PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS

Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

TANADA VS TUVERA as citizens without such publication there will be no basis for
the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It will be unfair on the
FACTS: part of the person if he was detained without knowing such
laws.
 The government in this case argued that while publication
was necessary as a rule IT WAS NOT SO when “otherwise DE ROY VS CA
provided”.
 SG argues that publication is not always imperative. And What about SC decisions? We know that judicial decisions
if publication is necessary it is not always needed to be actually become part of the law of the land do they require
published in the official gazette publication? - NO
 SC held that the phrase unless otherwise provided refers
to the date of effectivity and not the requirement of FACTS:
publication it self because it can NEVER BE OMMITTED.
 Petitioners in this case owned a burned out building
 The legislature cannot in any way make the law effective
which collapsed and destroyed a tailoring shop this
immediate upon approval without its previous publication.
resulted to the death of the daughter of owner of the
 Publication is INDISPENSIBLE but the legislature may
shop. They were already warned by petitioners to
extend or shortened the 15-day period requirement
evacuate but failed to do so.
depending on the date of effectivity.
 RTC and CA ruled petitioners to be guilty of gross
 The laws referred to here are ALL THE LAWS that relate to
negligence.
people in general.
 The CA promulgated its decision on AUGUST 17, 1987
 Ruling: all statutes, including those of local application and
the copy of the decision was received by the
private laws , presidential decrees and executive orders
petitioners on AUGUST 25,1987
shall be published as a condition for their effectivity. This
 On the last day to file an appeal which is on
will only begin after 15 days or otherwise provided.
September 9 ,1987 the petitioners filed a motions for
 The publication must be in full, not merely the title and the
extension to file a motion for reconsideration but was
dates of publication..
DENIED
What is not needed to be published?
RULING:
- Interpretative regulations and those merely in internal in
SC held that the CA did not erred in denying the appeal
nature
because it correctly applied the case of Habaluyas
- Letters of instructions
Enterprises Inc vs Japzon which ruled that : the 15-day
- Instructions issued by the Minister of Social Welfare
period to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration
Why is publication indispensable? CANNOT BE EXTENDED in the MTC , RTC or IAC but can
only be extended on cases pending before the SC.
- Because it will offend DUE PROCESS.
- There is a presumption that every ones knows the law because PRINCIPLES:
it is publicized therefore, they should not have violated the said
 there is no law that requires the SC decisions to
law.
be published in the official gazette before they
- Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue
can be binding and as a condition for it to become
at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does
effective.
not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official
 Legal counsels have the duty to keep abreast of
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its
SC decisions.
effectivity.
- The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the CARANTO VS CARANTO
general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to
regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such FACTS:
notice and publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It  Anita owned a parcel of land which was
would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden adjudicated originally to her husband Juan.
a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice  Anita’s husband died so she executed an affidavit
whatsoever, not even a constructive one. of self-adjudication of the subject property.
- The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature"  Rodolfo claims that he is the brother of Juan
or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, therefore filed an adverse claim over the subject
presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or property. He claims that Juan was survived by
penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. his wife and his siblings.
the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this  The brother of Anita (Dante) testified that Juan
category. has an illegitimate brother and sister.
- Publication is mandatory even if the law itself provides for the  Rodolfo and Juan had different mothers which
date of effectivity otherwise there would be no basis to penalize was proven by the marriage certificate of Anita
a citizen who disobeys the law when the citizens have no means and the birth certificate of Rodolfo.
to know the laws. This is in line with the due process clause
RTC ruled that the extrajudicial settlements of the
espoused in our constitution that no person is deprived of his
estate of the mother of Rodolfo does not support
life, liberty and property without due process of law. The clear
Rodolfo’s claim as the brother of Juan neither is the
object of Art. 2 is to give the general public adequate notice of
various laws which are to regulate their actions and conducts
1
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

Deed of Waiver of Rights executed by Rizalina in his 1. Conclusion is grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
favor is inadmissible for being mere photocopies. or conjectures
2. Inferences made were manifestly mistaken , absurd or
CA partially agreed to RTC’s decision: impossible
3. Grave abuse of discretion
1. Rodolfo FAILED TO PROVE that he is the brother
4. Judgment based on misapprehension of facts
of Juan so as to have the right to inherit the
5. Findings of facts are conflicting
property
6. CA went beyond the issues of the case and the same in
2. Insufficient evidence to prove his title over the
CONTRARY to the admission of the litigants
action for reconveyance and the cancellation of
7. CA finding are CONTRARY to the RTC findings
title
8. Findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific
RULING: evidence on which they are based
9. When the facts of the petitioner in the main and reply
The arguments raised by Rodolfo are mere REHASH of his briefs ARE NOT DISPUTED BY RESPONDENTS.
arguments BEFORE THE CA. these arguments have to review again 10. Finding of facts of the CA are based on the supposed
the evidence presented by the contending parties ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE and is contradicted by the
evidence on the record.
These only raise a question of facts and not a question of law which
is required under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The arguments NOTE: none of these exemptions are present in the case at bar.
raised by Rodolfo leads for the SC to review the probative value and
evaluate once again the evidence presented by the contending CARLOS VS SANDOVAL
parties.
FACTS:
SC does not entertain questions of facts because factual findings of
 Spouses Carlos died intestate. The left parcels of land to
the CA are considered binding and final.
Teofilo and Juan de Dio Carlos.
Rodolfo failed to prove by preponderance of evudence that he is the  When Felix Carlos was still alive, he transferred his estate
brother of Juan, no authentic documents were presented that he to Teofilo to avoid inheritance tax. Teofilo undertook to
and Juan had the same mother and father deliver and turn over the share to Juan.
 3 parcels of land were under the name of Teofilo and the
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE MEANING: 4th parcel of land was under Juan.
 Teofilo then dies and was survived by his heirs FELICIDAD
- The weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on AND TEOFILO CARLOS.
either side  Parcels 5 and 6 were registered in the name of FELICIDAD
- Refers to the probability to the truth of the matters AND TEOFILO CARLOS.
intended to be proven as facts  Juan filed a complaint against the heirs and alleged that
- It concerns with the determination of the truth or falsity of there was no marriage license in the marriage of Felicidad
the alleged facts BASED ON EVIDENCE presented by a and Teofilo and that the Teofilo was not the natural father.
party.
RTC ruled in favor of Juan and declared the marriage as null and
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A QUESTION OF LAW FROM A void, ruling that Teofilo II is not the legitimate child and declaring
QUESTION OF FACTS: the contract is null and void.

