that both the companant and the respondent have been duy converted to the
fath of Isam pror to ther Musm weddng and ndng that there s no more possbty of
reconcaton by and between them, hereby ssues ths decree of dvorce. Consequenty, the
marrage between Maretta (Maram) D. Zamoranos de Guzman and |esus (Mohamad) de
Guzman was dssoved by the Shara Crcut Dstrct Court n Isabea, Basan.
Zamoranos marred anew on December 20, 1989. As she had prevousy done n her rst
nupta to De Guzman, Zamoranos wed Samson Pacasum, Sr. (Pacasum), her subordnate at
the Bureau of Customs where she worked, under Isamc rtes and n order to strengthen the
tes of ther marrage, Zamoranos and Pacasum renewed ther marrage vows n a cv
ceremony.
Zamoranos and Pacasum were then de facto separated. Pacasum ed cases for the
annument of ther marrage, crmna case for bgamy and an admnstratve case for
dsbarment aganst Zamoranos. Pacasum contracted a second marrage. The prosecutor
found prma face evdence to hod Zamoranos abe for Bgamy but the same was thereafter
dsmssed upon a moton for reconsderaton ed by Zamboranos.
Pacasum ed a Petton for Revew before the Omce of the Secretary of |ustce assang the
dsmssa of the compant for bgamy. The DO| Secretary granted the petton and reversed
the dsmssa. Zamoranos mmedatey ed an Omnbus Moton and Suppement to the
Urgent Omnbus Moton: (1) for Reconsderaton; (2) to Hod n Abeyance Fng of the Instant
Case; and (3) to Hod n Abeyance or Ouash Warrant of Arrestbefore the Secretary of
|ustce. Unfortunatey for Zamoranos, her twn motons were dened by the Secretary of
|ustce n a resouton.Zamoranos second moton for reconsderaton, as wth her prevous
motons, was kewse dened.
On the other cv tgaton front on the Decaraton of a Vod Marrage, the ower court
rendered a decson n favor of Zamoranos, dsmssng the petton of Pacasum for ack of
|ursdcton. The court found that Zamoranos and De Guzman are Musms, and were such at
the tme of ther marrage, whose marta reatonshp was governed by Presdenta Decree
(P.D.) No. 1083, otherwse known as the Code of Musm Persona Laws of the Phppnes,
whch provdes that the Shara Crcut Courts sha have excusve orgna |ursdcton over
the same. And any dvorce proceedng undertaken before the Shar|a| Court s vad,
recognzed, bndng and sumcent dvorce proceedngs.
The court hed that the amrmatve defenses whch are n the nature of moton to dsmss s
hereby granted. The CA and the SC amrmed the dsmssa and the same became na and
executory and was recorded n the Book of Entres of |udgments.
The RTC of Igan, upon moton of Pacasum, ssued an Order renstatng crmna case for
Bgamy aganst Zamoranos.
Zamoranos ed a Moton to Ouash the Informaton, argung that the RTC had no |ursdcton
over her person and over the ohense charged. Zamoranos asseverated, n the man, that the
decson of the RTCcategorcay decared her and Pacasum as Musms, resutng n the
mootness and the nappcabty of the RPC provson on Bgamy to her marrage to Pacasum
and prayed for the dsmssa of the case.
The moton to quash and moton for reconsderaton ed by Zamoranos was dened. She
then ed a petton for certorar for the nucaton and reversa of the order of the RTC. The
CA dsmssed Zamoranos petton. The CA dwet on the proprety of a petton for certorar to
assa the dena of a Moton to Ouash the Informaton. She now comes to the SC n a petton
for certorar aegng grave abuse of dscreton.
Issu,+
Whether or not an appea s a egay permssbe remedy n an order denyng a moton to
quash.
H,.*+
No. The Court granted the petton for certorar and granted the moton to quash ed by
Zamoranos.The dena of a moton to quash, as n the case at bar, s not appeaabe. It s an
nterocutory order whch cannot be the sub|ect of an appea.
Moreover, t s setted that a speca cv acton for certorar and prohbton s not the proper
remedy to assa the dena of a moton to quash nformaton. The estabshed rue s that,
when such an adverse nterocutory order s rendered, the remedy s not to resort forthwth to
certorar or prohbton, but to contnue wth the case n due course and, when an
unfavorabe verdct s handed down, to take an appea n the manner authorzed by aw.
However, on a number of occasons, we have recognzed that n certan stuatons, certorar
s consdered an approprate remedy to assa an nterocutory order, speccay the dena of
a moton to quash. We have recognzed the proprety of the foowng exceptons: (a) when
the court ssued the order wthout or n excess of |ursdcton or wth grave abuse of
dscreton; (b) when the nterocutory order s patenty erroneous and the remedy of appea
woud not ahord adequate and expedtous reef; (c) n the nterest of a "more enghtened
and substanta |ustce"; (d) to promote pubc wefare and pubc pocy;and (e) when the
cases "have attracted natonwde attenton, makng t essenta to proceed wth dspatch n
the consderaton thereof." The rst four of the foregong exceptons occur n ths nstance.
Contrary to the asseveratons of the CA, the RTC, Branch 6, Igan Cty, commtted an error of
|ursdcton, not smpy an error of |udgment, n denyng Zamoranos moton to quash.
43 | P a g e
As a rue, certorar es when: (1) a trbuna, board, or omcer exercses |udca or quas-
|udca functons; (2) the trbuna, board, or omcer has acted wthout or n excess of ts or hs
|ursdcton, or wth grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton; and
(3) there s no appea, or any pan, speedy, and adequate remedy n the ordnary course of
aw.
The wrt of certorar serves to keep an nferor court wthn the bounds of ts |ursdcton or to
prevent t from commttng such a grave abuse of dscreton amountng to excess or ack of
|ursdcton, or to reeve partes from arbtrary acts of courts-acts whch courts have no
power or authorty n aw to perform.
True, the Shara Crcut Court s not vested wth |ursdcton over ohenses penazed under
the RPC. Certany, the RTC, Branch 6, Igan Cty, s correct when t decared that:
The Regona Tra Courts are vested the excusve and orgna |ursdcton n a crmna cases
not wthn the excusve orgna |ursdcton of any court, trbuna, or body. |Sec. 20 (b), BP
Bg. 129| The Code of Musm Persona Laws (PD 1083) created the Shara Dstrct Courts and
Shara Crcut Courts wth mted |ursdcton. Nether court was vested |ursdcton over
crmna prosecuton of voatons of the Revsed Pena Code. There s nothng n PD 1083 that
dvested the Regona Tra Courts of ts |ursdcton to try and decde cases of bgamy. Hence,
ths Court has |ursdcton over ths case.
Nonetheess, t must be ponted out that even n crmna cases, the tra court must have
|ursdcton over the sub|ect matter of the ohense. In ths case, the charge of Bgamy hnges
on Pacasums cam that Zamoranos s not a Musm, and her marrage to De Guzman was
governed by cv aw. Ths s obvousy far from the truth, and the fact of Zamoranos Musm
status shoud have been apparent to both ower courts, the RTC, Branch 6, Igan Cty, and the
CA.
The sub|ect matter of the ohense of Bgamy dwes on the accused contractng a second
marrage whe a pror vad one st subssts and has yet to be dssoved. At the very east,
the RTC, Branch 6, Igan Cty, shoud have suspended the proceedngs unt Pacasum had
tgated the vadty of Zamoranos and De Guzmans marrage before the Shara Crcut
Court and had successfuy shown that t had not been dssoved despte the dvorce by taaq
entered nto by Zamoranos and De Guzman.
Zamoranos was correct n ng the petton for certorar before the CA when her berty was
aready n |eopardy wth the contnuaton of the crmna proceedngs aganst her.
In a purast socety such as that whch exsts n the Phppnes, P.D. No. 1083, or the Code of
Musm Persona Laws, was enacted to "promote the advancement and ehectve partcpaton
of the Natona Cutura Communtes x x x, |and| the State sha consder ther customs,
tradtons, beefs and nterests n the formuaton and mpementaton of ts poces."
Tryng Zamoranos for Bgamy smpy because the reguar crmna courts have |ursdcton
over the ohense defeats the purpose for the enactment of the Code of Musm Persona Laws
and the equa recognton bestowed by the State on Musm Fpnos.
If both partes are Musms, there s a presumpton that the Musm Code or Musm aw s
comped wth. If together wth t or n addton to t, the marrage s kewse soemnzed n
accordance wth the Cv Code of the Phppnes, n a so-caed combned Musm-Cv
marrage rtes whchever comes rst s the vadatng rte and the second rte s merey
ceremona one. But, n ths case, as ong as both partes are Musms, ths Musm Code w
appy. In ehect, two stuatons w arse, n the appcaton of ths Musm Code or Musm aw,
that s, when both partes are Musms and when the mae party s a Musm and the marrage
s soemnzed n accordance wth Musm Code or Musm aw. A thrd stuaton occur|s| when
the Cv Code of the Phppnes w govern the marrage and dvorce of the partes, f the
mae party s a Musm and the marrage s soemnzed n accordance wth the Cv Code.
One of the ehects of rrevocabe taaq, as we as other knds of dvorce, refers to severance
of matrmona bond, enttng one to remarry.It stands to reason therefore that Zamoranos
dvorce from De Guzman, as conrmed by an Ustadz and |udge |anu of the Shara Crcut
Court, and attested to by |udge Usman, was vad, and, thus, entted her to remarry Pacasum
n 1989. Consequenty, the RTC, Branch 6, Igan Cty, s wthout |ursdcton to try Zamoranos
for the crme of Bgamy.
___________
Mori+o vs. 8eo'le
GR No. 1>622,, 1e5ruary ,, 200>
FACTS+
Luco Morgo and Luca Barrete were boardmates n Boho. They ost contacts for a whe but
after recevng a card from Barrete and varous exchanges of etters, they became
sweethearts. They got marred n 1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work and n 1991
