1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 132

Case 1lLle l l MARACC CCnS18uC1lCn CC lnC peLlLloner vs CA MAnlLA ln1L8nA1lCnAL

Al8C81 Au1PC8l1? respondenLs
Case no C8 no 122196
uaLe !anuary 13 1997

lAC1S
SepLember 1983 peLlLloner consLrucLed a perlmeLer fence along Lhe MlA road from Asla
Cverseas lnc up Lo Alrscope uevelopmenL CorporaLlon for and ln conslderaLlon of Lhe quoLed prlce of
30744000 1o prevenL would be squaLLers from enLerlng Lhe area peLlLloner proceeded wlLh Lhe
fence consLrucLlon even lf Lhe noLlce Lo roceed was noL yeL slgned by Lhe general manager of prlvaLe
respondenL buL already lnlLlaled by lLs AssL ro[ecL Manager

AfLer Lhe lebruary 1986 revoluLlon Lhe consLrucLlon pro[ecL was sLopped by Lhe new general
manager of prlvaLe respondenL whereln 93 was flnlshed equlvalenL Lo 28206800 as compuLed by
peLlLloner

eLlLloner made repeaLed demands for Lhe paymenL of whaL lL has compleLed buL prlvaLe
respondenL lgnored sald demands 1wo years afLer maklng demands for paymenL Lhe peLlLloner declded
Lo brlng Lhe maLLer Lo courL lalllng Lo presenL evldence by respondenL Lhe Lrlal courL rendered a
declslon granLlng Lhe peLlLloner's prayer Cn appeal Lhe CA came wlLh an amounL of 23830148 based
upon a poootom metolt slnce Lhere ls an absence of a wrlLLen conLracL beLween Lhe parLles and ln
accordance Lo evaluaLlon by respondenL

eLlLloner flles a peLlLlon for revlew under 8ule 43 argulng LhaL Lhe CourL of Appeals (CA) erred
ln Laklng cognlzance of Lhe lssue of referrlng Lhe maLLer Lo Lhe CCA Lo deLermlne Lhe amounL due Lo
peLlLloner by relylng on sloo v cOA and koyol 1tost co vs cOA 8 whlch lssue was ralsed for Lhe flrsL
Llme on appeal 1he CourL gave due course Lo Lhe peLlLlon and requlred Lhe parLles Lo submlL Lhelr
respecLlve memoranda eLlLloner complled whlle prlvaLe respondenL adopLed lLs commenL as
memorandum


lSSuL
WheLher or noL on Lhe baslc rules of falr play and [usLlce Lo allow prlvaLe respondenL Lo ralse a
quesLlon noL venLllaLed before Lhe courL o qoo

8uLlnC
no reason Lo deparL from such rullng due Lo Lhe followlng reasons llrsL Lhe lnsLanL poosl
conLracL ls nelLher fraudulenL nor molo lo se Second Lhe pro[ecL was already covered by a speclflc
approprlaLlon 1hlrd as ln prlvaLe conLracLs Lhe facLs show LhaL an lmplled obllgaLlon Lo pay would be
lmposed upon Lhe governmenL lourLh Lhe properLy or beneflL ls noL ulLra vlres le Lhey can be Lhe
proper sub[ecL of an express conLracL and are wlLhln Lhe conLracLual powers of Lhe publlc body llfLh
Lhe case falls wlLhln Lhe exempLlon from Lhe mandaLory procedure of publlc blddlng whlch ls dlspensed
wlLh on Lhe ground of publlc necesslLy or when Llme ls of Lhe essence and conslderlng LhaL Lhe sub[ecL
pro[ecL was conLlguous Lo an on golng pro[ecL performed by peLlLloner and Lhere ls no proof of any
unsaLlsfacLory performance or negaLlve sllppage SlxLh Lhe conLracLor subsLanLlally complled (93
compleLe) ln good falLh wlLh lLs obllgaLlon and no lnLenLlonal deparLure from Lhe speclflcaLlons were
alleged SevenLh peLlLloners clalm ls clearly supporLed by equlLy rlvaLe respondenL ls reaplng beneflLs
from Lhe scallop fence and wlre placed by peLlLloner LlghLh Lhere ls no proof of any colluslon among
Lhe parLles lnvolved llnally Lhe paymenL ls llmlLed Lo Lhe acLual cosL chargeable agalnsL funds
auLhorlzed and cerLlfled for Lhe purpose All Lhese clrcumsLances Laken LogeLher negaLe fraud and
colluslon