QUESTIONS OF LAW QUESTIONS OF FACTS CA reversed the RTC decision.

There is doubt as to what The doubt arises as to the
the law is on a certain truth and falsity of the ISSUES:
state of facts alleged facts
1. Whether a marriage may be declared void ab initio through
The question must not When the issue invites a
a judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment and
involve the probative review of the evidence
without the benefit of the trial?
value of an evidence
presented by the litigants Ruling: SC held that no judgment of pleadings or summary
or any of them. judgment can declare a marriage void ab initio. The State must
enter and present evidences of its own in cases if marriage
The resolution of the annulments.
issue must rest solely on
what they law provides on 2. Whether A.M No. 02-11-10-SC can be applied retroactively
the given set of or prospectively?
circumstances.
TEST WHETHER IT IS A QUESTIONS OF FACTS OR Under the RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITYO OF
LAWS: Can the appellate court determine the issue MARRIAGE petition of such can only be filed by the husband or wife.
raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence? If
However, in A.M No. 02-11-10-SC sets forth a demarcation line
not then it is a QUESTION OF FACTS.
between marriages covered by the Family code and those
solemnized under the Civil code. This rule allows compulsory heirs
10 EXCEMPTIONS WHEN THE COURT ADMITS REVIEWS or intestate heirs allows to question the validity of the marriage in
QUESTIONS OF FACTS: order to protect their successional rights BUT not in proceeding for
the declaration of nullity of marriage BUT RATHER UPON THE DEATH
2
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

OF A SPOUSE IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE even to cases already pending at the time of their promulgation. The
ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SPOUSE. fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
rights does not preclude their retroactive application to pending
A.M No. 02-11-10-SC is emphasized that it does not apply to cases actions. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural
already commenced BEFORE MARCH 15,2003 ALTHOUGH the laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is
marriage involved is within the coverage of the FC. This rule has a adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. reason for this is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach
to, nor arise from, procedural laws”
In the case at bar, the marriage commenced during the Civil code
therefore, such laws will apply. However, it is silent as to any person CAROLINO VS SENGA
can file an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage.
Therefore, the SC held that the absence of the provision does not FACTS:
mean that anyone can file a complaint.
 Carolino was a retired Colonel who received retirement
In order to be considered of being a plaintiff of real-party-in- interest benefits but was later withheld from him by the AFP
Teofilo should have died without any heirs so that the COLLATERAL pursuant to PD 1638 on the ground that he lost his Filipino
RELATIVES may inherit from him which in this case is his brother. Citizenship until he complied with the requirements under
However, until it is not proven that Teofilo II is not the legitimate the Dual Citizenship Act.
child he and his mother will have the inheritance of Teofilo.  Carolino filed a petition for Mandamus seeking
reinstatement of his name in the list of payment of
NOTE: Case was remanded to determine the status of TEOFILO II retirement benefits under RA No. 340 and reimbursing all
and the validity of the marriage. of his retirement benefits from the time he was deprived
of.
CHENG VS SY
RTC ruled in favor of Carolino on the ground that:
FACTS:
1. Carolino retired during RA No. 340 which is the law
 Cheng filed 2 estafa cases against Spouses Sy and another
applicable governing his retirement benefits because at
case under BP 22. She made no express reservation
the time PD 1638 was promulgated it was only in 1979.
meaning she did not declare that she would separate the
Under Article 4 laws should not be given retroactive effects
filing of the civil liability from the criminal liability.
unless otherwise provided.
 The estafa cases were dismissed for failure of the
2. PD 1638 does not provide any retroactive application
prosecution to prove the elements and BP 22 for failure of
3. There could have been no intention on the PD 1638 to strip
the petitioner to identify the accused in open court. There
off from its soldiers their retirement benefits especially
was also no pronouncement of civil liability. The SC held
when the right has been vested in them through time.
that this would produce an effect of a reservation, meaning
her civil liability is separate from the criminal liability. CA reversed the ruling on the ground that PD 1638 repealed RA No.
 A complaint for a collection of sum of money was then filed 340.
by Cheng based on the same loan amount which were
previously the subject of the estafa and BP 22 cases. ISSUE: W/N PD 1638 indeed superseded RA No. 340 thus, there is
 In the BP 22 cases that were dismissed, would it also have retroactivity of the provisions of PD 1638 to Carolino?
the effect that upon dismissal would this produce a
reservation of civil liability? - YES RULING: NO. The SC held that PD 1638 was promulgated in 1979
 The RTC dismissed the case because to collect the under Art. 4 of the Civil code laws will not have any retroactive effect
loan amount of P 600,000 or the civil liability was unless the contrary is provided. All statutes are to be construed as
already IMPLIEDLY INSTITUTED IN THE BP 22 cases having a prospective application.
IN LIGHT OF THE Sec. 1 par b of Rule 111 of the
PD 1638 does not contain any provision regarding the retroactive
Revised Rules of court which was
application. It should only apply to those in service AT THE TIME OF
ISSUE: Whether or not the BP 22 cases that were filed on Jan. ITS APPROVAL.
20,1999 is applicable under the Revised Rules on Crim Procedure
Furthermore, the retirement benefits of Carolino is a vested right
promulgated in December 1,2000?
which is protected by the due process clause therefore cannot be
RULING: YES. The SC held that the RUELS OF PROCEDURES HAVE terminated instantly by e legislative enactment, subsequent repeal
A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION FOR IT BEING PROCEDURAL LAWS. of municipal ordinance, or by a change of constitution except in
legitimate exercise of police power.
However, it was ruled by the SC that because of the failure of the
public prosecutor to have her establish the identities of the accused Moreover, Sec. 3 of pd 1638 is clear that the law has no intention
during trial and when he failed to appeal the civil action deemed to reduce or revoke whatever retirement benefits being enjoyed by
impliedly instituted with the BP 22 the civil action may proceed. a retiree at the time of its passage.
Although failure to appeal the civil action may have already passed
the reglementary period, but because it is the fault of the prosecutor
the rule will be digress. If the loan will be proven then Cheng can
reclaim the money because if not unjust enrichment will take place.
PD 1638 RA NO. 340
“Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000 Rules on
 Retired military  Refusal on the
Criminal Procedure should not apply because she filed her BP Blg.
personnel are part of the
22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled that rules of procedure apply
3
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