she ed petton for dvorce n Ontaro Canada, whch was granted. In 1992, Morgo marred
Lumbago. He subsequenty ed a compant for |udca decaraton of nuty on the ground
that there was no marrage ceremony. Morgo was then charged wth bgamy and moved for
a suspenson of arragnment snce the cv case pendng posed a pre|udca queston n the
bgamy case. Morgo peaded not guty camng that hs marrage wth Barrete was vod ab
nto. Pettoner contented he contracted second marrage n good fath.
ISSUE+ Whether Morgo must have ed decaraton for the nuty of hs marrage wth
Barrete before hs second marrage n order to be free from the bgamy case.
HELD+
Morgos marrage wth Barrete s vod ab nto consderng that there was no actua marrage
ceremony performed between them by a soemnzng omcer nstead they |ust merey sgned
a marrage contract. The pettoner does not need to e decaraton of the nuty of hs
marrage when he contracted hs second marrage wth Lumbago. Hence, he dd not commt
bgamy and s acqutted n the case ed.
__________
I CANNOT FIND CAPILE VS PEOPLE
NNNNNNNNNNNN
ICTORIA S. JARILLO 0 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE S1.R. N(. 1!BB3?, 4 S,;t,56,'
400, THIRD DIVISION >P,'$.t$, J .@
Vctora |aro, pettoner, and Rafae Aoco were marred n a cv weddng ceremony n Tag
ug, Rza n 1974. Both newyweds
ceebrated a second weddng, ths tme a church ceremony, n1975 n San Caros Cty,
Pangasnan. Out of the unon, the spouses bore a daughter. |aro, however,contracted a
subsequent marrage wth Emmanue Ebora Santos Uy ceebrated through a cv
ceremony. Thereafter, |aro and Uy exchanged marta vows n a church weddng
n Mana. In 1999, Uy ed acv case for annument aganst |aro. On the bass of the
foregong, |aro was charged wth Bgamy before the RTC. Parenthetcay, |aro ed a cv
case for decaraton of nuty of marrage aganst Aoco n 2000. The tra court rendered
the assaed decson, hodng |aro guty beyond reasonabe doubt of the crme of
bgamy. |aro posts, as defenses, that her marrage to Aoco were nu and vod because
Aoco was aegedy st marred to a certan Loretta Tman at the tme of the ceebraton of
44 | P a g e
ther marrage, that her marrages to Aoco and Uy were both nu and vod for ack of a
marrage cense, and that the acton had prescrbed, snce Uy knew about her marrage to
Aoco. On Appea, the CA conrmed the rung of the tra court. In the meantme, the RTC
where |aro ed a cv case aganst Aoco rendered |udgment decarng |aros marrage
to Aoco nu and vod ab nto on the ground of Aocos
psychoogca ncapacty. |aro, n her moton for reconsderaton, nvoked the rung of the
tra court as a ground for the reversa of her convcton. In a Resouton by the CA, the atter
dened reconsderaton.
ISSUE+
Whether or not |aro can be convcted of the crme of bgamy
HELD+
Pettoners convcton of the crme of bgamy must be amrmed. The subsequent |udca
decaraton of nuty of pettoners two marrages to Aoco cannot be consdered a vad
defense n the
crme of bgamy. The moment pettoner contracted a second marrage wthout the prevous
one havng been |udcay decared nu and vod, the crme of bgamy was aready
consummated because at the tme of the ceebraton of the second marrage, pettoners
marrage to Aoco, whch had not yet been decared nu and vod by a court of competent
second marrage, pettoners marrage to Aoco, whch had not yet been decared nu and
vod by a court of competent |ursdcton, was deemed vad and subsstng. Nether woud a
|udca decaraton of the nuty of pettoners marrage to |ursdcton, was deemed vad
and subsstng. Nether woud a |udca decaraton of the nuty of pettoners marrage
to Uy make any dherence. As hed nTenebro, "|s|nce a marrage contracted durng the
subsst
ence of a vad marrage sautomatcay vod, the nuty of ths second marrage s not per se
an argument for the avodance
of crmna abty for bgamy. x x x A pan readng of |Artce 349 of the Revsed Pena Code|
,therefore, woud ndcate that the provson penazes the mere act of contracting a second
or subse4uent marriage during the subsistence of a .alid marriage ."
___________
1.R. N(. 1"2"0 O%t(6,' 1!, 4013
REPU#LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Pettoner,
vs. LI#ERTY D. AL#IOS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDO9A, J.:
Ths s a petton for revew on certorar under Rue 45 of the Rues t of Court assang the
September 29, 2011 Decson
1
of the Court of Appeas (CA), n CA-G.R. CV No. 95414, whch
amrmed the Apr 25, 2008Decson
2
of the Regona Tra Court, Imus, Cavte (RTC). decarng
the marrage of Dane Lee Frnger (Frnger) and respondent Lberty Abos (A/bos) as vod
from the begnnng.
The facts
On October 22, 2004, Frnger, an Amercan ctzen, and Abos were marred before |udge
Ofea I. Cao of the Metropotan Tra Court, Branch59, Mandauyong Cty (MeTC), as
evdenced by a Certcate of Marrage wth Regster No. 2004-1588.
3
On December 6, 2006, Abos ed wth the RTC a petton for decaraton of nuty 4 of her
marrage wth Frnger. She aeged that mmedatey after ther marrage, they separated and
never ved as husband and wfe because they never reay had any ntenton of enterng nto
a marred state or compyng wth any of ther essenta marta obgatons. She descrbed
ther marrage as one made n |est and, therefore, nu and vod ab nto .
Summons was served on Frnger but he dd not e hs answer. On September 13, 2007,
Abos ed a moton to set case for pre-tra and to admt her pre-tra bref. The RTC ordered
the Assstant Provnca Prosecutor to conduct an nvestgaton and determne the exstence
of a couson. On October 2, 2007, the Assstant Prosecutor comped and reported that she
coud not make a determnaton for faure of both partes to appear at the schedued
nvestgaton.
At the pre-tra, ony Abos, her counse and the prosecutor appeared. Frnger dd not attend
the hearng despte beng duy noted of the schedue. After the pre-tra, hearng on the
merts ensued.
Rung of the RTC
In ts Apr 25, 2008 Decson,
5
the RTC decared the marrage vod ab nto, the dspostve
porton of whch reads:
WHEREFORE, premses consdered, |udgment s hereby rendered decarng the marrage of
Lberty Abos and Dane Lee Frnger as vod from the very begnnng. As a necessary
consequence of ths pronouncement, pettoner sha cease usng the surname of respondent
as she never acqured any rght over t and so as to avod a msmpresson that she remans
the wfe of respondent.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.
6
The RTC was of the vew that the partes marred each other for convenence ony. Gvng
credence to the testmony of Abos, t stated that she contracted Frnger to enter nto a
marrage to enabe her to acqure Amercan ctzenshp; that n consderaton thereof, she
agreed to pay hm the sum of $2,000.00; that after the ceremony, the partes went ther
separate ways; that Frnger returned to the Unted States and never agan communcated
wth her; and that, n turn, she dd not pay hm the $2,000.00 because he never processed
her petton for ctzenshp. The RTC, thus, rued that when marrage was entered nto for a
purpose other than the estabshment of a con|uga and famy fe, such was a farce and
shoud not be recognzed from ts ncepton.
Pettoner Repubc of the Phppnes, represented by the Omce of the Soctor Genera (OSG),
ed a moton for reconsderaton. The RTC ssued the Order, 7 dated February 5, 2009,
denyng the moton for want of mert. It expaned that the marrage was decared vod
because the partes faed to freey gve ther consent to the marrage as they had no
ntenton to be egay bound by t and used t ony as a means to acqure Amercan
ctzenshp n consderaton of $2,000.00.
Not n conformty, the OSG ed an appea before the CA.
Rung of the CA
In ts assaed decson, dated September 29, 2011, the CA amrmed the RTC rung whch
found that the essenta requste of consent was ackng. The CA stated that the partes
ceary dd not understand the nature and consequence of gettng marred and that ther case
was smar to a marrage n |est. It further expaned that the partes never ntended to enter
nto the marrage contract and never ntended to ve as husband and wfe or bud a famy. It
concuded that ther purpose was prmary for persona gan, that s, for Abos to obtan
foregn ctzenshp, and for Frnger, the consderaton of $2,000.00.
Hence, ths petton.
Assgnment of Error
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A OUESTION OF LAWWHEN IT HELD THAT A MARRIAGE
CONTRACTED FOR THEPURPOSE OF OBTAINING FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WAS DONEIN |EST,
HENCE, LACKING IN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OFCONSENT.
8
45 | P a g e
The OSG argues that abet the ntenton was for Abos to acqure Amercan ctzenshp and
for Frnger to be pad $2,000.00, both partes freey gave ther consent to the marrage, as
they knowngy and wngy entered nto that marrage and knew the benets and
consequences of beng bound by t. Accordng to the OSG, consent shoud be dstngushed
from motve, the atter beng nconsequenta to the vadty of marrage.
The OSG aso argues that the present case does not fa wthn the concept of a marrage n
|est. The partes here ntentonay consented to enter nto a rea and vad marrage, for f t
were otherwse, the purpose of Abos to acqure Amercan ctzenshp woud be rendered
fute.
On October 29, 2012, Abos ed her Comment
9
to the petton, reteratng her stand that her
marrage was smar to a marrage by way of |est and, therefore, vod from the begnnng.
On March 22, 2013, the OSG ed ts Repy
10
reteratng ts arguments n ts petton for revew
on certorar.
Rung of the Court
The resouton of ths case hnges on ths soe queston of aw: Is a marrage, contracted for
the soe purpose of acqurng Amercan ctzenshp n consderaton of $2,000.00, vod ab
