Case 1:

Lupo Almodiel Atienza, (complainant)

Vs.

Judge Francisco Brillantes, jr, MTC (respondent)

FACTS:

Atienza (complainant), alleges that he has two children with Yolanda De Castro, who are living
together in Makati, Metro Manila. He stays in said house, whenever he is in Manila.

In December 1991, he saw Brillantes (respondent) sleeping on his bed but did not bother to
wake him up and gave instructions to his houseboy to take care of his children.

Atienza alleges that Brillantes was already married to Zenaida Ongkiko, with whom he has five
children. Respondent denies being married to Ongkiko for their marriage was void. Respondent alleged
that they did not acquire a marriage license during their first marriage in Nueva Ecija on April 25, 1965
and the second marriage in Manila on June 5, 1965.

Respondent claims that when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles, California on
December 4, 1991, he believed, in all good faith and for all legal intents and purposes, that he was single
because his first marriage was solemnized without a license.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent validly cohabited with De Castro despite having a previous
marriage.

HELD:

No. Under the Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous
marriage before a party thereto can enter into a second marriage. 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."

Respondent is the last person allowed to invoke good faith. He made a mockery of the
institution of marriage and employed deceit to be able to cohabit with a woman, who beget him five
children.

He was already a lawyer when he married Ongkiko yet he never secured a marriage license.
Respondent was given an opportunity to correct the flaw in his first marriage when he and Ongkiko
were married for the second time. His failure to secure a marriage license on these two occasions
betrays his sinister motives and bad faith.
Case 2:

Julieta B. Narag (Complainant)

Vs.

Atty. Dominador M. Narag (Respondent)

FACTS:

Julieta Narag, (complainant), alleges that his husband Dominador Narag should be disbarred for
unlawfully being in a relationship with a 17-year old college student. Julieta further claimed that the
respondent had already abandoned her and their children to live with Gina. The respondent denied the
charge against him, claiming that the allegations set forth by Julieta were mere fabrications; that Julieta
was just extremely jealous, which made her concoct stories against him.
The Court then directed the disbarment of the Respondent, due to the act of gross immorality. The
Court pointed out that the respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for
members of the legal profession.

On November 29, 2013, the respondent filed the instant petition for reinstatement to the Bar.
The respondent alleged that he has expressed extreme repentance and remorse to his wife and their
children for his misgivings. He claimed that his wife Julieta and their children had already forgiven him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law

HELD:

No. That he was supposedly forgiven by his wife and their children would likewise not be
sufficient ground to grant respondent’s plea. In any case, that the family of the respondent had forgiven
him does not discount the fact that he is still committing a grossly immoral conduct; he is still living with
a woman other than his wife. Well-entrenched is the rule that a husband is not merely a man who has
contracted marriage ---he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and remain
faithful to her until death.

In fine, the Court is not convinced that the respondent had shown remorse over his
transgressions and that he had already changed his ways as would merit his reinstatement to the legal
profession. Time and again the Court has stressed that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It
is enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character.
Case3:

The people of the Philippines, (plaintiff-appelle)

Vs.

Elias Borromeo, (defendant-appellant)

FACTS:

At high noon of July 3, 1981, the four-year old niece of Elias and Susana Borromeo reported to
Matilde Taborada, mother of Susana, that Susana was shouting frantically for help because Elias was
killing her. Taborada told her to inform his son Geronimo, who then told his father afterwards. Susana's
father called for the Mabolo police and, after a few minutes, police officer Fernando C. Abella and three
policemen arrived. The peace officers shouted and ordered Elias to open the door. When he did they
saw Susana already dead with the kitchen bolo at her side. When questioned, the accused Elias
Borromeo could only mumble incoherent words.

Appellant was convicted of the crime parricide, but he alleges that his crime should be homicide,
in order to lessen or mitigate the penalty, because he is not validly married to Susana. He contended
that there was no marriage contract signed during their marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the absence of a marriage contract render the marriage void?

HELD:

No. Person living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter
presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the
common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they
would be living in constant violation of decency and law. (Son Cui vs. Guepangco, 22 Phil. 216)

The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists in the registry of marriage does not
invalidate said marriage, as long as in the celebration thereof, all requisites for its validity are present.
The forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate to the registry is not one of said requisites. (Pugeda
vs. Trias, 4 SCRA 849).
Case 4:

G.R. No. L-49084 October 10, 1985

MATILDE ALAVADO in her own right and as natural guardian of IDA VILMA, IMELDA AND ROLANDO,
all surnamed ALAVADO petitioner, 
vs.
CITY GOVERNMENT OF TACLOBAN (ENGINEER'S OFFICE AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, now the LABOR APPEALS AND REVIEW STAFF), respondents.

FACTS:

The deceased, Ricardo A. Alavado, was employed as a carpenter-foreman by the City Engineer's
Office, Tacloban City. On August 6, 1974 when he reported for work, he was no longer under the
supervision of respondent city. He suffered severe headache when he was supervising laborers on a
construction project in Tolosa, Leyte. He died the following day of CVA-Cerebral Hemorrhage.