disqualified retiree to render ABALOS VS PEOPLE

from receiving active service
retirement when called to FACTS:
benefits once do so provided
 Abalos appealed her conviction for Estafa which affirmed
incapable to that the retiree
indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 20 years
render military still lives in the
of imprisonment.
service as a Philippines and
 Abalos introduced herself to Sembrano as Vicenta Abalos
result of having physically fit for
where in they went to the office of Sembrano to rediscount
sworn serivce
checks. However the checks were dishonored. Despite the
allegiance to a
demand for repayment she failed to do so therefore
foreign country
Sembrano filed a case for estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC
where Abalos was found guilty.
ATIENZA VS BRILLANTES  The element of deceit was proven because Abalos
presented several ID’s which had the name of Vicenta
FACTS: Abalos
 Sec. 100 RA 10951 gives a retroactive application as long
 Atienza filed a complaint against Brillantes for Gross as it is favorable to the accused
Immorality. He alleged that he saw Brillantes in her bed
with a woman named De Castro and that he and De Castro RTC and CA found her guilty of estafa and applied the
have 2 children. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, there being no aggravating or
 Atienza alleged that Brillantes is married to Ongkingko in mitigating circumstances where she will be imprisoned for 4 years
1965 and 1981 with whom he has 5 children and 2 months of prision correctional as minimum to 20 years of
 Brillantes denied that Atienza was married to De Castro reclusion temporal as maximum.
and that he only filed the complaint on claiming a property
which was disputed by De Castro. He also denied being ISSUE: which penalty should be imposed? Shouldn’t RA 10951 be
married to Ongkingko although they have 5 children on given retroactivity effect?
the ground that there was no valid marriage license in the
RULING: The RPC was applied for the penalty imposed because it
2 marriages that they contracted. He further claimed that
benefits the accused more which is prision correctional in its
when he married De Castro he thought that he was single
minimum period of 4 years and to 20 years of reclusion temporal.
because there was no marriage license.
 Art. 40 of the FC required a final judgment declaring such How did it benefit the accused more?
marriage void for the purpose of remarriage.
 However, Brillantes argues that ART.40 should not apply - In applying the RPC, the penalty of prision correctional in
to him because he was first married under the Civil code its maximum period to prision mayor in its min. period will
and the 2nd marriage was under the Family code. be applied. If the amount exceeds P 12,000 the maximum
period will be applied plus 1 year additional for each
RULING: the SC held that the FC is applicable to marriages additional P10,000 pesos but the total penalty imposed
celebrated before it promulgation under Art. 256 giving it retroactive should not be over 20 years.
effect IN SO FAR as it does not prejudice or impair a vested right. - Since, the amount exceeded the penalty should be of the
Furthermore, Art. 40 of the FC is a procedural rule which is given maximum period but when applying the ISL the minimum
retroactive effect. term should be within the PENALTY NEXT LOWER IN
DEGREE of the penalty prescribed which is prision
General Rule: No vested right may attach or arise from procedural
correctional in its minimum period which is only 6 months
laws.
and 1 day to 4 years and 2months. Compared to the RA
Brillantes failed to prove that there was a vested right impaired and 10951 the penalty imposed is prision mayor in its medium
cannot invoke good faith because he knew that a marriage license period which has the higher years of imprisonment even if
must always be secured first. applying the ISL the minimum period would still be higher
compared to the penalty under the RPC.

“Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the

effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the
date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family
Code, said Article is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the
Civil Code or other laws." This is particularly true with Article 40,
which is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested
right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.

The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending FAMANILA VS CA
actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not
violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely FACTS:
affected (Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 229 [1968]). The
reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor  NFD hired the services of Famanila as a messman for
arise from, procedural laws” Hansa Riga. When this vessel docked at a port in California
4
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

and when Famanila was assisting, he was complaining of RULING: NO. the Release and Waiver of Claim is not valid. A waiver
a headache. It was later found out that he had a sudden must be clear and have unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as
attack of his left cerebral hemorrhage and underwent to to the intention of the party to give up a right or benefit which legally
brain operations in the US. This cause for his repatriation pertains to him.
in the Philippines where he was declared totally disabled.
 NDF convinced Famanila to settle his claim amicable by The SC found that there was no waiver of hereditary rights it merely
accepting S13,200 which was agreed by Famanila and was stated that Remedios received P 300,000 for financial assistance.
witnessed by his wife and friend.
Even if we assume that Remedios waived the right of her
 After a period of many years Famanila filed a complaint
children, such waiver is invalid because there must be a
again praying for disability benefits etc. which was denied
judicial authorization. This is because repudiation amounts
by the NLRC and CA. He then alleged that it was wrong
to alienation of property which must pass the court’s scrutiny
for the dismissal of the complaint because when he signed
test in order to protect the interest of the ward.
the document he was permanently disabled and in
financial constraints. Therefore there was vitiated consent. In the case at bar, PR could not have waived their hereditary rights
because it is not yet established if they are indeed the illegitimate
ISSUE: w/n Famanila is entitled to the benefits he is praying for?
children of Sima Wei. This is bolstered by the fact that petitioners
RULING: NO. the SC held that a vitiated consent does not make the themselves denied having them as co-heirs. It would be inconsistent
contract void and unenforceable but ONLY GIVES RISE TO A to rule that they have waived their hereditary rights when petitioner
VOIDABLE CONTRACT. claims that they do not have such rights.

There is vitiated consent if the consent given was accompanied with WAIVER- is the intentional relinquishment of a KNOWN RIGHT if a
mistake, violence,intimidation , undue influence or fraud. This person does not know such right, how can he waive it? Moreover, a
makes the contract VOIDABLE which is valid until annulled by the waiver cannot be established by a consent give under a mistake of
proper court. misapprehension of facts.

Famanila contends that since he was totally disabled there was OTAMIAS VS REPUBLIC
vitiated consent however disability is not among the factors that
FACTS:
may vitiate consent. There was also not enough proof that the
consent of Famanila is vitiated therefore the receipts and release  Spouses Otamias separated therefore the wife Edna filed
must be upheld. a complaint of affidavit against Col Francisco demand
monthly support equivalent to 75% of his retirement
Even if we say that he has not fully recovered at the time he signed
benefits but he only can offer 50% of his benefits. He then
the agreement this can still not prosper because he had 2 witnesses
executed a Deed of Assignment where he WAIVED
who signed the agreement.
50% of his benefits.
Disability is not among the factors that may vitiate consent. Besides,  Edna then claimed that the AFP stopped honoring the
save for petitioner’s self-serving allegations, there is no proof on agreement. They required her to submit a court order for
record that his consent was vitiated on account of his disability. In them to recognize the Deed of Assignment which was
the absence of such proof of vitiated consent, the validity of the granted by the RTC.
Receipt and Release must be upheld.  The AFP filed a motion to quash on the ground that the
AFP finance center’s duty is ministerial therefore the
To be a valid waiver, the terms used must be clear and unequivocal disburse of retirement benefits only upon the approval of
leaving no doubt to the intention of those giving up a right or benefit the AFP PGMC.
and the SC has found that such contract was clear in its terms.  A notice of garnishment was issued by the RTC to AFP.
 AFP then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA which
GUY VS CA was granted and partially nullified the RTC ruling.