nto on the ground of ack of consent?
The Court resoves n the negatve.
Before the Court deves nto ts rung, It sha rst examne the phenomenon of marrage
fraud for the purposes of mmgraton.
Marrage Fraud n Immgraton
The nsttuton of marrage carres wth t concomtant benets. Ths has ed to the
deveopment of marrage fraud for the soe purpose of avang of partcuar benets. In the
Unted States, marrages where a coupe marres ony to acheve a partcuar purpose or
acqure specc benets, have been referred to as "mted purpose" marrages.
11
A common
mted purpose marrage s one entered nto soey for the egtmzaton of a chd.
12
Another,
whch s the sub|ect of the present case, s for mmgraton purposes. Immgraton aw s
usuay concerned wth the ntenton of the coupe at the tme of ther marrage,
13
and t
attempts to ter out those who use marrage soey to acheve mmgraton status.
14
In 1975, the semna case of Bark v. Immgraton and Naturazaton Servce,
15
estabshed the
prncpa test for determnng the presence of marrage fraud n mmgraton cases. It rued
that a "marrage s a sham f the brde and groom dd not ntend to estabsh a fe together at
the tme they were marred. "Ths standard was moded wth the passage of the Immgraton
Marrage Fraud Amendment of 1986 (IMFA), whch now requres the coupe to nstead
demonstrate that the marrage was not "entered nto for the purpose of evadng the
mmgraton aws of the Unted States." The focus, thus, shfted from determnng the
ntenton to estabsh a fe together, to determnng the ntenton of evadng mmgraton
aws.
16
It must be noted, however, that ths standard s used purey for mmgraton purposes
and, therefore, does not purport to rue on the ega vadty or exstence of a marrage.
The queston that then arses s whether a marrage decared as a sham or frauduent for the
mted purpose of mmgraton s aso egay vod and n exstent. The eary cases on mted
purpose marrages n the Unted States made no dentve rung. In 1946, the notabe case
of
Unted States v. Rubensten
17
was promugated, wheren n order to aow an aen to stay n
the country, the partes had agreed to marry but not to ve together and to obtan a dvorce
wthn sx months. The Court, through |udge Learned Hand, rued that a marrage to convert
temporary nto permanent permsson to stay n the country was not a marrage, there beng
no consent, to wt:
x x x But, that asde, Sptz and Sander were never marred at a. Mutua consent s
necessary to every contract; and no matter what forms or ceremones the partes may go
through ndcatng the contrary, they do not contract f they do not n fact assent, whch may
aways be proved. x x x Marrage s no excepton to ths rue: a marrage n |est s not a
marrage at a. x x x It s qute true that a marrage wthout subsequent consummaton w
be vad; but f the spouses agree to a marrage ony for the sake of representng t as such to
the outsde word and wth the understandng that they w put an end to t as soon as t has
served ts purpose to deceve, they have never reay agreed to be marred at a. They must
assent to enter nto the reaton as t s ordnary understood, and t s not ordnary
understood as merey a pretence, or cover, to deceve others.
18
(Itacs supped)
On the other end of the spectrum s the 1969 case of Mprs v. Heenc Lnes,
19
whch
decared as vad a marrage entered nto soey for the husband to gan entry to the Unted
States, statng that a vad marrage coud not be avoded "merey because the marrage was
entered nto for a mted purpose."
20
The 1980 mmgraton case of Matter of McKee,
21
further
recognzed that a frauduent or sham marrage was ntrnscay dherent from a non
subsstng one.
Nufyng these mted purpose marrages for ack of consent has, therefore, been recognzed
as probematc. The probem beng that n order to obtan an mmgraton benet, a ega
marrage s rst necessary.
22
At present, Unted States courts have generay dened
annuments nvovng" mted purpose" marrages where a coupe marred ony to acheve a
partcuar purpose, and have uphed such marrages as vad.
23
The Court now turns to the case at hand.
Respondents marrage not vod
In decarng the respondents marrage vod, the RTC rued that when a marrage was entered
nto for a purpose other than the estabshment of a con|uga and famy fe, such was a farce
and shoud not be recognzed from ts ncepton. In ts resouton denyng the OSGs moton
for reconsderaton, the RTC went on to expan that the marrage was decared vod because
the partes faed to freey gve ther consent to the marrage as they had no ntenton to be
egay bound by t and used t ony as a means for the respondent to acqure Amercan
ctzenshp. Agreeng wth the RTC, the CA rued that the essenta requste of consent was
ackng. It hed that the partes ceary dd not understand the nature and consequence of
gettng marred. As n the Rubensten case, the CA found the marrage to be smar to a
marrage n |est consderng that the partes ony entered nto the marrage for the acquston
of Amercan ctzenshp n exchange of $2,000.00. They never ntended to enter nto a
marrage contract and never ntended to ve as husband and wfe or bud a famy.
The CAs assaed decson was, therefore, grounded on the partes supposed ack of consent.
Under Artce 2 of the Famy Code, consent s an essenta requste of marrage. Artce 4 of
the same Code provdes that the absence of any essenta requste sha render a marrage
vod ab nto.
Under sad Artce 2, for consent to be vad, t must be (1) freey gven and (2) made n the
presence of a soemnzng omcer. A "freey gven" consent requres that the contractng
partes wngy and deberatey enter nto the marrage. Consent must be rea n the sense
that t s not vtated nor rendered defectve by any of the vces of consent under Artces45
and 46 of the Famy Code, such as fraud, force, ntmdaton, and undue nuence.
24
Consent
must aso be conscous or ntegent, n that the partes must be capabe of ntegenty
understandng the nature of, and both the beneca or unfavorabe consequences of ther
act.
25
Ther understandng shoud not be ahected by nsanty, ntoxcaton, drugs, or
hypnotsm.
26
Based on the above, consent was not ackng between Abos and Frnger. In fact, there was
rea consent because t was not vtated nor rendered defectve by any vce of consent. Ther
consent was aso conscous and ntegent as they understood the nature and the beneca
46 | P a g e
and nconvenent consequences of ther marrage, as nothng mpared ther abty to do so.
That ther consent was freey gven s best evdenced by ther conscous purpose of acqurng
Amercan ctzenshp through marrage. Such pany demonstrates that they wngy and
deberatey contracted the marrage. There was a cear ntenton to enter nto a rea and
vad marrage so as to fuy compy wth the requrements of an appcaton for ctzenshp.
There was a fu and compete understandng of the ega te that woud be created between
them, snce t was that precse ega te whch was necessary to accompsh ther goa.
In rung that Abos marrage was vod for ack of consent, the CA characterzed such as akn
to a marrage by way of |est. A marrage n |est s a pretended marrage, ega n form but
entered nto as a |oke, wth no rea ntenton of enterng nto the actua marrage status, and
wth a cear understandng that the partes woud not be bound. The ceremony s not foowed
by any conduct ndcatng a purpose to enter nto such a reaton.
27
It s a pretended marrage
not ntended to be rea and wth no ntenton to create any ega tes whatsoever, hence, the
absence of any genune consent. Marrages n |est are vod ab nto, not for vtated,
defectve, or unntegent consent, but for a compete absence of consent. There s no
genune consent because the partes have absoutey no ntenton of beng bound n any way
or for any purpose.
The respondents marrage s not at a anaogous to a marrage n |est.*Fwphi* Abos and
Frnger had an undenabe ntenton to be bound n order to create the very bond necessary
to aow the respondent to acqure Amercan ctzenshp. Ony a genune consent to be
marred woud aow them to further ther ob|ectve, consderng that ony a vad marrage
can propery support an appcaton for ctzenshp. There was, thus, an apparent ntenton to
enter nto the actua marrage status and to create a ega te, abet for a mted purpose.
Genune consent was, therefore, ceary present.
The avowed purpose of marrage under Artce 1 of the Famy Code s for the coupe to
estabsh a con|uga and famy fe. The possbty that the partes n a marrage mght have
no rea ntenton to estabsh a fe together s, however, nsumcent to nufy a marrage
freey entered nto n accordance wth aw. The same Artce 1 provdes that the nature,
consequences, and ncdents of marrage are governed by aw and not sub|ect to stpuaton.
A marrage may, thus, ony be decared vod or vodabe under the grounds provded by aw.
There s no aw that decares a marrage vod f t s entered nto for purposes other than what
the Consttuton or aw decares, such as the acquston of foregn ctzenshp. Therefore, so
ong as a the essenta and forma requstes prescrbed by aw are present, and t s not vod
or vodabe under the grounds provded by aw, t sha be decared vad.
28
Motves for enterng nto a marrage are vared and compex. The State does not and cannot
dctate on the knd of fe that a coupe chooses to ead. Any attempt to reguate ther festye
woud go nto the ream of ther rght to prvacy and woud rase serous consttutona
questons.
29
The rght to marta prvacy aows marred coupes to structure ther marrages n
amost any way they see t, to ve together or ve apart, to have chdren or no chdren, to
ove one another or not, and so on.
30
Thus, marrages entered nto for other purposes, mted
or otherwse, such as convenence, companonshp, money, status, and tte, provded that
