Raul H.

Sesbreno, petitioner
Vs.
CA, et al. , respondents
Gr no. 160689, Mar. 26, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner Sesbreno is a consumer of herein respondent Visayan Electric
Company (VECO). On the afternoon of May 11, 1989 at around 4:00 oclock, the
Violation of Contract Team (VOC) of VECO conducted routine inspection of houses at
La Paloma Village, Labanson, Cebu City, including the house of the petitioner, for
illegal connections, meter tampering, seals, conduits pipes, jumpers, wiring
connections and meter installations. The petitioner t that time was not at home.
The tem was accompanied by their PC escort, Balicha. In the course of their
inspection the team found that the electric meter of the petitioner had been turned
upside down. This made the team asked permission to enter the house itself to
examine the kind and number of appliances and light fixtures in the household and
determine its electrical load.
Petitioner then filed a complaint claiming damages on abuse of rights as the
team entered his house without a search warrant contending violation of his right
under Article 32.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner was entitled to recover damages.
HELD:
The court held that petitioners contention that his constitutional right against
unlawful searches and seizures had been violated has no legal and factual basis.
Said right is to be invoked only to ensure freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable
exercise of state power. Besides, the VOC inspector only decided to enter the main
premises only after finding the meter of the petitioner turned upside down and its
disc not rotating. In fact, this kind of entry is authorized pursuant to the service
contract entered into by VECO and its consumers.

Soledad L. Lavadia, petitioner

Vs
Heirs of Juan Luces Luna, respondent
GR NO. 171914
FACTS:
The deceased Atty. Juan Luces Luna and one of the herein respondent
Eugenia Zaballero Luna got married on September 10, 1947. After almost 2 decades
of marriage, Atty. Luna obtained on January 12, 1976 a divorce decree of his
marriage with Eugenia from the Civil and Commercial Chamber of First
Circumscription of the CFI of Sto. Domingo, Dominican Republic. Also on the same
date, he contracted another marriage with herein petitioner Soledad L. Lavadia.
Unfortunately Atty. Juan died on July 12, 1997 leaving a properties which were the
subject of a case between petitioner and the heirs of Atty. Juan from his previous
marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained abroad terminated the marriage
between Atty. Juan and Eugenia.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the law applicable on the marriage of Atty. Juan and
Eugenia was the Spanish Civil Code which adopted the nationality rule. It provides
that marriage of Filipino abroad shall be govern by Philippine Laws. Under Philippine
laws, divorce decree obtained by fiipino couple abroad is not recognized in our
jurisdiction. Hence, Eugenia the first wife was still the legitimate wife of Atty. Luna
until the lattes death on July 12, 1997.

Republic of the Philippines, petitioner

Vs.
Ferventino U. Tango
GR NO. 161062, July 31, 2009
FACTS:
On March 9, 1987, herein respondent Ferventino and Maria got married. On
March 13, 1987, Maria and her family flew to Seattle, USA with a promise to
Ferventino to file a petition in the USA so he can live with her or that in the event
such petition would be denied she would return to the Philippines to live with him.
For a year, Ferventino alleges that Maria kept in touch until she stopped
responding to his letters. Petitioner also recounts his efforts to find Maria. But all
proved fruitless. The next 14 years went by without any news of Maria.
Ferventino filed a petition of declaration of presumptive death of Maria within
the contemplation of Article 41 of the family code. Without any opposition entered
on its initial hearing the RTC renders decision declaring Maria , presumptively dead.
This prompted the OSG to file a notice of appeal before the CA and to this
court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the declaration of presumptive death in a summary
proceedings is appealable in accordance with the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
HELD:
The Court by express provision of Article 247 of the family code held that
judgment of the court in a summary proceeding, like the one filed in the instant
case, shall be immediately final and executory.

Bienvenido Rodriguez, petitioner

Vs.
CA and Clarito Agbulos, respondents
GR No. 85723, June 19, 1995
FACTS:
In an action for compulsory recognition and support by herein respondent
Clarito Agbulos against herein petitioner Bienvenido Rodriguez, the trial court did
not allow the testimony of the respondents mother as opposed by the petitioner
contending it is not allowed under Article 280 of the civil code. On the other hand,
respondent contends that her action was brought under Article 283 of the civil code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of the mother of the respondent may be
allowed in establishing the latters paternity.
HELD:
The Court ruled that respondents mother testimony shall be allowed in court
in an action for compulsory recognition pursuant to the provision of Article 283
which provides that In any of the following cases the father is obliged to recognize
the child as his natural child:
Xxxxxxx
3.) When the child was conceived during the time when the mother cohabited with
the supposed father.
4.) When the child has in his favor any evidence or proof that the defendant is his
father.
Furthermore the Court added that both the Family Code in Article 172 and the
Civil Code in Article 283 adopts the rule that filiation may be proven by any
evidence or proof that the defendant is his father.

s
FACTS:
Petitioner Melania upon finding that her estranged husband Antonio Roxas
entered into a contract of leased with Antonio Cayetano covering a portion of their
conjugal lot without her previous knowledge and consent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the estranged husband must sought the consent of his wife in
entering into a contract of lease covering their conjugal property.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the consent of the petitioner wife must be sought for
the reason that it covered a conjugal property belonging to the couple. Under the
civil code in article 165 the husband is the administrator of the conjugal
partnership. However administration does not include acts of ownership for while
the husband can administer the conjugal assets unhampered, he cannot alienate or
encumber the conjugal property. It must be noted that under the provisions of the
civil code a lease is considered as conveyance and encumbrance.s