FACTS: ISSUE: W/N the Deed of Assignment is a valid waiver of the pension
benefits?
 The private respondents in this case Karen Wei and Kamille
Wei who are BOTH MINORS represented by their mother RULING: Yes. The Deed of assignment was not contrary to law. It
Remedios filed a petition for letters of administration. should be considered as the law between the parties and should be
 They allege that they are duly acknowledge illegitimate respected in the absence of allegations that Col. Otamias was
children of Sima Wei who died intestate. coerced or defrauded in executing it.
 Petitioners in this case alleged that the PR’s claim had been
paid,, waived, abandoned by reason of Remedios’ Release When Colonel Otamias executed the Deed of Assignment, he
and waiver of claim stating that in exchange for the effectively waived his right to claim that his retirement benefits are
financial and educational assistance received from exempt from execution. The right to receive retirement benefits
petitioner the PR will discharge the estate of Sima Wei belongs to Colonel Otamias. His decision to waive a portion of his
from all of its liabilities. retirement benefits does not infringe on the right of third persons,
but even protects the right of his family to receive support.
RTC and CA denied the motion.
In addition, the Deed of Assignment should be considered as the law
ISSUE: W/N the Release and waiver of claim executed by Remedios
between the parties, and its provisions should be respected in the
released and discharged the Guy family and the estates of Sima Wei
absence of allegations that Colonel Otamias was coerced or
from any claims or liabilities?
defrauded in executing it. The general rule is that a contract is the

5
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

law between parties and parties are free to stipulate terms and present sex be compatible with his name however RA 9048 does not
conditions that are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public allow such thing to happen.
order, or public policy.69ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Clerical or typographical error refers to mistake committed in the
The Deed of Assignment executed by Colonel Otamias was not performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or
contrary to law; it was in accordance with the provisions on support typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless such as
in the Family Code. Hence, there was no reason for the AFP PGMC MISPELLED NAME OR PLACE which is visible to the eyes or obvious
not to recognize its validity. to the understanding and can be corrected or changed ONLY BE
REFERENCE TO OTHER EXISTING RECORD.
Generally the parties may free to stipulate the terms of the
agreement as long as it is not contrary to law,morals,good customs, RA 9048 is only applicable to corrections of typographical errors if
public order or public policy. there is a need for a substantial change for example the sex of a
person, nationality, age, status then RULE 108 will be applicable.
Furthermore, the AFP has approved the request for support of the
wives of other retired military personnel. Always take note that correcting and changing are 2 different
concepts. In the case at bar the birth certificate contained NO
The AFP’s website informs the public of the procedure how to apply ERROR. All the entries in the birth certificate were correct therefore
for support. An SPA would suffice allowing the AFP to deduct certain no correction is necessary.
amount from his pensions pay which is a valid waiver of rights which
can be implemented by AFP. The SC also takes into consideration that a sex of a person is
determined at birth that is visually done by a physician or midwife.
SILVERIO VS REPUBLIC THERE IS NO LAW THAT ALLOWS SEX REASSIGNMENT in
determining the sex of a person. Therefore the determination of sex
FACTS: done by a physician, midwife, parents of the child is IMMUTABLE.

 Silverio filed a petition for a change of his first name and ADDITIONALLY, the change sought by Silverio will have a wide legal
sex in his birth certificate. He alleged that he is a male and public policy consequences because his intention was for
transsexual. He underwent sex reassignment surgery in marriage however in the Philippines marriage is a ceremony ONLY
Thailand. Since then, Silverio has been living as a female BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. If the SC grants his petition it would
and is engaged to be married. greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations.
 He petitioned his name to be changed into “Mely” and his
sex in the birth certificate as “Female”
In applying Art 9 of the Civil Code “It is true that Article 9 of the
 There were no oppositions to the petition made. RTC
Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall decline to render
rendered a decision in favor of Silverio on the ground of
judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the
just and equity.
law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial
 OSG filed a petition for certiorari in the CA which was
legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law,
granted and they argue that there is no law allowing the
not to make or amend it. So if there is no law for in this case sex
change of either name or sex in the birth certificate on the
reassignment as a ground for change of name or sex the judge
ground of sex reassignment through surgery.
cannot make a ground when such ground does not exist on account
ISSUE: W/N Silverio is entitled to the relief asked for? of justice and equity.

RULING: NO. the law is not ambiguous it only not allowed for
In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it
a change of sex and name on the ground of sex reassignment.
choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the
A CHANGE OF NAME IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.
recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The need for
Petition for changes of name are CONTROLLED BY STATUTES
legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case
which is in relation to Art. 376 of the civil code but has been
where the claims asserted are statute-based.”
amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) it governs the name
of first name, it provides that:

1. A change in a civil register shall only be changed or

corrected with a judicial order EXCEPT for clerical or
typographical errors of first name or nickname WHICH
CAN BE CORRECTED OR CHANGED by the city or municipal
civil register or consul general.

The following are the grounds for change of first name or nickname:

1. Must be RIDICULOUS, TAINTED WITH DISHONOR OR

EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO WRITE OR PRONOUNCE.
2. The 1st name and nickname HAS BEEN HABITUALLY &
CONTINUOUSLY used by petitioner and has been publicly SOCORRO VS VAN WILSEM
known by his first name or nickname in the community.
3. CHANGE WILL AVOID CONFUSION FACTS:

Sex reassignment is not a ground for a change of name under RA  Socorro and Van Wilsem were married in Holland and had
9048. Silverio’s intention to change his name was to make his a boy. Their marriage ended when a divorce decree after