they compy wth a the ega requstes,
31
are equay vad. Love, though the dea
consderaton n a marrage contract, s not the ony vad cause for marrage. Other
consderatons, not precuded by aw, may vady support a marrage.
Athough the Court vews wth dsdan the respondents attempt to utze marrage for
dshonest purposes, It cannot decare the marrage vod. Hence, though the respondents
marrage may be consdered a sham or frauduent for the purposes of mmgraton, t s not
vod ab nto and contnues to be vad and subsstng.
Nether can ther marrage be consdered vodabe on the ground of fraud under Artce 45 (3)
of the Famy Code. Ony the crcumstances sted under Artce 46 of the same Code may
consttute fraud, namey, (1) non- dscosure of a prevous conv1ctwn nvovng mora
turptude; (2) conceament by the wfe of a pregnancy by another man; (3) conceament of a
sexuay transmtted dsease; and (4) conceament of drug addcton, acohosm, or
homosexuaty. No other msrepresentaton or decet sha consttute fraud as a ground for an
acton to annu a marrage. Enterng nto a marrage for the soe purpose of evadng
mmgraton aws does not quafy under any of the sted crcumstances. Furthermore, under
Artce 47 (3), the ground of fraud may ony be brought by the n|ured or nnocent party. In
the present case, there s no n|ured party because Abos and Frnger both conspred to enter
nto the sham marrage.
Abos has ndeed made a mockery of the sacred nsttuton of marrage. Aowng her
marrage wth Frnger to be decared vod woud ony further trvaze ths nvoabe
nsttuton. The Court cannot decare such a marrage vod n the event the partes fa to
quafy for mmgraton benets, after they have avaed of ts benets, or smpy have no
further use for t. These unscrupuous ndvduas cannot be aowed to use the courts as
nstruments n ther frauduent schemes. Abos aready msused a |udca nsttuton to enter
nto a marrage of convenence; she shoud not be aowed to agan abuse t to get hersef out
of an nconvenent stuaton.
No ess than our Consttuton decares that marrage, as an n voabe soca nsttuton, s the
foundaton of the famy and sha be protected by the State.
32
It must, therefore, be
safeguarded from the whms and caprces of the contractng partes. Ths Court cannot eave
the mpresson that marrage may easy be entered nto when t suts the needs of the
partes, and |ust as easy nued when no onger needed.
WHEREFORE, the petton s GRANTED. The September 29, 2011 Decson of the Court of
Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 95414 s ANNULLED, and Cv Case No. 1134-06 s DISMISSED for
utter ack of mert.
SO ORDERED.
______________
A6.$O$ 0. R,;u6./%, 1. R. 1?"4", August 11, 4010
FACTS: On October 17, 2000, the pettoner ed n the RTC Masbate a petton for the
decaraton of the absoute nuty of the marrage contracted on December 26, 1949 between
hs ate brother A and B.
The pettoner aeged that the marrage between A and B had been ceebrated wthout a
marrage cense, due to such cense beng ssued ony on |anuary 9, 1950, thereby renderng
the marrage vod ab nto for havng been soemnzed wthout a marrage cense.
ISSUE: Whether a person may brng an acton for the decaraton of the absoute nuty of
the marrage of hs deceased brother soemnzed under the regme of the OLD Cv Code?
RULIN1: YES. Before anythng more, the Court has to carfy the mpact to the ssue posed
heren of Admnstratve Matter (A.M.) No. 02-11-10-SC (Rue on Decaraton of Absoute
Nuty of Vod Marrages and Annument of Vodabe Marrages), whch took ehect on March
15, 2003.
Secton 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC expcty provdes the mtaton that a
petton for decaraton of absoute nuty of vod marrage may be ed soey by the husband
or wfe. Such mtaton demarcates a ne to dstngush between marrages covered by the
Famy Code and those soemnzed under the regme of the CvCode. Speccay, A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC extends ony to marrages covered by the Famy Code, whch took ehect
47 | P a g e
on August 3, 1988, but, beng a procedura rue that s prospectve n appcaton, s conned
ony to proceedngs commenced after March 15, 2003.
Based on Caros v. Sandova, the foowng actons for decaraton of absoute nuty of a
marrage are excepted from the mtaton, to wt:
Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the ehectvty date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and
Those ed vs--vs marrages ceebrated durng the ehectvty ofthe Cv Code and, those
ceebrated under the regme of the Famy Code pror to March 15, 2003.
Consderng that the marrage between A and B was contracted on December 26, 1949, the
appcabe aw was the od Cv Code, the aw n ehect at the tme of the ceebraton of the
marrage. Hence, the rue on the excusvty of the partes to the marrage as havng the rght
to ntate the acton for decaraton of nuty of the marrage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC had
absoutey no appcaton to the pettoner.
__________
1.R. N(. 404320 S,;t,56,' 43, 4013
JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., Pettoner,
vs. EDEN VILLENA A1UILA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Ths petton for revew on certorar
1
assas the 16 March 2012 Decson
2
and the 28 |une
2012 Resouton
3
of the Court of Appeas (CA) n CA-G.R. CV No. 95322. The CA amrmed the
26 September 2008 Order
4
of the Regona Tra Court of Nasugbu, Batangas, Branch 14 (RTC),
n Cv Case No. 787.
The Facts
On 7 September 1985, pettoner |uan Seva Saas, |r. (Saas) and respondent Eden Vena
Agua (Agua) were marred. On 7 |une 1986, Agua gave brth to ther daughter, |oan |see.
Fve months ater, Saas eft ther con|uga dweng. Snce then, he no onger communcated
wth Agua or ther daughter.
On 7 October 2003, Agua ed a Petton for Decaraton of Nuty of Marrage (petton)
ctng psychoogca ncapacty under Artce 36 of the Famy Code. The petton states that
they "have no con|uga propertes whatsoever."
5
In the Return of Summons dated 13 October
2003, the sherh narrated that Saas nstructed hs mother Lusa Saas to receve the copy of
summons and the petton.
6
On 7 May 2007, the RTC rendered a Decson
7
decarng the nuty of the marrage of Saas
and Agua (RTC Decson). The RTC Decson further provdes for the "dssouton of ther
con|uga partnershp of gans, f any."
8
On 10 September 2007, Agua ed a Manfestaton and Moton
9
statng that she dscovered:
(a) two 200-square-meter parces of and wth mprovements ocated n San Bartoome,
Ouezon Cty, covered by Transfer Certcate of Tte (TCT) No. N-259299-A and TCT No. N-
255497; and (b) a 108-square-meter parce of and wth mprovement ocated n Tondo,
Mana, covered by TCT No. 243373 (coectvey, "Dscovered Propertes"). The regstered
owner of the Dscovered Propertes s "|uan S.Saas, marred to Rubna C. Saas." The
manfestaton was set for hearng on 21 September 2007. However, Saas notce of hearng
was returned unserved wth the remark, "RTS Refused To Receve."
On 19 September 2007, Saas ed a Manfestaton wth Entry of Appearance
10
requestng for
an Entry of |udgment of the RTC Decson snce no moton for reconsderaton or appea was
ed and no con|uga property was nvoved.
On 21 September 2007, the hearng for Aguas manfestaton ensued, wth Agua, her
counse and the state prosecutor present. Durng the hearng, Agua tested that on 17 Apr
2007 someone nformed her of the exstence of the Dscovered Propertes. Thereafter, she
vered the nformaton and secured copes of TCTs of the Dscovered Propertes. When asked
to carfy, Agua tested that Rubna C. Saas (Rubna) s Saas common-aw wfe.
11
On 8 February 2008, Saas ed an Opposton to the Manfestaton
12
aegng that there s no
con|uga property to be parttoned based on Aguas petton. Accordng to Saas, Aguas
statement was a |udca admsson and was not made through papabe mstake. Saas
camed that Agua waved her rght to the Dscovered Propertes. Saas kewse enumerated
propertes he aegedy waved n favor of Agua, to wt:(1) parces of and wth mprovements
ocated n Sugar Landng Subdvson, Aangan, Batangas Cty; No. 176 Bras Street,
Nasugbu, Batangas; P. Samanego Street, Sangan, Nasugbu, Batangas; and Batangas Cty,
nanced by Fnvest; (2) cash amountng toP200,000.00; and (3) motor vehces, speccay
Honda Cty and Toyota Tamaraw FX(coectvey, "Waved Propertes"). Thus, Saas contended
that the con|uga propertes were deemed parttoned.
The Rung of the Regona Tra Court
In ts 26 September 2008 Order, the RTC rued n favor of Agua. The dspostve porton of
the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, foregong premses beng consdered, the pettoner and the respondent are
hereby drected to partton between themseves by proper nstruments of conveyance, the
foowng propertes, wthout pre|udce to the egtme of ther egtmate chd, |oan |ssee
Agua Saas:
(1) A parce of and regstered n the name of |uan S. Saas marred to Rubna C. Saas ocated
n San Bartoome, Ouezon Cty and covered by TCT No. N-259299-A marked as Exhbt "A"
and ts mprovements;
(2) A parce of and regstered n the name of |uan S.Saas marred to Rubna C. Saas ocated
n San Bartoome, Ouezon Cty and covered by TCT No. N-255497 marked as Exhbt "B" and
ts mprovements;
(3) A parce of and regstered n the name of |uan S.Saas marred to Rubna Cortez Saas
ocated n Tondo and covered by TCT No. 243373-Ind. marked as Exhbt "D" and ts
mprovements.
Thereafter, the Court sha conrm the partton so agreed upon bythe partes, and such
partton, together wth the Order of the Court conrmng the same, sha be recorded n the
Regstry of Deeds of the pace n whch the property s stuated.
SO ORDERED.
13
The RTC hed that pursuant to the Rues,
14
even upon entry of |udgment grantng the