1he declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals ls SL1 ASluL and Lhe declslon of Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL
daLed May 4 1992 ls 8LlnS1A1Lu where Lhe afflrmed 1haL Lhe respondenL acLed ln bad falLh ln refuslng
paymenL Lo peLlLloner Such facLual flndlngs are noL only accorded greaL welghL buL flnallLy as well
slnce Lhey are supporLed by subsLanLlal evldence







1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 109
Case 1lLle CA8MLLl1A 1An and 8CuCLlC 1An peLlLloners vs CA l8AnClSCC 1An (allas
1an uh 8ak and 1an Seng ka) respondenLs
Case no C8 no L22793
uaLe May 16 1967

lAC1S
1he presenL ls a sulL almed aL esLabllshlng a chlldrenLofaLher llleglLlmaLe relaLlonshlp beLween
peLlLloners and Lhe prlnclpal respondenL lranclsco 1an and Lo compel Lhe laLLer Lo supporL peLlLloners
Cn !uly 22 1933 peLlLloners Lhru Lhelr moLher CelesLlna ualdo as guardlan oJ lltem sued respondenL
1an ln Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla for acknowledgmenL and supporL (Clvll Case 26909)

Cn March 26 1936 CelesLlna ualdo afLer peLlLloners had already presenLed oral and
documenLary evldence and were abouL Lo resL Lhelr case moved Lo dlsmlss Lhe foregolng clvll case
upon Lhe ground LhaL Lhe parLles had come Lo an amlcable seLLlemenL and prayed LhaL Lhe same be
dlsmlssed wlLh pre[udlce and wlLhouL recourse of appeal

Cn Lhe same day March 26 1936 CelesLlna ualdo subscrlbed before Lhe clerk of Lhe CourL of
llrsL lnsLance of Manlla Lo an affldavlL caLegorlcally sLaLlng LhaL respondenL lranclsco 1an defendanL ln
Clvll Case 26909 ls noL Lhe faLher of my sald mlnor chlldren named CarmellLa and 8odolfo (hereln
peLlLloners) buL anoLher person whose name l cannoL dlvulge and LhaL she prepared sald affldavlL
preclsely Lo record whaL ls Lrue and Lo correcL whaL mlslnLerpreLaLlon may arlse ln Lhe fuLure1he
CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla lssued Lhe order for Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhelr complalnL on Lhe ground LhaL
Lhe parLles have already come Lo an amlcable seLLlemenL

Cn november 23 1937 one year and elghL monLhs afLer Clvll Case 26909 was dlsmlssed
peLlLloners Lhru Lhelr maLernal grandfaLher Servlllano ualdo as guardlan oJ lltem commenced Lhe
presenL acLlon before Lhe !uvenlle uomesLlc 8elaLlons CourL (Clvll Case 00833) for acknowledgmenL
and supporL lnvolvlng Lhe same parLles cause of acLlon and sub[ecL maLLer

Cn SepLember 10 1960 Lhen !udge !uan Lnrlquez (!udge of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of
Manlla deLalled Lo preslde over Lhe !uvenlle uomesLlc 8elaLlons CourL ln Lhe absence of Lhe presldlng
!udge Lhereof who was on leave rendered [udgmenL declarlng LhaL Lhe presenL case ls tes joJlcoto by
reason of Lhe dlsmlssal wlLh pre[udlce of Clvll Case 26909 of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla and
LhaL even on Lhe merlLs plalnLlffs Lhe presenL peLlLloners have noL made ouL Lhelr case wlLh sufflclenL
evldence and dlsmlssed Lhe complalnL wlLhouL cosLs

Cn CcLober 8 1960 Lhe peLlLloners moved Lo reconslder Cn !anuary 31 1961 Lhen !udge
naLlvldad Almeda Lopez reconsldered Lhe declslon of !udge Lnrlquez of SepLember 10 1960 and
rendered [udgmenL

lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe plalnLlffs have sufflclenLly proved Lhelr case where Lhe evldence for Lhe
plalnLlffsappellees fall shorL of Lhe requlremenL of clear sLrong and convlnclng evldence

8uLlnC
!udgmenL of Lhe CourL of Appeals was afflrmed ln conslderaLlon of SecLlon 2 8ule 43 of Lhe
8ules of CourL formerly SecLlon 2 8ule 46 of Lhe 1940 8ules employs Lhe commandlng language LhaL
only quesLlons of law may be ralsed ln an appeal by cettlototl from a [udgmenL of Lhe CourL of
Appeals 1haL [udgmenL [urlsprudence Leaches ls concluslve as Lo Lhe facLs lacLs cannoL be alLered lL
blnds or Lo revlew Lhe quesLlons of facL