6
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

5 years of marriage was granted by the courts of Holland. RULING: the divorce decree issued by Nevada binds PR. Therefore,
Socorro then went back home to the Philippines. he can no longer file an action as the husband of petitioner.
 Before she went home Van wilsem promised to support
them however never did so. Wilsem then married another It is true that the divorce law or decree is not applicable to Filipino
Filipina and is currently residing in Cebu. citizens due to Art. 15 of the NCC or the nationality principle
 Socorro then demanded for support but went unheeded. however it is applicable to him for being an American citizen. Aliens
She then filed a complaint under Sec. 5 par. E(2) of RA may obtain divorce abroad which may be recognized in the
9262 for deprivation for finanacial support Philippines.
 The RTC then issued a Hold Departure order against Van
Since PR is no longer the husband he has no standing to sue in this
Wilsem but then dismissed the complaint on the ground
case because petitioner’s husband the right to the conjugal
that Van Wilsem is an alien and that domestic laws do not
properties.
bound him which mandates a parent to give such support.
Even arguing that in Ph laws petitioner still should be considered as
ISSUE: W/N Van Wilsem is to be held criminally liable under
married because we do not accept divorce laws however the SC held
the Philippine laws despite being a Foreign National?
that petitioner should not be forced to live or give support to the PR
RULING: the SC held that the provisions under the New Civil Code since they are technically divorced. It would lead to discrimination
particularly Art. 195 cannot be applied to a foreign citizen because against her own country If the ends of justice are to be served.
under Art. 15 of the NCC stresses the principle of nationality
PILAPIL VS IBAY-SOMERA
therefore, can only be applied to Filipino citizens. HOWEVER, it does
not mean that Van Wilsem is not obliged to support his son FACTS:
altogether.
 Pilapil and Geiling (german national) were once married
Van wilsem has been pushing that in his country they are not obliged and after 3 years and eventually got a divorce which was
to support their children. We must take note however that in the granted by the German courts. Pilapil filed a legal
Philippines in order for us to take judicial notice of foreign laws, such separation. More than 5 months after the issuance of the
laws must be proven in this case respondent failed to do so. divorce decree Geiling filed 2 complaints for adultery
alleging that when he was still married to Pilapil she was
SC held that the Doctrine of Processual presumption shall govern
having 2 affairs.
which under this doctrine if the foreign law involved is NOT
 Pilapil filed a motion to quash but was denied. This
PROPERLY PLEADED and proved OUR COURTS WILL PRESUME THAT
prompted her to file an action for certiorari and prohibition
THE FOREIGN LAW IS THE SAME with our local laws. In this case it
with a pray for TRO. She anchored this complaint on the
is correct to enforce the obligation of parents to support their
ground that the COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICATION TO
children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith but only with
TRY AND DECIDE THE CHARGE OF ADULTERY since the
respect to the child not the wife because legally they are already
purported complainant a foreigner does not qualify as an
divorced.
offended spouse for having obtained a final divorce decree
The Territoriality principle in criminal law and under Art.14 of the under his national law prior to his filing the criminal
NCC is applicable in this case and holds that penal laws is applicable complaint.
to all WHO LIVE and SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINES. Thus,
ISSUE: W/N Geling has the legal standing to file the divorce decree
respondent can be held liable under RA 9262 for refusing to give
considering that a divorce decree was already issued by the Nevada
support because he is currently living in the Philippines and that
court?
such refusal to give support is a continuing offense.
RULING: NO. the law specifically provides that in prosecution for
NOTE: THERE IS NO PRESCTIPTION OF CRIME BECAUSE THE ACT
adultery and concubinage the person who can legally file the
OF DENYING SUPPORT IS A CONTINUING OFFENSE.
complaint is the OFFENDED SPOUSE. The marital marriage must still
VAN DORN VS ROMILLO be subsisting at the time of the institution of criminal action.

FACTS: In the present case, Geiling already obtained a divorce decree in

Germany which its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines
 Van Dorn (petitioner) married PR in this case however got in so far as Geiling’s concern therefore he is no longer the husband
a divorce in Nevada. Petitioner then remarried to Van of Pilapil and there is no marriage to speak of and thus not having
Dorn. a legal standing to file the criminal complaint.
 PR in this case filed a suite against Petitioner stating that
the business in Ermita was of conjugal property and that
he should be given the right to manage such property.
 Petitioner avers that respondent is ESTOPPED FROM
LAYING CLAIM ON THE ALLEGED CONJUGAL PROPERTY
because in the divorce decree he made a representation
that there was no community property, that the shop was
not purchased through conjugal funds. Respondent
contends that the divorce decree issued cannot prevail RECIO VS RECIO
over PH laws.
FACTS:
ISSUE: W/N Van Dorn

7
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

 Rederick Recio was married to Editha in Malabon an  Quita and Arturo are both filipinos who got married but
Australian national where they eventually had a divorce 2 eventually got a divorce in the USA. Quita obtained a 2 nd
years later. divorce and for the 3rd time remarried again.
 After 3 years of being divorced Rederick became an  Arturo died leaving no will. A Lino filed a letter of
Australian citizen and then remarried to Grace in the administration over the estate of Arturo.
Philippines. The marriage license indicated that Rederick  Blandina claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo and
was single and a Filipino. having the children of Arturo object to the petition of Lino.
 Grace file a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of marriage  Ruperto claimed to be the surviving brother of Arturo
on the ground of bigamy because Rederick was still intervened in the case.
married when she and him got married.  Quita moved for immediate declaration of heirs of the
 While the suite was still pending Rederick got a divorce decedent and the distribution if his estate.
decree in Australian courts.
RULING: The SC did not give any credence to the divorce obtained
RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the divorce decree by Quita and Arturo in the US because they are both Filipinos and
issued in AUS was valid and recognized in the Philippines. under our civil code obtaining a divorce is not allowed between
Filipinos under the Principle of Nationality.
ISSUE: W/N the divorce between Rederick and Editha was
proven? The SC held that the marriage contracted by Arturo and Blandina
was void because Arturo’s marriage with Quita was still valid
RULING: In mixed marriages between a filipino and alien, art. 26 therefore she cannot be considered as an heir unlike their children
of the FC allows the filipino to contract a subsequent marriage in which were proven to be recognized children of Arturo.
case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse.
Blandina alleged that during the time the divorce was obtained Quita
SC held that before the divorce decree can be admitted as evidence was no longer a Filipino however such allegations were not answered
it must first be proven by the person who insists its validity therefore by Quita if whether she is an American at the time of the filing of
Rederick must first present the document and admitted it in the divorce. The issue of citizenship was not yet resolved therefore
evidence under Rule 132 sec. 24 and 25. the case has to be remanded. Furthermore until it is being decided
Quita and the Padlan children are the rightful heirs
It may seem that the decree was valid on its face but mere
appearance is not enough to prove its authenticity. Fortunately on “Reading between the lines, the implication is that petitioner was no
the part of Rederick what was only objected was not the longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her divorce from Arturo. This
admissibility of the deree but only to the fact that it had not been should have prompted the trial court to conduct a hearing to
registered in the Civil registry of Cabanatuan this rendered the establish her citizenship. The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain
admissibility of the decree as a written act of the family court in the truth of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary and
Australia. testimonial evidence as well as the arguments of the parties either
supporting or opposing the evidence.”
It still cannot be determine if Rederick has the capacity to remarry
because there are 2 kinds of divorces- absolute divorce and limited “We deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to
divorce since it was no stated in his decree as to what kind of divorce the time of their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a
will govern it cannot be determined whether Rederick has the basis to determine petitioner's citizenship at the time of their
capacity to remarry. divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino
citizen when their divorce was decreed. The trial court must have
Therefore, the SC cannot conclude if Rederick who was then a
overlooked the materiality of this aspect. Once proved that she was
naturalized citizen of AUS has the legal capacity to marry Grace
no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van
neither can the SC rule if Rederick committed Bigamy because if it
Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose
is proven that Rederick had the capacity to contract the 2 nd marriage
her right to inherit from Arturo.”
then there is no bigamy to speak of.