annument of marrage, the court can proceed wth the qudaton, partton and dstrbuton
of the con|uga partnershp of gans f t has not been |udcay ad|udcated upon, as n ths
case. The RTC found that the Dscovered Propertes are among the con|uga propertes to be
parttoned and dstrbuted between Saas and Agua. However, the RTC hed that Saas faed
to prove the exstence of the Waved Propertes.
On 11 November 2008, Rubna ed a Compant-n-Interventon, camng that: (1) she s
Rubna Cortez, a wdow and unmarred to Saas; (2) the Dscovered Propertes are her
parapherna propertes; (3) Saas dd not contrbute money to purchase the Dscovered
Propertes as he had no permanent |ob n |apan; (4) the RTC dd not acqure |ursdcton over
her as she was not a party n the case; and (5) she authorzed her brother to purchase the
48 | P a g e
Dscovered Propertes but because he was not we-versed wth ega documentaton, he
regstered the propertes n the name of "|uan S. Saas, marred to Rubna C. Saas."
In ts 16 December 2009 Order, the RTC dened the Moton for Reconsderaton ed by Saas.
The RTC found that Saas faed to prove hs aegaton that Agua transferred the Waved
Propertes to thrd persons. The RTC emphaszed that t cannot go beyond the TCTs, whch
state that Saas s the regstered owner of the Dscovered Propertes. The RTC further hed
that Saas and Rubna were at faut for fang to correct the TCTs, f they were not marred as
they camed.
Hence, Saas ed an appea wth the CA.
The Rung of the Court of Appeas
On 16 March 2012, the CA amrmed the order of the RTC.
15
The CA rued that Aguas
statement n her petton s not a |udca admsson. The CA ponted out that the petton was
ed on 7 October 2003, but Agua found the Dscovered Propertes ony on 17 Apr 2007 or
before the promugaton of the RTC decson. Thus, the CA concuded that Agua was papaby
mstaken n her petton and t woud be unfar to punsh her over a matter that she had no
knowedge of at the tme she made the admsson. The CA aso rued that Saas was not
deprved of the opportunty to refute Aguas aegatons n her manfestaton, even though
he was not present n ts hearng. The CA kewse hed that Rubna cannot coateray attack
a certcate of tte.
In a Resouton dated 28 |une 2012,
16
the CA dened the Moton for Reconsderaton
17
ed by
Saas. Hence, ths petton.
The Issues
Saas seeks a reversa and rases the foowng ssues for resouton:
1. The Court of Appeas erred n amrmng the tra courts decson orderng the partton of
the parces of and covered by TCT Nos. N-259299-A and N-255497 n Ouezon Cty and as we
as the property n Mana covered by TCT No. 243373 between pettoner and respondent.
2. The Court of Appeas erred n amrmng the tra courts decson n not aowng Rubna C.
Cortez to ntervene n ths case
18
The Rung of the Court
The petton acks mert.
Snce the orgna manfestaton was an acton for partton, ths Court cannot order a dvson
of the property, uness t rst makes a determnaton as to the exstence of a co-
ownershp.
19
Thus, the settement of the ssue of ownershp s the rst stage n ths acton.
20
Basc s the rue that the party makng an aegaton n a cv case has the burden of provng
t by a preponderance of evdence.
21
Saas aeged that contrary to Aguas petton statng
that they had no con|uga property, they actuay acqured the Waved Propertes durng ther
marrage. However, the RTC found, and the CA amrmed, that Saas faed to prove the
exstence and acquston of the Waved Propertes durng ther marrage:
A perusa of the record shows that the documents submtted by |Saas| as the propertes
aegedy regstered n the name of |Agua| are merey photocopes and not certed true
copes, hence, ths Court cannot admt the same as part of the records of ths case. These are
the foowng:
(1) TCT No. T-65876 - a parce of and ocated at Pobacon, Nasugbu, Batangas, regstered n
the name of Eden A. Saas, marred to |uan Saas |r. whch s canceed by TCT No. T-105443 n
the name of |oan |see A. Saas, snge;
(2) TCT No. T-68066 - a parce of and stuated n the Barro of Landng, Nasugbu, Batangas,
regstered n the name of Eden A. Saas, marred to |uan S. Saas |r.
Moreover, |Agua| submtted orgna copy of Certcaton ssued by Ms. Ernda A. Dasa,
Muncpa Assessor of Nasugbu, Batangas, certfyng that |Agua| has no rea property (and
and mprovement) sted n the Assessment Ro for taxaton purposes, as of September 17,
2008.
Such evdence, n the absence of proof to the contrary, has the presumpton of reguarty. x x
x.
Sumce t to say that such rea propertes are exstng and regstered n the name of |Agua|,
certed true copes thereof shoud have been the ones submtted to ths Court. Moreover,
there s aso a presumpton that propertes regstered n the Regstry of Deeds are aso
decared n the Assessment Ro for taxaton purposes.
22
On the other hand, Agua proved that the Dscovered Propertes were acqured by Saas
durng ther marrage.*Fwphi*Both the RTC and the CA agreed that the Dscovered Propertes
regstered n Saas name were acqured durng hs marrage wth Agua. The TCTs of the
Dscovered Propertes were entered on 2 |uy 1999 and 29 September 2003, or durng the
vadty of Saas and Aguas marrage. In Vanueva v. Court of Appeas,
23
we hed that the
queston of whether the propertes were acqured durng the marrage s a factua ssue.
Factua ndngs of the RTC, partcuary f amrmed by the CA, are bndng on us, except under
compeng crcumstances not present n ths case.
24
On Saas aegaton that he was not accorded due process for fang to attend the hearng of
Aguas manfestaton, we nd the aegaton untenabe. The essence of due process s
opportunty to be heard. We hod that Saas was gven such opportunty when he ed hs
opposton to the manfestaton, submtted evdence and ed hs appea.
On both Saas and Rubnas contenton that Rubna owns the Dscovered Propertes, we
kewse nd the contenton unmertorous. The TCTs state that "|uan S. Saas, marred to
Rubna C. Saas" s the regstered owner of the Dscovered Propertes. A Torrens tte s
generay a concusve evdence of the ownershp of the and referred to, because there s a
strong presumpton that t s vad and reguary ssued.
25
The phrase "marred to" s merey
descrptve of the cv status of the regstered owner.
26
Furthermore, Saas dd not ntay
dspute the ownershp of the Dscovered Propertes n hs opposton to the manfestaton. It
was ony when Rubna ntervened that Saas supported Rubnas statement that she owns the
Dscovered Propertes.
Consderng that Rubna faed to prove her tte or her ega nterest n the Dscovered
Propertes, she has no rght to ntervene n ths case. The Rues of Court provde that ony "a
person who has a ega nterest n the matter n tgaton, or n the success of ether of the
partes, or an nterest aganst both, or s so stuated as to be adversey ahected by a
dstrbuton or other dsposton of property n the custody of the court or of an omcer thereof
may, wth eave of court, be aowed to ntervene n the acton."
27
In Do v. Do,
28
we hed that Artce 147 of the Famy Code appes to the unon of partes
who are egay capactated and not barred by any mpedment to contract marrage, but
whose marrage s nonetheess decared vod under Artce 36 of the Famy Code, as n ths
case. Artce147 of the Famy Code provdes:
ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capactated to marry each other, ve
excusvey wth each other as husband and wfe wthout the benet of marrage or under a
vod marrage, ther wages and saares sha be owned by them n equa shares and the
property acqured by both of them through ther work or ndustry sha be governed by the
rues on co-ownershp.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, propertes acqured whe they ved together sha be
presumed to have been obtaned by ther |ont ehorts, work or ndustry, and sha be owned
by them n equa shares. For purposes of ths Artce, a party who dd not partcpate n the
acquston by the other party of any property sha be deemed to have contrbuted |onty n
the acquston thereof f the formers ehorts conssted n the care and mantenance of the
famy and of the househod.
49 | P a g e
Nether party can encumber or dspose by acts nter vvos of hs or her share n the property
acqured durng cohabtaton and owned n common, wthout the consent of the other, unt
after the termnaton of ther cohabtaton.
When ony one of the partes to a vod marrage s n good fath, the share of the party n bad
fath n the co-ownershp sha be forfeted n favor of ther common chdren. In case of
defaut of or waver by any or a of the common chdren or ther descendants, each vacant
share sha beong to the respectve survvng descendants. In the absence of descendants,
such share sha beong to the nnocent party. In a cases, the forfeture sha take pace upon
termnaton of the cohabtaton. (Emphass supped)
Under ths property regme, property acqured durng the marrage s prma face presumed to
have been obtaned through the coupes |ont ehorts and governed by the rues on co-
ownershp.
29
In the present case, Saas dd not rebut ths presumpton. In a smar case where
the ground for nuty of marrage was aso psychoogca ncapacty, we hed that the
propertes acqured durng the unon of the partes, as found by both the RTC and the CA,
woud be governed by co-ownershp.
30
Accordngy, the partton of the Dscovered Propertes
as ordered by the RTC and the CA shoud be sustaned, but on the bass of co-ownershp and
not on the regme of con|uga partnershp of gans.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petton. We AFFIRM the Decson dated
16
March 2012 and the
Resouton dated 28 |une 2012 of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. CV No. 95322.
SO ORDERED.
____________
ELMAR O. PERE9, G.R. No. 162580
Pettoner,
Present:

Panganban, C$A. (Charperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santago,
Austra-Martnez,
Cae|o, Sr., and
Chco-Nazaro, AA$
COURT OF APPEALS, F/=t7
D/0/s/(), TRISTAN A. CATINDI1 Promugated:
$)* LILY 1OME9-CATINDI1,
Respondents. |anuary 27, 2006

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x


)!#I&I%N


YNARES-SANTIA1O, J.:

Ths petton for certorar and prohbton under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court assas the |uy
25, 2003 Decson
|1|
of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. SP No. 74456 whch set asde and
decared as nu and vod the September 30, 2002 Order
|2|
of the Regona Tra Court
of Ouezon Cty, Branch 84, grantng pettoners moton for eave to e nterventon and
admttng the Compant-n-Interventon
|3|
n Cv Case No. O-01-44847; and ts |anuary 23,
2004 Resouton
|4|
denyng the moton for reconsderaton.

Prvate respondent Trstan A. Catndg marred Ly Gomez Catndg
|5|
twce on May 16,
1968. The rst marrage ceremony was ceebrated
at the Centra Methodst Church at T.M. Kaaw Street, Ermta, Mana whe the second took
pace at the Lourdes Cathoc Church n La Loma, Ouezon Cty. The marrage produced four
chdren.

Severa years ater, the coupe encountered marta probems that they decded to separate
from each other. Upon advce of a mutua frend, they decded to obtan a dvorce from
the Domncan Repubc. Thus, on Apr 27, 1984, Trstan and Ly executed a Speca Power of
Attorney addressed to the |udge of the Frst Cv Court of San Crstoba, Domncan Repubc,
appontng an attorney-n-fact to nsttute a dvorce acton under ts aws.
|6|


Thereafter, on Apr 30, 1984, the prvate respondents ed a |ont petton for dssouton of
con|uga partnershp wth the Regona Tra Court of Makat. On |une 12, 1984, the cv court
n the Domncan Repubc rated the dvorce by mutua consent of Trstan and Ly.
Subsequenty, on |une 23, 1984, the Regona Tra Court of Makat Cty, Branch 133, ordered
the compete separaton of propertes between Trstan and Ly.

On |uy 14, 1984, Trstan marred pettoner Emar O. Perez n the State of Vrgna n
the Unted States
|7|
and both ved as husband and wfe unt October 2001. Ther unon
produced one ohsprng.
|8|

Durng ther cohabtaton, pettoner earned that the dvorce decree ssued by the court n
the Domncan Repubc whch "dssoved" the marrage between Trstan and Ly was not
recognzed n the Phppnes and that her marrage to Trstan was deemed vod under
Phppne aw. When she confronted Trstan about ths, the atter assured her that he woud
egaze ther unon after he obtans an annument of hs marrage wth Ly. Trstan further
promsed the pettoner that he woud adopt ther son so that he woud be entted to an
equa share n hs estate as that of each of hs chdren wth Ly.
|9|

On August 13, 2001, Trstan ed a petton for the decaraton of nuty of hs marrage to Ly
wth the Regona Tra Court of Ouezon Cty, docketed as Case No. O-01-44847.

Subsequenty, pettoner ed a Moton for Leave to Fe Interventon
|10|
camng that she has
a ega nterest n the matter n tgaton because she knows certan nformaton whch mght
ad the tra court at a truthfu, far and |ust ad|udcaton of the annument case, whch the
tra court granted on September 30, 2002. Pettoners compant-n-nterventon was aso
ordered admtted.

Trstan ed a petton for certorar and prohbton wth the Court of Appeas seekng to annu
the order dated September 30, 2002 of the tra court. The Court of Appeas granted the
petton and decared as nu and vod the September 30, 2002Order of the tra court
grantng the moton for eave to e nterventon and admttng the compant-n-nterventon.

Pettoners moton for reconsderaton was dened, hence ths petton for certorar and
prohbton ed under Rue 65 of the Rues of Court. Pettoner contends that the Court of
Appeas gravey abused ts dscreton n dsregardng her ega nterest n the annument case
between Trstan and Ly.

The petton acks mert.
50 | P a g e

Ordnary, the proper recourse of an aggreved party from a decson of the Court of Appeas
s a petton for revew on certorar under Rue 45 of the Rues of Court. However, f the error
sub|ect of the recourse s one of |ursdcton, or the act companed of was granted by a court
wth grave abuse of dscreton amountng to ack or excess of |ursdcton, as aeged n ths
case, the proper remedy s a petton for certorar under Rue 65 of the sad Rues.
|11|
Ths s
based on the premse that n ssung the assaed decson and resouton, the Court of
Appeas acted wth grave abuse of dscreton, amountng to excess of ack of |ursdcton and
there s no pan, speedy and adequate remedy n the ordnary course of aw. A remedy s
consdered pan, speedy, and adequate f t w prompty reeve the pettoner from the
n|urous ehect of the |udgment and the acts of the ower court.
|12|

It s therefore ncumbent upon the pettoner to estabsh that the Court of Appeas acted wth
grave abuse of dscreton amountng to excess or ack of |ursdcton when t promugated the
assaed decson and resouton.

We have prevousy rued that grave abuse of dscreton may arse when a ower court or
trbuna voates or contravenes the Consttuton, the aw or exstng |ursprudence. By grave
abuse of dscreton s meant, such caprcous and whmsca exercse of |udgment as s
equvaent to ack of |ursdcton. The abuse of dscreton must be grave as where the power
s exercsed n an arbtrary or despotc manner by reason of passon or persona hostty and
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evason of postve duty or to a vrtua
refusa to perform the duty en|oned by or to act at a n contempaton of aw.
|13|
The word
"caprcous," usuay used n tandem wth the term "arbtrary," conveys the noton of wfu
and unreasonng acton. Thus, when seekng the correctve hand of certorar, a cear
showng of caprce and arbtrarness n the exercse of dscreton s mperatve.
|14|

The Rues of Court ad down the parameters before a person, not a party to a case can
ntervene, thus:

Who ma2 inter.ene. - A person who has a ega nterest n the matter n tgaton, or n the
success of ether of the partes, or an nterest aganst both, or s so stuated as to be
adversey ahected by a dstrbuton or other dsposton of property n the custody of the
court or of an omcer thereof may, wth eave of court, be aowed to ntervene n the acton.
The court sha consder whether or not the nterventon w unduy deay or pre|udce the
ad|udcaton of the rghts of the orgna partes, and whether or not the ntervenors rghts
may be fuy protected n a separate proceedng.
|15|

The requrements for nterventon are: |a| ega nterest n the matter n tgaton; and |b|
consderaton must be gven as to whether the ad|udcaton of the orgna partes may be
deayed or pre|udced, or whether the ntervenors rghts may be protected n a separate
proceedng or not.
|16|

Lega nterest, whch enttes a person to ntervene, must be n the matter n tgaton and
of such direct and immediate character that the inter.enor will either gain or lose b2 direct
legal operation and eGect of the judgment.
|17|
Such nterest must be actua, drect and
matera, and not smpy contngent and expectant.
|18|

Pettoner cams that her status as the wfe and companon of Trstan for 17 years vests her
wth the requste ega nterest requred of a woud-be ntervenor under the Rues of Court.