Pavlng reached Lhe concluslon LhaL on Lhe merlLs peLlLloners
made no case lL ls unnecessary Lo pass upon Lhe oLher quesLlons ralsed on appeal
(1) 1haL LxhlblLs P and l former LesLlmonles of wlLnesses ln Clvll Case no 26909 are lnadmlsslble

(2) 1haL Lhe bapLlsmal cerLlflcaLes Lxhs A and C are noL admlsslble proofs of flllaLlon 1he blrLh
cerLlflcaLe LxhlblL 8 ls llkewlse lnadmlsslble agalnsL Lhe defendanL because lL falled Lo comply wlLh
SecLlon 3 of AcL 3733 1he alleged llleglLlmaLe faLher dld noL slgn under oaLh Lhe sald blrLh cerLlflcaLe lL
should be noLed LhaL sald bapLlsmal cerLlflcaLes are also useless Lo prove Lhe daLes of blrLh of Lhe
appelleesmlnors conslderlng LhaL Lhe perlod of cohablLaLlon or any lnLlmaLe relaLlons aL all beLween
Lhelr moLher and Lhe appellanL has been denled and LhaL same has noL been saLlsfacLorlly proved
SLaLed ln anoLher way Lhe daLe of blrLh as appearlng ln Lhe blrLh cerLlflcaLe would be maLerlal only lf lL
colncldes wlLh Lhe perlod of cohablLaLlon as admlLLed or sufflclenLly proved 1o reason oLherwlse would
be Lo puL Lhe carL before Lhe horse so Lo speak

(3) 1he oral evldence for Lhe plalnLlffs conslsLlng prlnclpally of Lhe LesLlmonles of Lhe grandfaLher and of
Lhe moLher of Lhe mlnors are unsaLlsfacLory belng lnconslsLenL and conLradlcLory on maLerlal polnLs
and unbellevable 1he loose characLer of Lhe moLher of Lhe mlnors who admlLLedly had llved and
begoLLen chlldren wlLh several men of dlfferenL naLlonallLles cannoL also be overlooked Welghed
agalnsL each oLher Lhe evldence for Lhe plalnLlffs do noL Llp Lhe scales ln Lhelr favor as agalnsL Lhe
defendanLappellanL We are noL convlnced by preponderance of evldence LhaL appellanL ls Lhe faLher
of Lhe mlnor appellees

























1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 164
Case 1lLle CL8A8uC 8 CCnCLClCn etltlooet vs CA MA 1PL8LSA ALMCn1L tesooJeots
Case no C8 no 123430
uaLe AugusL 31 2003

lAC1S
1he chlld by reason of hls menLal and physlcal lmmaLurlLy needs speclal safeguard and care
lncludlng approprlaLe legal proLecLlon before as well as afLer blrLh ln case of assaulL on hls rlghLs by
Lhose who Lake advanLage of hls lnnocence and vulnerablllLy Lhe law wlll rlse ln hls defense wlLh Lhe
slnglemlnded purpose of upholdlng only hls besL lnLeresLs

Cerardo and Ma 1heresa were marrled on uecember 29 1989

AfLer Lhelr marrlage Lhey llved
wlLh Ma 1heresa's parenLs ln lalrvlew Cuezon ClLy AlmosL a year laLer on uecember 8 1990 Ma
1heresa gave blrLh Lo !ose Cerardo

Cn uecember 19 1991 Cerardo flled a peLlLlon Lo have hls marrlage Lo Ma 1heresa annulled on
Lhe ground of blgamy Pe alleged LhaL nlne years before he marrled Ma 1heresa on uecember 10 1980
she had marrled one Marlo Coplao whlch marrlage was never annulled Cerardo also found ouL LhaL
Marlo was sLlll allve and was resldlng ln Loyola PelghLs Cuezon ClLy Ma 1heresa dld noL deny marrylng
Marlo when she was LwenLy years old buL averred LhaL Lhe marrlage was a sham and LhaL she never
llved wlLh Marlo aL all