PEREZ VS CA
QUITA VS CA
FACTS:
FACTS:

8
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

 Tristan and Lily got married and produced 4 children.  Felicisimo contracted 3 marriages during his life time.
However they decided to obtain a divorce decree from the  His 1st marriage was with Virginia where they had 6
Dominican Republic whereby the RTC ordered the children. 2nd marriage was with Merry Lee who obtained a
complete separation of properties between Tristan and divorce decree in Hawaii. 3 rd marriage was with Felicidad
Lily. to whom he did not have any children but they have been
 Tristan then remarried to Perez, She discovered that the married for 18 years until his death.
divorce decree was recognized in the PH and that her  Felicidad filed a letters of administration seeking for the
marriage with Tristan was deemed void. dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the
 Tristan then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of settlement of Felicisimo estates.
marriage between him and Lily. Perez file a motion for  Rodolfo (son) opposed the petition on the ground that
intervention but was denied disregarding her legal interest Felicisimo was only the mistress of his father and that his
in the annulment case. father was still legally married to Merry Lee.
 Felicidad then submitted documentary evidences showing
ISSUE: W/N Perez has the legal interest to intervene in the the there was an absolute divorce decree issued by the
annulment proceedings? Family Court.
 The heirs of felicisimo asserted that par 2 of Art. 26 of the
RULING: NO. this is because Legal interest entitles a person to
FC cannot be given retroactive effect to validate
intervene must be in the matter of litigation and of such direct and
respondent’s bigamous marriage because it would impair
immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by
vested rights.
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. Such interest must
be actual, direct and material. RTC ruled against Felicidad on the ground that her marriage with
Felicisimo was bigamous and that the divorce decree was not
“When petitioner and Tristan married on July 14, 1984, Tristan was
recognized in the Philippines and that Art 26 of the FC cannot
still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that Tristan and Lily
retroactively be applied in the present case.
obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage
bond between them. It is basic that laws relating to family rights CA ruled in favor of Felicidad.
and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living ISSUE: W/N Felicidad can file the letters of administration over the
abroad.19 Regardless of where a citizen of the Philippines might be, estate of Felicisimo?
he or she will be governed by Philippine laws with respect to his or
her family rights and duties, or to his or her status, condition and RULING: YES. The absolute divorce decree obtained in Hawaii was
legal capacity. Hence, if a Filipino regardless of whether he or she valid because severing marital ties between parties in a MIXED
was married here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an MARRIAGE capacitates the Filipino Spouse to REMARRY as a
absolute divorce from spouse and eventually becomes successful in necessary consequence of upholding the validity of a divorce
getting an absolute divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize obtained abroad by the alien spouse.
such absolute divorce”
This is the purpose of Art. 26 of the Family code. It has the
intention of AVOIDING SITUATIONS where the Filipino Spouse
“When Tristan and Lily married on May 18, 1968, their marriage was remains married to the alien spouse who after obtaining the a
governed by the provisions of the Civil Code21 which took effect on divorce is no longer married to the Filipino Spouse.
August 30, 1950. In the case of Tenchavez v. Escano22 we held:
Thus, the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee gave Felicidad the
Felicisimo to remarry thus giving Felicidad a legal capacity to file the
(1) That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and
petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse.
decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act No.
386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and
The SC ruled that Felicidad legal capacity to file the subject petition
neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the
for letters of administration MAY ARISE FROM HER STATUS SA THE
divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce,
SURVIVING SPOUSE OR AS HIS CO-OWNER. The case was
entitled to validity in the country. “
REMANDED by the reason of:

Perez claims that she has been legally married with Tristan for 17 1. Rule 78, sec. 6 letters of administration may be granted to
years such contention is not valid because under the PH laws the the surviving spouse. If Felicidad is able to prove the
marriage they contracted was never valid for Tristan is still validity of the divorce and Felicisimo’s capacity to remarry
considered married to Lily. but failed to prove that the marriage was validly performed
under the USA laws she will be considered as a co-owner
The divorce obtain in DR was never valid because regardless where under Art. 144 of the civil code.
they initiated the divorce proceedings she will still be governed by 2. If respondent failed to prove the validity of both the
the Philippine laws. divorce and the marriage Art. 148 will be applied

Thus, Perez never acquired legal interest as a wife upon which her
motion for intervention is based upon.

SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS

LAVADIA VS HEIRS OF LUNA
FACTS:

9
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

 Atty. Luna first married Eugenia where they begot 7 presented did not prove that it were indeed used for the acquisition
children. After 2 decades of marriage they both decided to of the share of the unit.
live apart from each other. Both of them entered into a
written agreement where they agreed to live separately Moreover, the fact that CCT No. 21761 and 4779 were in the name
and to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal partnership of of “Juan Luna married to Soledad” does not prove that Soledad is
property. the co-owner it is merely descriptive of the civil status of Atty. Luna.
 Atty. Luna then obtained a divorce decree in DR of his Acquisition of title and registration of title are 2 different acts,
marriage with Eugenia and there he married Soledad. registration does not confer title but merely confirms one already
 Atty. Luna organized a new law firm where they purchased existing.
a condominium unit. In the deed of sale it was written that
Another point is that Soledad is not a lawyer so its logical that
Atty. Luna is married to Soledad.
Soledad had no participation or contributed for the law office
 After his death, his share 25/100 pro indiviso share in the
amortization and for the law books.
condominium unit and some law books , furniture and
other equipments were taken over by his son GREGORIO. NOVERAS VS NOVERAS
These properties were the subject of the complaint filed by
Soledad. She alleged that she is the co-owner of the said FACTS:
properties because it was acquired during the marriage.
 Spouses Noveras were married in Quezon City. They
RTC and CA ruled that Soledad is not the wife of Atty. Luna but resided in the USA where they eventually acquired
rather EUGENIA because the absolute divorce decree he obtained in American Citizenship.
DR did not terminate his marriage with EUGENIA because a foreign  During their marriage they acquired properties in the US
divorce decree is not recognized in our jurisdiction between 2 and PH.
Filipinos.  Due to the losses in their business David had to return
home.
ISSUE: W/N the divorce between Atty. Luna and Eugenia in DR was  The Sampaloc property was owned by David’s parents
valid and would the marriage contracted by Atty. Luna and Solidad when David went back to PH leticia executed an SPA
is valid and entitles her the rights to the property? authorizing him to sell the property for P2M.
 According to Leticia, David ABANDONED HIS FAMILY and
RULING:
lived with Martinez. Leticia claimed that David agreed to
1. The SC held that the marriage between Atty. Luna and execute a Joint Affidavit with her stating that the P1M from
Eugenia was valid until the death of Luna. During the time the purchase of the prop be given to her, David will repay
when they contracted marriage it was under the civil code the P750,000 half of the redemption price of the Sampaloc
which follows the nationality principle under this principle property and David will renounce all his rights and interest
even if Filipinos are living abroad they are still bound to over the conjugal and real properties in PH.
the PH laws (Art. 15 of the NCC). Despite obtaining the  Leticia filed a for divorce and was granted by the court of
divorce decree in DR, such decree cannot be given any California where the court awarded all the properties in the
judicial recognition because absolute divorce is not USA to Leticia. She then filed a petition for judicial
recognized in the Philippines. separation of conjugal property of the properties left in the
2. The agreement for Separation of Property Settlement was Philippines before the RTC .
void for LACK OF COURT APPROVAL. When they contracted
RTC dissolved the absolute community of property of the parties.
marriage there was no marriage settlement executed
RTC awarded the net assets of the absolute community of property
therefore they are governed by the Conjugal partnership
of the parties in the Philippines to David only, with the properties in
of gains under Art. 190 of the FC if there is an agreement
the US remaining in the sole ownership of petitioner Leticia.
of the separation of property between spouses during the
marriage it must be by virtue of a JUDICIAL ORDER. The RTC recognized that since the parties are US citizens, the
laws that cover their legal and personal status are those of
QUESTION: the agreement was approved by the DR shouldn’t it be the USA. With respect to their marriage, the parties are divorced
valid? by virtue of the decree of dissolution of their marriage issued by the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. Under their law,
ANSWER: No, because the agreement was only executed for the
the parties’ marriage had already been dissolved. Thus, the trial
purpose of obtaining the divorce decree and the grounds raised for
court considered the petition filed by Leticia as one for
their divorce were the same as what was in their agreement. which
liquidation of the absolute community of property regime
was held here in the Philippines as invalid.
with the determination of the legitimes, support and custody of the
children, instead of an action for judicial separation of conjugal
QUESTION: Did Soledad prove her co-ownership of the said
property.
properties?
With respect to their property relations, the RTC first classified their
ANSWER: Since Atty. Luna and Eugenia’s marriage was valid, the property regime as absolute community of property because they
marriage contracted by Atty. Luna and Soledad is considered did not execute any marriage settlement before their marriage.
bigamous therefore the properties obtained are GOVERNED BY THE Then, the RTC ruled that in accordance with the doctrine of
RULES ON CO-OWNERSHIP under Art. 144 of the FC. Therefore, a processual presumption, Philippine law should apply because the
person who alleges ownership has the BURDEN OF PROOF of actual court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since the parties did
contribution in the acquisition of the property is essential. The SC not submit any proof of their national law.
held that Soledad failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that
CA modified the RTC Decision by directing the equal division of
her own independent funds were used to buy the law office
the Philippine properties between the spouses.
condominium, law books and other equipments. The checks she
10
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

ISSUES: o First, while actual abandonment had not been

proven, it is undisputed that the spouses had
1. WON the CA erred in not recognizing the California
been living separately since 2003 when David
judgment which awarded all the US properties to Leticia.
decided to go back to the Philippines to set up
(NO.)
his own business.
2. WON the petition for judicial separation of property should
o Second, Leticia heard from her friends that David
be granted. (YES)
has been cohabiting with Estrellita Martinez, who
represented herself as Estrellita Noveras. Editha
Apolonio, who worked in the hospital where
RULING:
David was once confined, testified that she saw
 The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce the name of Estrellita listed as the wife of David
judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not in the Consent for Operation form.
take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. The o Third and more significantly, they had filed for
foreign judgment and its authenticity must be divorce and it was granted by the California court
proven as facts under our rules on evidence, in June 2005.
together with the alien’s applicable national law to o Having established that Leticia and David had
show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself actually separated for at least one year, the
or herself. The recognition may be made in an action petition for judicial separation of absolute
instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action community of property should be granted.
where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral o The grant of the judicial separation of the
aspect of his claim or defense. absolute community property automatically
 For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign dissolves the absolute community regime that
judgment relating to the status of a marriage, a copy governed the parties.
of the foreign judgment may be admitted in
“The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment
evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections
is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of
24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the
foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a
Rules of Court.
rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a
 Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public
judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This means
documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must beproven as
proved by: (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy
facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s
attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof.
applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the
Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if
alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a
that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The
party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim
attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a
or defense”
correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as
the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer. “Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in
o Based on the records, only the divorce decree evidence. The required certificates to prove its authenticity, as well
was presented in evidence. The required as the pertinent California law on divorce were not presented.
certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as
the pertinent California law on divorce were not It may be noted that in Bayot v. Court of Appeals,16 we relaxed the
presented. The divorce decree also had no requirement on certification where we held that "[petitioner therein]
seal from the office where the divorce decree was clearly an American citizenwhen she secured the divorce and
was obtained. that divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of the
o Absent a valid recognition of the divorce Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly
decree, it follows that the parties are still authenticatedby the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here,
legally married in the Philippines. The RTC, sufficient." In this case however, it appears that there is no seal
therefore, erred in proceeding directly to from the office where the divorce decree was obtained.”
liquidation.