Pettoners cam acks mert. Under the aw, pettoner was never the ega wfe of Trstan,
hence her cam of ega nterest has no bass.

When pettoner and Trstan marred on |uy 14, 1984, Trstan was st awfuy marred to
Ly. The dvorce decree that Trstan and Ly obtaned from the Domncan Repubc never
dssoved the marrage bond between them. It s basc that aws reatng to famy rghts and
dutes, or to the status, condton and ega capacty of persons are bndng upon ctzens of
thePhppnes, even though vng abroad.
|19|
Regardess of where a ctzen of
the Phppnes mght be, he or she w be governed by Phppne aws wth respect to hs or
her famy rghts and dutes, or to hs or her status, condton and ega capacty. Hence, f a
Fpno regardess of whether he or she was marred here or abroad, ntates a petton
abroad to obtan an absoute dvorce from spouse and eventuay becomes successfu n
gettng an absoute dvorce decree, the Phppnes w not recognze such absoute dvorce.
|20|

When Trstan and Ly marred on May 18, 1968, ther marrage was governed by the
provsons of the Cv Code
|21|
whch took ehect on August 30, 1950. In the case
of Tencha.e .$ Escano
|22|
we hed:

(1) That a foregn dvorce between Fpno ctzens, sought and decreed after the ehectvty of
the present Cv Code (Rep. Act No. 386), s not entted to recognton as vad n ths
|ursdcton; $)* ),/t7,' /s t7, 5$''/$g, %()t'$%t,* </t7 $)(t7,' ;$'t3 63 t7,
*/0('%,* %()s('t, su6s,Tu,)t.3 t( t7, =(',/g) *,%',, (= */0('%,, ,)t/t.,* t(
0$./*/t3 /) t7, %(u)t'3. (Emphass added)


Thus, pettoners cam that she s the wfe of Trstan even f ther marrage was ceebrated
abroad acks mert. Thus, pettoner never acqured the ega nterest as a wfe upon whch
her moton for nterventon s based.

Snce pettoners moton for eave to e nterventon was bereft of the ndspensabe
requrement of ega nterest, the ssuance by the tra court of the order grantng the same
and admttng the compant-n-nterventon was attended wth grave abuse of
dscreton. Consequenty, the Court of Appeas correcty set asde and decared as nu and
vod the sad order.

8HEREFORE, the petton s DISMISSED. The assaed Decson dated |uy 25, 2003 and
Resouton dated |anuary 23, 2004 of the Court of Appeas n CA-G.R. SP No. 74456
are AFFIRMED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