1he Lrlal courL ruled LhaL Ma 1heresa's marrlage Lo Marlo was valld and subslsLlng when she
marrled Cerardo and annulled her marrlage Lo Lhe laLLer for belng blgamous lL declared !ose Cerardo Lo
be an llleglLlmaLe chlld as a resulL 1he cusLody of Lhe chlld was awarded Lo Ma 1heresa whlle Cerardo
was granLed vlslLaLlon rlghLs Ma 1heresa flled a peLlLlon quesLlonlng Lhe vlslLaLlon rlghLs granLed Lo
Cerardo


lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe chlld ls llleglLlmaLe and whose surname would he bear
WheLher or noL Cerardo ls worLhy of Lhe vlslLaLlon rlghLs granLed
8uLlnC
1he peLlLlon was uLnlLu and Lhe SepLember 14 1993 and !anuary 10 1996 resoluLlons of Lhe
CourL of Appeals ln CAC8 Cv no 40631 were Alll8MLu 1he CourL allowed vlslLorlal rlghLs Lo Lhe
faLher knowlng LhaL Lhe mlnor needs a faLher especlally as he ls a boy who musL have a faLher flgure Lo
recognlze someLhlng LhaL Lhe moLher alone cannoL glve 1he CourL belleves LhaL Lhe emoLlonal and
psychologlcal wellbelng of Lhe boy would be beLLer served lf he were allowed Lo malnLaln relaLlonshlps
wlLh hls faLher

1here belng no law whlch compels Lhe CourL Lo acL one way or Lhe oLher on Lhls maLLer Lhe
CourL lnvokes Lhe provlslon of ArL 8 u 603 as amended oLherwlse known as Lhe Chlld and ?ouLh
Welfare Code Lo wlL ln all quesLlons regardlng Lhe care cusLody educaLlon and properLy of Lhe chlld
hls welfare shall be Lhe paramounL conslderaLlon"

ConsequenLly she ls rlghL ln flrmly saylng LhaL Cerardo can clalm nelLher cusLody nor
vlslLorlal rlghLs over Lhe chlld !ose Cerardo lurLher Cerardo cannoL lmpose hls name upon Lhe chlld
noL only ls lL wlLhouL legal basls (even supposlng Lhe chlld Lo be hls llleglLlmaLe chlld ArL 146 1he
lamlly Code) lL would Lend Lo desLroy Lhe exlsLlng marrlage beLween Ma 1heresa and Coplao would
prevenL any posslble rapproachmenL beLween Lhe marrled couple and would mean a [udlclal seal upon
an llleglLlmaLe relaLlonshlp

1he courLs uphold Lhe presumpLlon of one's leglLlmacy As a leglLlmaLe chlld !ose Cerardo shall
have Lhe rlghL Lo bear Lhe surnames of hls faLher Marlo and moLher Ma 1heresa ln conformlLy wlLh Lhe
provlslons of Lhe Clvll Code on surnames A person's surname or famlly name ldenLlfles Lhe famlly Lo
whlch he belongs and ls passed on from parenL Lo chlld
31
Pence Cerardo cannoL lmpose hls surname
on !ose Cerardo who ls ln Lhe eyes of Lhe law noL relaLed Lo hlm ln any way ArLlcle 164 of Lhe lamlly
Code ls clear A chlld who ls concelved or born durlng Lhe marrlage of hls parenLs ls leglLlmaLe 1he
chlld shall be consldered leglLlmaLe alLhough Lhe moLher may have declared agalnsL lLs leglLlmacy or
may have been senLenced as an adulLeress"

1he maLLer of changlng !ose Cerardo's name and effecLlng Lhe correcLlons of Lhe enLrles ln Lhe
clvll reglsLer regardlng hls paLernlLy and flllaLlon should be Lhreshed ouL ln a separaLe proceedlng
ln case of annulmenL or declaraLlon of absoluLe nulllLy of marrlage ArLlcle 49 of Lhe lamlly Code granLs
vlslLaLlon rlghLs Lo a parenL who ls deprlved of cusLody of hls chlldren Such vlslLaLlon rlghLs flow from
Lhe naLural rlghL of boLh parenL and chlld Lo each oLher's company 1here belng no such parenLchlld
relaLlonshlp beLween Lhem Cerardo has no legally demandable rlghL Lo vlslL !ose Cerardo
Cur laws seek Lo promoLe Lhe welfare of Lhe chlld ArLlcle 8 of u 603 oLherwlse known as Lhe Chlld and
?ouLh Welfare Code ls clear and unequlvocal
ArLlcle 8 cbllJs welfote lotomooot ln all quesLlons regardlng Lhe care cusLody educaLlon and
properLy of Lhe chlld hls welfare shall be Lhe paramounL conslderaLlon
