Petitioner, the surviving spouse, filed a claim for death benefits in her own behalf and in behalf
of her minor children. The hearing officer of Regional Office No. 9 in 'Tacloban City granted the petition.

Respondent appealed that, the marriage certificate issued by the Sto. Nino Parish of Tacloban
City, as proof of her marriage to the deceased, is not an authentic proof of marital status.The surviving
spouse-claimant must show either the original of the marriage contract or the marriage certificate duly
issued by the local Civil Registrar of the place where the marriage was solemnized.

ISSUE:

Whether or not may a marriage certificate attesting to the fact that claimant and deceased were
in fact married be considered satisfactory proof of marital status in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary?

HELD:

No. Once a man and a woman have lived as husband and wife and such relationship is not
denied nor contradicted the presumption of their being married must be admitted as a fact.

Likewise, the declaration of the husband is competent evidence to show the fact of marriage.
Similarly a witness who was present at the time the marriage was solemnized, is a competent witness to
establish the existence of said marriage. Indeed, public and open cohabitation as husband and wife,
birth and baptismal certificates of children born unto them after the celebration of the questioned
marriage, and a statement of such marriage in subsequent document were held to be competent
evidence as proof of said marriage. The said document indubitably establishes claimant marriage to the
deceased Alavado.
Case 5:

People of the Philippines

vs. Rosaria Ignacio

G.R. No. 107801 March 26, 1997

FACTS:

Rosaria Ignacio, accused of parricide by killing her husband, Juan Ignacio, pleaded not guilty. The
Trial Court rendered judgment convicting the accused. However, Rosaria has interposed that she be held
guilty only of homicide rather than of parricide. She contends that there was no clear evidence of
marriage between her and the victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rosaria and Juan are married.

HELD:

Yes, appellant not only declared in court that the victim was her fourth husband but she also
swore that they were married before a judge in Montalban, Rizal. Their children testified that Juan and
Rosaria are living as husband and wife.  Appellant’s own admission that she was married to the victim
was a confirmation of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a
woman so deporting themselves as husband and wife had verily entered into a lawful contract of
marriage.

In People v. Borromeo, the Court held that Persons living together in apparent matrimony are
presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact
married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they
thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in constant violation of decency and law. The
presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known in law. The law presumes morality,
and not immorality; marriage, and not concubinage; legitimacy, and not bastardy. There is the
presumption that persons living together as husband and wife are married to each other.
Case 6:

Juvy Cosca, et al.

v.

Hon. Lucio Palaypayon

A.M. No. MTJ-92-721 September 30, 1994

FACTS:

Complainants alleged that the respondent judge solemnized marriages even without the
requisite marriage license. Thus, couples were able to get married by the simple expedient of paying the
marriage fees despite the absence of a marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage contracts  did
not reflect any marriage license number. Further, respondent judge did not sign their marriage contracts
and did not indicate the date of solemnization. He alleged that he had to wait for the marriage license to
be submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony. Indubitably, the
marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriages celebrated are valid.

HELD:

The Family Code pertinently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are,  inter alia, a
valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the
absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and
that, while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party
or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
Case 7:

Republic of the Philippines

v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103047 September 2, 1994

FACTS:

Angelina Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by
Judge Malvar. The marriage was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents. Cardenas
personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the celebration of the marriage,
including the procurement of the marriage, license. The couple did not immediately live together as
husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to Castro's parents. It was only when Castro
discovered she was pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. Their cohabitation didn’t last
long and the couple parted ways. Castro, after giving birth, wanted to put in order her marital status
before leaving the country. She consulted a lawyer regarding the possible annulment of her marriage.
Through her lawyer's efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas
prior to the celebration of their marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage between Castro and Cardenas is void.

HELD:

Yes, at the time the subject marriage was solemnized, the law governing marital relations was
the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license
first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a
license would render the marriage void ab initio. The Court hold that, under the circumstances of the
case, the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent Castro sufficiently
established the absence of the subject marriage license.
Case 8:

Ireneo Geronimo

vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105540 July 05, 1993

FACTS:

Ireneo Geronimo contends that the marriage between her deceased sister and oppositor
Antonio A. Esman was null and void since there was no marriage license issued to the parties at the time
the marriage was celebrated. Petitioner contends that a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of
Pateros shows that the marriage license number was not stated in the marriage contract and that the
marriage contract itself does now show the number of the marriage license issued. Moreover, marriage
license number 5038770 which was issued to the deceased and the oppositor by the Civil Registrar of
Pateros, Rizal was not really issued to Pateros before the marriage was celebrated but to Pasig.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage is valid.

HELD:

Yes, non-indication of the number could only serve to prove that the number was not recorded.
It could not be accepted as convincing proof of non-issuance of the required marriage license. On the
other hand, the marriage license number does appear in the certified archives copy of the marriage
contract. The non-indication of the license number in the certified copies presented by the petitioner-
appellant could not be deemed as fatal vis-a-vis the issue of the validity of the marriage in question
because there is nothing in the law which requires that the marriage license number would be indicated
in the marriage contract itself.