____________
$ranes vs. Jud+e %44iano
$M No. MTJ 02-1309, $'ril 11, 2002
FACTS+
51 | P a g e
Pettoner Mercedta Mata Aranes charged respondent |udge Occano wth gross gnorance of
the aw. Occano s the presdng |udge n Court of Baatan, Camarnes Sur. However, he
soemnzed the marrage of Aranes and Domnador Oroba on February 17, 2000 at the
coupes resdence n Nabua, Camarnes Sur whch s outsde hs terrtora |ursdcton and
wthout the requste of marrage cense.
It appeared n the records that pettoner and Oroba ed ther appcaton of marrage cense
on |anuary 5, 2000 and was stamped that t w be ssued on |anuary 17, 2000 but nether of
them camed t. In addton, no record aso appeared wth the Omce of the Cv Regstrar
Genera for the aeged marrage.
Before |udge Occano started the ceremony, he carefuy examned the documents and rst
refused to conduct the marrage and advsed them to reset the date consderng the absence
of the marrage cense. However, due to the earnest peas of the partes, the nux of
vstors and fear that the postponement of the weddng mght aggravate the physca
condton of Oroba who |ust suhered from stroke, he soemnzed the marrage on the
assurance of the coupe that they w provde the cense that same afternoon. Occano
denes that he tod the coupe that ther marrage s vad.
ISSUE+ Whether |udge Occano s guty of soemnzng a marrage wthout a duy ssued
marrage cense and conductng t outsde hs terrtora |ursdcton.
HELD+
The court hed that "the terrtora |ursdcton of respondent |udge s mted to the
muncpaty of Baatan, Camarnes Sur. Hs act of soemnzng the marrage of pettoner and
Oroba n Nabua, Camarnes Sur therefore s contrary to aw and sub|ects hm to
admnstratve abty. Hs act may not amount to gross gnorance of the aw for he aegedy
soemnzed the marrage out of human compasson but nonetheess, he cannot avod abty
for voatng the aw on marrage".
WHEREFORE, respondent |udge Savador M. Occano, Presdng |udge of the Muncpa Tra
Court of Baatan, Camarnes Sur, s ned P5,000.00 pesos wth a STERN WARNING that a
repetton of the same or smar ohense n the future w be deat wth more severey.
______________
A)%7,t$ 0s. A)%7,t$
#$&! )IG!&T: G.R. No. 1>6370, Mar47 >, 200>
$nnul*en( o3 Marria+e, #ivil a/, Marria+e
FACTS:
Pettoner Maretta Ancheta and respondent Rodofo Ancheta were marred on March 5, 1959
and had eght chdren. After 33 years of marrage the pettoner eft the respondent and ther
chdren. Ther con|uga propertes were ater separated through a court-sanctoned
compromse agreement where the pettoner got among others a resort n Cavte. When the
husband wanted to marry agan, he ed before the Regona Tra Court a petton for the
decaraton of nuty of hs marrage wth the pettoner on the ground of psychoogca
ncapacty on |une 5, 1995. Athough he knew that the pettoner was aready resdng at the
resort n Cavte, he aeged n hs petton that the pettoner was resdng at Las Pas, Metro
Mana, such that summons never reached her. Nevertheess substtuted servce was
rendered to ther son at hs resdence n Cavte. Pettoner was then decared n defaut for
fang to answer the sad petton. |ust over a month after t was ed, the tra court granted
the petton and decared the marrage of the partes vod ab nto.
Fve years ater, pettoner chaenged the tra courts order decarng as vod ab nto her
marrage wth respondent Rodofo, ctng extrnsc fraud and ack of |ursdcton over her
person, among others. She aeged that the respondent ed on her rea address n hs petton
so she never receved summons on the case, hence deprvng her of her rght to be heard.
The Court of Appeas dsmssed her petton so she now comes to the Supreme Court for
revew on certorar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decaraton of nuty of marrage was vad?
HELD:
NO. The tra court and the pubc prosecutor deed Artce 48 of the Famy Code and Rue 18,
Secton 6 of the 1985 Rues of Court (now Rue 9, Secton 3|e| of the 1997 Rues of Cv
Procedure).
A grant of annument of marrage or ega separaton by defaut s fraught wth the danger of
couson, says the Court. "Hence, n a cases for annument, decaraton of nuty of
marrage and ega separaton, the prosecutng attorney or sca s ordered to appear on
behaf of the State for the purpose of preventng any couson between the partes and to
take care that ther evdence s not fabrcated or suppressed."
"If the defendant-spouse fas to answer the compant, the court cannot decare hm or her n
defaut but nstead, shoud order the prosecutng attorney to determne f couson exsts
between the partes. The prosecutng attorney or sca may oppose the appcaton for ega
separaton or annument through the presentaton of hs own evdence, f n hs opnon, the
proof adduced s dubous and fabrcated."
Here, the tra court mmedatey receved the evdence of the respondent ex-parte and
rendered |udgment aganst the pettoner "wthout a whmper of protest from the pubc
prosecutor who even dd not chaenge the moton to decare pettoner n defaut."
The Supreme Court reterates: "The task of protectng marrage as an nvoabe soca
nsttuton requres vgant and zeaous partcpaton and not mere pro-forma compance.
The protecton of marrage as a sacred nsttuton requres not |ust the defense of a true and
genune unon but the exposure of an nvad one as we."
Petton s GRANTED
1.R. N(. B2101 A;'/. 4?, 1B1
1ODOFREDO #UCCAT, ;.$/)t/D-$;;,..$)t,
0s. LUIDA MAN1ONON DE #UCCAT, *,=,)*$)t-',s;()*,)t
52 | P a g e
FACTS
Godofredo Buccat and Luda Mangonon de Buccat met n March 1938, became engaged n
September, and got marred n Nov 26.
On Feb 23, 1939 (89 days after gettng marred) Luda, who was 9 months pregnant, gave
brth to a son. After knowng ths, Godofredo eft Luda and never returned to marred fe wth
her.
On March 23, 1939, he ed for an annument of ther marrage on the grounds that when he
agreed to marred Luda, she assured hm that she was a vrgn. The Lower court decded n
favor of Luda.
ISSUE
Shoud the annument for Godofredo Buccats marrage be granted on the grounds that Luda
conceaed her pregnancy before the marrage?
HELD
No. Cear and authentc proof s needed n order to nufy a marrage, a sacred nsttuton n
whch the State s nterested and where socety rests.
In ths case, the court dd not nd any proof that there was conceament of pregnancy
consttutng fraud as a ground for annument. It was unkey that Godofredo, a rst-year aw
student, dd not suspect anythng about Ludas condton consderng that she was n an
advanced stage of pregnancy (hghy deveoped physca manfestaton, e. enarged stomach
) when they got marred.
Decson:
SC amrmed the ower courts decson. Costs to panth-appeant
1.R. N(. L-13??3 F,6'u$'3 43, 1!0
JOSE DE OCAMPO, ;,t/t/(),',
0s.
SERAFINA FLORENCIANO, ',s;()*,)t.
FACTS+
|ose de Ocampo and Serana Forencano were marred n 1938. They begot severa chdren
who are not vng wth panth. In March 1951, atter dscovered on severa occasons that
hs wfe was betrayng hs trust by mantanng ct reatons wth |ose Arcaas. Havng found
out, he sent the wfe to Mana n |une 1951 to study beauty cuture where she stayed for one
year. Agan panth dscovered that the wfe was gong out wth severa other man other
than Arcaas. In 1952, when the wfe nshed her studes, she eft panth and snce then
they had ved separatey. In |une 1955, panth surprsed hs wfe n the act of havng ct
reatons wth Neson Orzame. He sgned hs ntenton of ng a petton for ega
separaton to whch defendant manfested conformty provded she s not charged wth
adutery n a crmna acton. Accordngy, Ocampo ed a petton for ega separaton n
1955.
ISSUE+ Whether the confesson made by Forencano consttutes the confesson of |udgment
dsaowed by the Famy Code.
HELD+
Forencanos admsson to the nvestgatng sca that she commtted adutery, n the
exstence of evdence of adutery other than such confesson, s not the confesson of
|udgment dsaowed by Artce 48 of the Famy Code. What s prohbted s a confesson of
|udgment, a confesson done n court or through a peadng. Where there s evdence of the
adutery ndependent of the defendants statement agreeng to the ega separaton, the
decree of separaton shoud be granted snce t woud not be based on the confesson but
upon the evdence presented by the panth. What the aw prohbts s a |udgment based
excusvey on defendants confesson. The petton shoud be granted based on the second
adutery, whch has not yet prescrbed.
____________
I CANNOT FIND OCA VS ADMINISTRATOR
NNNNNNNNNNN
)o*in+o vs. #$
22, &#R$ 672
FACTS+
Soedad Domngo, marred wth Roberto Domngo n 1976, ed a petton for the decaraton
of nuty of marrage and separaton of property. She dd not know that Domngo had been
prevousy marred to Emernda dea Paz n 1969. She came to know the prevous marrage
when the atter ed a sut of bgamy aganst her. Furthermore, when she came home from
Saud durng her one-month eave from work, she dscovered that Roberto cohabted wth
another woman and had been dsposng some of her propertes whch s admnstered by
Roberto. The atter cams that because ther marrage was vod ab nto, the decaraton of
such vodance s unnecessary and superuous. On the other hand, Soedad nssts the
decaraton of the nuty of marrage not for the purpose of remarrage, but n order to
provde a bass for the separaton and dstrbuton of propertes acqured durng the marrage.
ISSUE+ 87,t7,' (' )(t $ ;,t/t/() =(' Mu*/%/$. *,%.$'$t/() s7(u.* ().3 6, A.,* =('
;u';(s,s (= ',5$''/$g,.
HELD+
The decaraton of the nuty of marrage s ndeed requred for purposed of remarrage.
However, t s aso necessary for the protecton of the subsequent spouse who beeved n
good fath that hs or her partner was not awfuy marred marres the same. Wth ths, the
sad person s freed from beng charged wth bgamy.
When a marrage s decared vod ab nto, aw states that na |udgment sha provde for the
qudaton, partton and dstrbuton of the propertes of the spouses, the custody and
support of the common chdren and the devery of ther presumptve egtmes, uness such
matters had been ad|udcated n prevous |udca proceedngs. Soedads prayer for
separaton of property w smpy be the necessary consequence of the |udca decaraton of
absoute nuty of ther marrage. Hence, the pettoners suggeston that for ther propertes
be separated, an ordnary cv acton has to be nsttuted for that purpose s baseess. The
Famy Code has ceary provded the ehects of the decaraton of nuty of marrage, one of
53 | P a g e
whch s the separaton of property accordng to the regme of property reatons governng
them.
_____________
ENRICO VS HEIRS OF MEDINACELLI
FACT+
It s petton assang the RTCs renstatement order on the formery dsmssed ed acton for
the decaraton of nuty of marrage between the pettoner and respondents father. Euogo
Mednace and Trndad Cat-Mednace, were marred on |une 14, 1962, begotten seven
chdren. Trndad ded on May 1, 2004; Euogo marred another woman named Lota Enrco
on August 26, 2004. Sx months ater, Euogo passed away. Respondents ed an acton for
decaraton of nuty of marrage between Petton
er and the respondents ate father on two grounds: 1. that the marrage acks the requste of
marrage cense, and; 2. the ack of marrage ceremony due to respondents father serous
ness that made ts performance mpossbe. Loeta, defend her stand by ctng Artce 34 of
the famy code argung her exempton from gettng marrage cense. She sought then the
dsmssa of the respondents ed acton by ctng the AM -02-11-10-SC, Sec. 2, par.(a) Rue
of the famy code.
Pursuant to "AM -02-11-10- SC" emboded the rue on decaraton of absoute nuty of vod
marrages and
annument of vodabe marrages RTC dsmssed the respondents ed acton. Respondents
ed moton for reconsderaton nvokng the rung n the case of Na v. Bayadog, hodng
that the hers of a deceased spouse have the standng to assa a vodabe marrage even
after death of one of the spouses. RTC granted the motonand ssued an order for
renstatement of the case. Pettoner ed moton for reconsderaton but dened, thereby
pettoner assaed a petton drecty to Supreme Court.
ISSUES+
1.)Whether or not respondent hers can assa the vadty of sad marrage after the death of
Euogo.
2.) Whether whch of the two rue "AM 02-11-10-SC" or "Na v. Bayadog" sha govern the
nstant case
HELD+
Petton s GRANTED. Respondent/hers have NO ega standng to assa the vadty of the
second marrage after the death of ther father; because the rue on "AM 02 -11-10- SC" sha
govern the sad petton, under the Famy Code of the Phppnes. Partcuary Sec 2, par. (a)
Provdes that a petton for Decaraton of Absoute Nuty of a Vod Marrage may be ed
soey by the husband or the wfe. Oueston: Why the rue on AM 02-11-10-SC shoud govern
ths case not the hed decson on Na v. Bayadog case whereas the two cases expressed a
common cause of ssue? Here the court resoved that; n Na v. Bayadog case the hers were
aowed to e a petton for the decaraton
of nuty of ther fathers second marrage even after ther fathers death because the
mpugned marrage there was soemnzed pror to the ahectvty of the Famy Code. Unke n
ths case Enrco v Hers of Mednace where same hodng cannot be apped because the
marrage here was ceebrated n 2004 where the Famy Code s aready ehectve and under
famy code s emboded the rue on "AM 02
-11-10- SC" where ths rue sha govern pettons for the decaraton of absoute nuty
of vod marrages and annument of vodabe marrages.
1) Admnstratve Matter No. 02-11-10-SC promugated by the Supreme Court whch took
ehect on March 15, 2003 provdes n Secton 2, par. (a)

that a petton for Decaraton of
Absoute Nuty of a Vod Marrage may be ed soey by the husband or the wfe. T7,
.$)gu$g, (= t7/s 'u., /s ;.$/) $)* s/5;., <7/%7 st$t,s t7$t su%7 $ ;,t/t/() 5$3 6,
A.,* s(.,.3 63 t7, 7us6$)* (' t7, </=,. T7, 'u., /s %.,$' $)* u),Tu/0(%$. t7$t ().3
t7, 7us6$)* (' t7, </=, 5$3 A., t7, ;,t/t/() =(' D,%.$'$t/() (= A6s(.ut, Nu../t3 (=
$ V(/* M$''/$g,. T7, ',$*/)g (= t7/s C(u't /s t7$t t7, '/g7t t( 6'/)g su%7 ;,t/t/()
/s ,C%.us/0, $)* t7/s '/g7t s(.,.3 6,.()gs t( t7,5. Consequenty, the hers of the
deceased spouse cannot substtute ther ate father n brngng the acton to decare the
marrage nu and vod

Nonetheess, as the hers ma|or concern here, the court supped; that the hers have st
remedy to protect ther successona rghts not n a proceedng for decaraton of nuty, but
upon the death of a spouse n a proceedng for the settement of the estate of the deceased
spouse ed n the reguar courts
_______
TILL HERE >PRESUMPTIVE DEATH TILL LE1AL SEPARATION t( FOLLO8@