1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 211
Case 1lLle 1L8LSl1A SACALALSLAC etltlooet vs CA MA8lA AZ CC8uL8CCu?L
tesooJeots
Case no C8 no 116773
uaLe !anuary 16 1997

lAC1S
1he rlghL of Lhe moLher Lo Lhe cusLody of her daughLer ls Lhe lssue ln Lhe case aL bar Cn !une
22 1984 peLlLloner Marla az CorderoCuye and 8eynaldo Lslao were marrled 1hey sLayed wlLh
respondenL 1ereslLa Lslao moLher of Lhe husband ln aco Manlla 1wo chlldren were begoLLen namely
Leslle Lslao who was born on lebruary 23 1986 and Angellca Lslao born on Aprll 20 1987 Leslle was
enLrusLed Lo Lhe care and cusLody of peLlLloner's moLher ln SLa Ana ampanga whlle Angellca sLayed
wlLh her parenLs aL respondenL's house

Cn AugusL 6 1990 peLlLloner's husband 8eynaldo Lslao dled 1he peLlLloner lnLended Lo brlng
Angellca wlLh her Lo ampanga buL Lhe respondenL prevalled upon her Lo enLrusL Lhe cusLody of
Angellca Lo her respondenL reasonlng ouL LhaL her son [usL dled and Lo assuage her grlef Lherefor she
needed Lhe company of Lhe chlld Lo aL leasL compensaLe for Lhe loss of her laLe son 1he peLlLloner
reLurned Lo her moLher's house ln ampanga where she sLayed wlLh Leslle

Cn March 18 1992 Lhe peLlLloner and ur !ames Cuye goL marrled Lhen laLer mlgraLed Lo San
lranclsco Callfornla uSA Lo [oln her new husband A year afLer Lhe peLlLloner reLurned Lo Lhe
hlllpplnes Lo be reunlLed wlLh her chlldren and brlng Lhem Lo Lhe unlLed SLaLes She lnformed Lhe
respondenL abouL her deslre Lo Lake cusLody of Angellca and explalned LhaL her presenL husband ur
!ames Cuye expressed hls wllllngness Lo adopL Leslle and Angellca and Lo provlde for Lhelr supporL and
educaLlon however respondenL reslsLed by lnslsLlng LhaL Lhe chlld was enLrusLed Lo her when she was
Len days old and accused Lhe peLlLloner of havlng abandoned Angellca

lSSuL

WheLher or noL respondenL peLlLloner 1ereslLa SagalaLslao ls flL Lo be glven cusLody of mlnor
Angellca Lslao ln place of respondenL Marla corderoCuye
8uLlnC

1he peLlLlon was ulSMlSSLu for lack of merlL and Lhe declslon appealed from daLed March 23
1994 was Alll8MLu granLlng Lhe peLlLlon of Marla az CorderoCuye Lo recover Lhe cusLody of her
mlnor daughLer from her moLherlnlaw 1ereslLa SagalaLslao

1he courL upheld LhaL when Lhe respondenL enLrusLed Lhe cusLody of her mlnor chlld Lo Lhe
peLlLloner whaL she gave Lo Lhe laLLer was merely Lemporary cusLody and lL dld noL consLlLuLe
abandonmenL or renunclaLlon of parenLal auLhorlLy lor Lhe rlghL aLLached Lo parenLal auLhorlLy belng
purely personal Lhe law allows a walver of parenLal auLhorlLy only ln cases of adopLlon guardlanshlp
and surrender Lo a chlldren's home or an orphan lnsLlLuLlon whlch do noL appear ln Lhe case aL bar 1he
courLs ruled LhaL Lhe rlghL of parenLs Lo Lhe cusLody of Lhelr mlnor chlldren ls one of Lhe naLural rlghLs
lncldenL Lo parenLhood a rlghL supporLed by law and sound publlc pollcy 1he rlghL ls an lnherenL one
whlch ls noL creaLed by Lhe sLaLe or declslons of Lhe courLs buL derlves from Lhe naLure of Lhe parenLal
relaLlonshlp

ursuanL Lo Lhe lamlly Code ArLs 222224 AcL no 3094 parenLal auLhorlLy and responslblllLy
are lnallenable and may noL be Lransferred or renounced excepL ln cases auLhorlzed by law
l
1he rlghL
aLLached Lo parenLal auLhorlLy belng purely personal Lhe law allows a walver of parenLal auLhorlLy only
ln cases of adopLlon guardlanshlp and surrender Lo a chlldren's home or an orphan lnsLlLuLlon
ll
When a
parenL enLrusLs Lhe cusLody of a mlnor Lo anoLher such as a frlend or godfaLher even ln a documenL
whaL ls glven ls merely Lemporary cusLody and lL does noL consLlLuLe a renunclaLlon of parenLal
auLhorlLy
lll17
Lven lf a deflnlLe renunclaLlon ls manlfesL Lhe law sLlll dlsallows Lhe same