YES – the petition for judicial separation of property should be Wherefore, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the
granted. Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 88686 is AFFIRMED

**Note that the RTC did not tackle this issue because RTC treated
the petition as petition for liquidation.

 Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient

cause for judicial separation of property
xxx
(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been
separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is
highly improbable.
o The records are replete with evidence that Leticia ORION VS SUZUKI
and David had indeed separated for more than a
FACTS:
year and that reconciliation is highly improbable.
11
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

 Suzuki bought a condominium owned by Kang a Korean the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of
national and a holder of Special Resident Retiree’s visa. proving the foreign law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be
Suzuki bought the said property where they eventually properly pleaded and proved as the judge cannot take judicial notice
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the unit and of a foreign law.27 He is presumed to know only domestic or the law
the parking slot. Kang made several representations with of the forum.”
Suzuki to deliver the titles but the titles to the properties
were allegedly in the safe keeping of Perez an Orion’s Loan “In the present case, Orion, unfortunately failed to prove the South
officer. Kang eventually failed to deliver it. Korean law on the conjugal ownership ofproperty. It merely
 Suzuki then learned that Kang already left the country attached a "Certification from the Embassy of the Republic of
therefore he checked the status of the unit which he Korea"29 to prove the existence of Korean Law. This certification,
discovered that there was a mortgage in favor of Orion for does not qualify as sufficient proof of the conjugal nature of the
P1M but was already cancelled in 2000 however despite property for there is no showing that it was properly authenticated
bythe seal of his office, as required under Section 24 of Rule 132. 30
the cancellation of the mortgage of the properties to Orion,
the still had possession over the titles of the properties.
 Orion refused to give the title because Kang obtained Accordingly, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity
approachor processual presumption comes into play, i.e., where a
another loan which he failed to pay but executed a DACION
foreign law is not pleaded or, evenif pleaded, is not proven, the
EN PAGO over the said property on Feb. 2,2003 . Orion,
presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine Law”
did not register the dacion en pago until Oct. 15,2003.
 Suzuki then filed a complaint for specific performance.
Immovable properties are exclusively subject to the laws of the
 Orion argued that the sale made by Kang to Suzuki was
country or state where it is located. Immovables are part of the
void under the Korean law because it is a conjugal property
country and that all rights over them have their natural center of
and the sale should be made with the consent of the 2
gravity there.
parties.

(From Atty) Essentially what Orion is saying is that under Art. 15 All matters that pertain to title and disposition of REAL PROPERTIES
since Kang is Korean under their laws he does not have the capacity are determined by LEX LOCI REI SITAE the property shall be
to sell the unit because under the Korean law the sale of the conjugal governed by the law of the place where it is situated. It generally
property must be made with consent of both spouses. applies to lands and immovables in transactions like in sale, lease,
barter, mortgage etc. (Pineda).
RTC and CA ruled in favor of Suzuki and ordered ORION to deliver
the titles to him because he was an innocent purchaser. Suzuki On the other hand property relations between spouses are governed
made efforts to verify the status of the properties and found no by the nationality of the spouses but the application of a foreign law
existing encumbrance. Dacion En pago may have taken place but must be proven by the party invoking it under Rule 132 sec. 24 and
Orion never bothered to register or annotate it. 25.

ISSUE: W/N the Deed of Sale executed by Kang in favor of Suzuki Accordingly in this case matters pertaining to real property is
is null and void for under the Korean law any conveyance of a governed by PH laws and issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of
conjugal property should be made with the consent of both parties? the property shall be governed by the SK law PROVIDED IT IS
PROVEN AS A FACT.
RULING: SC applied the PH laws.
In the case at bar, Orion failed to prove the SK law on the conjugal
“It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is ownership of property therefore the doctrine of processual
exclusively subject to the laws of the country or state where it is presumption is applied whereby we assume that the foreign law is
located.21 The reason is found in the very nature of immovable the same as the PH laws. Even though it was written in the
property — its immobility. Immovables are part of the country and document that Kang is married to Jung it is merely a description of
so closely connected to it that all rights over them have their natural the civil status of Kang ang not a proof of the ownership over the
center of gravity there.22 property.

The SC applied Art. 1544 of the NCC pertaining to immovable

Thus, all matters concerning the titleand disposition ofreal property properties whereby the person who may have first taken the
are determined by what is known as the lex loci rei sitae, which can property in GOOD FAITH FIRST RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF
alone prescribe the mode by which a title canpass from one person PROPERTY is the owner. The Deed of Absolute sale was
to another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or consummated as testified by the witness of Suzuki.
lost.23 This general principle includes all rules governing the
descent, alienation and transfer of immovable property and the Furthermore, the inconsistencies of the testimony and documentary
validity, effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. 24 evidence of Orion contradicts the conclusion that the Dacion En Pago
was duly executed on the following reasons:
This principle even governs the capacity of the person making a
 There is no due and demandable obligation when the
deed relating to immovable property, no matter what its nature may
Dacion was executed because the loan obligation would
be. Thus, an instrument will be ineffective to transfer title to land if
mature on Aug 2003 whereas the Dacion was executed on
the person making it is incapacitated by the lex loci rei sitae, even
Feb 2003
though under the law of his domicile and by the law of the place
 Perez who was supposed to prepare the Dacion appears to
where the instrument is actually made, his capacity is undoubted.”
have only a vague idea of the transaction.
 There is no document to prove that the loan was secured
“On the other hand, property relations between spouses are by a real estate mortgage aside from it being mentioned
governed principally by the national law of the spouses.26 However, in the Dacion en Pago
12
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS DIGESTED CASES 1st SYLLABUS
Prepared by: RIKKA CASSANDRA J. REYES

 The Dacion en Pago was first mentioned AFTER 2 MONTHS

Suzuki and Smain demanded delivery of the titles
 Kang remained in possession of the unit and there was no
proof that Orion even bothered to take possession of the
property even 6 months after the supposed date of
execution of the Dacion en Pago and Kang was even able
to transfer ownership to Suzuki. If Orion really purchased
the unit why did it not assert its ownership immediately
after the alleged sale took place.

These circumstances prove the spurious nature of the Dacion en

Pago.

 With regard to the PRA restriction the SC held that it

cannot affect the conveyance in favor os Suzuki because
the annotation only serves as a warning to the owner who
holds a SRRV shall lose his visa if he disposes his property
which serves as his investment in order to qualify for such
status. Therefore it does not affect Suzuki. Even Orion
knew of this annotation and yet they accommodated
Kang’s request to cancel mortgage despite of lack oy
payment to circumvent the PRA restriction. Therefore,
Orion is estopped from impugning validity on the ground
of PRA.

13