1op|c ersons Art|c|e 29
Case 1|t|e Urbano vs Intermedd|ate Appe||ate Court (AIC)
Case no L72964
uaLe !anuary 7 1988

lAC1S
Marcelo !avler was hacked by lllomeno urbano uslng a bolo !avler suffered a 2lnch lnclsed
wound on hls rlghL palm !avler wenL Lo ur Meneses Lo have Lhe wound LreaLed urbano ln Lhe
lnLercesslon of Lhelr councllman seLLled Lhelr dlfferences and pald !avler an amounL Lo cover for Lhe
medlcal expenses

Cn Lhe 22
nd
day afLer Lhe lncldenL !avler ln a very serlous condlLlon was rushed Lo Lhe hosplLal
Pe had a lock[aw a sympLom for Lhe spread of Lhe LeLanus lnfecLlon 1he followlng day !avler dled

ubano was charged wlLh homlclde ln Lhe 1hlrd !udlclal ulsLrlcL of Lhe ClrculL Crlmlnal CourL of
uagupan clLy Pe was senLenced Lo suffer an lndeLermlnaLe prlson Lerm of from 12yrs of prlson mayor
as mlnlmum Lo 17 years 4 monLhs and 1 day of recluslon Lemporal as maxlmum and paymenL of
12000 as lndemnlLy Lo Lhe helrs of Lhe vlcLlm

lSSuL
ln Lhe appllcaLlon of ArLlcle 4 of Lhe 8evlsed enal code Crlmlnal llablllLy shall be lncurred1) by any
person commlLLlng a felony (dellLo) alLhough Lhe wrongful acL done be dlfferenL from LhaL whlch he
lnLended

WheLher or noL an accused ls crlmlnally responslble for acLs commlLLed by hlm ln vlolaLlon of law
and for all Lhe naLural and loglcal consequences resulLlng Lhere from

8uLlnC
1he courL held LhaL a person whlle noL crlmlnally llable may sLlll be clvllly llable 1he peLlLlon of
urbano was granLed 1he quesLloned declslon of Lhe lnLermedlaLe AppellaLe CourL (CourL of Appeals)
was reversed and seL aslde 1he peLlLloner was acqulLLed of Lhe crlme of homlclde CosLs de oflclo

1he deaLh of Lhe vlcLlm musL be Lhe dlrecL naLural and loglcal consequence of Lhe wounds lnfllcLed
upon hlm by Lhe accused and LhaL Lhe proof LhaL Lhe accused caused Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh musL convlnce a
raLlonal mlnd beyond reasonable doubL 1he medlcals flndlngs presenLed lead Lo a dlsLlncL posslblllLy
LhaL Lhe lnfecLlon of Lhe wound by LeLanus was an efflclenL lnLervenlng cause laLer or beLween Lhe Llme
!avler was wounded Lo Lhe Llme of hls deaLh uoubLs are presenL 1he wound was buL a remoLe cause
and lLs subsequenL lnfecLlon for fallure Lo Lake necessary precauLlons wlLh LeLanus may have been Lhe
proxlmaLe cause of !avlers deaLh wlLh whlch Lhe peLlLloner had noLhlng Lo do

























1oplc ersons ArLlcle 16
Case 1lLle 8ohanan vs 8ohana
Case no no L12103
uaLe !anuary 30 1960

lAC1S
1esLaLe esLaLe of CC 8ohanan deceased hlllpplne 1rusL Co execuLor and appellee vs
Magdalena C 8ohanan Ldward C 8ohanan and Mary Lydla 8ohanan opposlLors and appellanLs

1he LesLaLor CC 8ohanan who resldence ln Lhe hlllpplnes aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh was a clLlzen
of Lhe unlLed SLaLes ln Lhe SLaLe of nevada and declares hls wlll and LesLamenL ls fully ln accordance
wlLh Lhe laws of Lhe sLaLe of nevada and admlLs Lhe same Lo probaLe 1he hlllpplne 1rusL Co was
named as execuLor of Lhe wlll

rovlslons of Lhe wlll sLaLes LhaL (1) Z of Lhe reslduary esLaLe goes Lo Lhe beneflr of Lhe LesLaLors
grandson Ldward Ceorge 8ohanan (2) Z of Lhe reslduary esLaLe Lo Lhe LesLaLor's broLher ll 8ohanan
and Lo hls slsLer Mrs M8 CalbralLh (3) legacles of 6000 each Lo hls son Ldward CllberL 8ohanan and
hls daughLer Mary Lydla 8ohanan and (4) legacles Lo Clara uaen kaLherlne Woodward 8eulah lox and
LllzabeLh PasLlngs

lSSuL
WheLher Lhe fallure of Lhe LesLaLor Lo glve hls chlldren LwoLhlrds (2/3) of Lhe esLaLe lefL by hlm aL
Lhe Llme of hls deaLh ln accordance wlLh Lhe laws of Lhe forum valld WheLher Lhe LesLamenLary
dlsposlLlons especlally Lhose for Lhe chlldren whlch are shorL of Lhe leglLlmaLe glven Lhem by Lhe
Clvll Code of Lhe hlllpplnes are valld

8uLlnC
1he courL approved LhaL Lhe pro[ecL of parLlLlon made ln accordance wlLh Lhe LesLamenLary
provlslons and was afflrmed by Lhe courL wlLh cosLs agalnsL Lhe appellanLs 1he legal and LesLamenLary
successlons ln respecL Lo Lhe order of successlon as well as Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe successlonal rlghLs and
Lhe lnLrlnslc valldlLy of Lhelr provlslons shall be regulaLed by Lhe naLlonal law of Lhe person whose
successlon ls ln quesLlon whaLever may be Lhe naLure of Lhe properLy and counLry ln whlch lL ls found
(par 2 ArLlcle 10 Cld Clvll Code par2 ArLlcle 16 of Lhe new Clvll Code)

SecLlon 9903 of nevada Complled Laws of 1923 provldes Lvery person over Lhe age of 18 yrs of
sound mlnd may by lasL wlll dlspose of all hls or her esLaLe real and personal Lhe same belng
chargeable wlLh Lhe paymenL of Lhe LesLaLor's debLs"


























1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 26
Case 1lLle asLor 8 1enchavez plalnLlffappellanL vs vlcenLa l Lscano defendanLappellee
Case no L19671
uaLe november 29 1963

lAC1S
Cn lebruary 24 1948 asLor 1enchavez Lhe plalnLlffappellanL and vlcenLa Lscano defendanL
appellee were valldly marrled Lo each oLher 8oLh parLles were Lhen above Lhe age of ma[orlLy vlcenLa
27 yrs of age and asLor 32 yrs of age and oLherwlse boLh quallfled and boLh consenLed Lo Lhe
marrlage whlch was performed by a CaLhollc prlesL (Army chaplaln) ln Lhe presence of compeLenL
wlLnesses arenLs MamerLo and Mena Lscano was surprlsed by Lhe clandesLlne marrlage vlcenLa
conLlnued llvlng wlLh her parenLs ln Cebu whlle asLor reLurned Lo hls [ob ln Manlla

!une 24 1948 Lhe newlyweds were already esLranged vlcenLa Lhrough her lawyer flled a peLlLlon
Lo annul her marrlage buL Lhe case was dlsmlssed wlLhouL pre[udlce because of her nonappearance aL
Lhe hearlng

Cn !une 24 1930 vlcenLa Lscano applled for a passporL and lefL for Lhe unlLed SLaLes AugusL 22
1930 she flled a verlfled cpmplalnL for dlvorce agalnsL Lhe plalnLlff ln Lhe second [udlclal dlsLrlcL of Lhe
SLaLe of nevada on Lhe ground of exLreme cruelLy enLlrely menLal ln characLer Cn CcL 211930 a
decree of dlvorce flnal and absoluLe" was lssued MamerLo and Mena Lscano flled a peLlLlon wlLh Lhe
Archlblshop of Cebu Lo annul Lhelr daughLer's marrlage Lo asLor and on SepLember 10 1934 vlcenLa
soughL papal dlspensaLlon of her marrlage SepLember 13 1934 vlcenLa marrled an Amerlcan 8ussell
Leo Moran ln nevada and by hlm has begoLLen chlldren

!uly 30 1933 1enchavez flled a complalnL agalnsL vlcenLa her parenLs whom he charged wlLh
havlng dlssuaded and dlscouraged vlcenLa from [olnlng her husband and allenaLlng her affecLlons and
Lhe 8oman CaLhollc Church for havlng decreed Lhe annulmenL of Lhe marrlage and asked for legal
separaLlon and one mllllon pesos ln damages

vlcenLa clalmed a valld dlvorce from plalnLlff and an equally valld marrlage Lo her presenL husband
whlle her parenLs denled LhaL Lhey had ln any way lnfluenced Lhelr daughLer's acLs and counLerclalmed
for moral damages
1he appealed [udgmenL dld noL decree a legal separaLlon buL freed Lhe plalnLlff from supporLlng hls
wlfe and Lo acqulre properLy Lo Lhe excluslon of hls wlfe lL allowed Lhe counLerclalm of MamerLo and
Mena Lscano for moral and exemplary damages and aLLorney's fees agalnsL Lhe plalnLlff Lo Lhe exLenL of
4300000

lSSuL
WheLher or noL a forelgn dlvorce beLween llllplno clLlzens soughL and decreed afLer Lhe effecLlvlLy
of Lhe new clvll code (8A no 386) ls noL enLlLled Lo recognlLlon as valld ln Lhe hlllpplnes

WheLher or noL Lhe marrlage of Lhe dlvorced wlfe and her cohablLaLlon wlLh a person oLher Lhan Lhe
lawful husband enLlLles Lhe laLLer Lo a decree of legal separaLlon conformably Lo Lhe hlllpplne law

WheLher or noL Lhe deserLlon and securlng of an lnvalld decree by one consorL enLlLles Lhe oLher Lo
recover damages

WheLher or noL an acLlon for allenaLlon of affecLlons agalnsL Lhe parenLs of one consorL lles ln Lhe
absence of proof or mallce or unworLhy moLlves on Lhelr parL

8uLlnC
1haL a forelgn dlvorce beLween llllplno clLlzens soughL and decreed afLer Lhe effecLlvlLy of Lhe
presenL clvll code ls noL enLlLled Lo recognlLlon as valld ln Lhls [urlsdlcLlon and nelLher ls Lhe marrlage
conLracLed wlLh anoLher parLy by Lhe dlvorced consorL subsequenLly Lo Lhe forelgn of dlvorce enLlLled
Lo valldlLy ln Lhe counLry
1 1haL Lhe remarrlage of dlvorced wlfe and her cohablLaLlon wlLh a person oLher Lhan Lhe
lawful husband enLlLle Lhe laLLer Lo a decree of legal separaLlon conformably Lo hlllpplne
Law
2 1haL Lhe deserLlon and securlng of an lnvalld dlvorce decree by one consorL enLlLles Lhe
oLher Lo recover damages
3 1haL an acLlon for allenaLlon of affecLlons agalnsL Lhe parenLs of one consorL does noL lle ln
Lhe absence of proof of mallce or unworLhy moLlves on Lhelr parL
4 1he ueclslons under appeal are modlfled as follows
a Ad[udglng plalnLlffappellanL asLor 1enchavez enLlLled Lo a decree of legal
separaLlon from defendanL vlcenLa Lscano
b SenLenclng defendanLappellee vlcenLa Lscano Lo pay plalnLlffappellanL 1enchavez
Lhe amounL of 2300000 for damages and aLLorney's fees
SenLenclng appellanL asLor 1enchavez Lo pay Lhe appellee MamerLo Lscano and Lhe esLaLe of hls wlfe
Lhe deceased Mena Lscano 300000 by way of damages and aLLorney's feesln llne wlLh
LeglslaLure(Whlch was Lhe marrlage law ln force aL LhaL Llme)
Sec 1 LssenLlal 8equlslLes LssenLlal requlslLes for marrlage are Lhe legal capaclLy of Lhe conLracLlng
parLles and consenL
Sec 27 lallure Lo comply wlLh formal requlremenLs no marrlage shall be declared lnvalld because
of Lhe absence of one or several of Lhe formal requlremenLs of Lhls AcL lf when lL was performed
Lhe spouses or one of Lhem belleved ln good falLh LhaL Lhe person solemnlzlng Lhe marrlage was
acLually empowered Lo do so and LhaL Lhe marrlage was perfecLly legal

8A 386
ArL 13 of Lhe Clvll Code Laws relaLlng Lo famlly rlghLs and duLles or Lo Lhe sLaLus condlLlon and
legal capaclLy of persons are blndlng upon Lhe clLlzens of Lhe hlllpplnes even Lhough llvlng abroad

ArL 17 of Lhe Clvll Code rohlblLlve Laws concernlng persons Lhelr acLs or properLy and Lhose
whlch have for Lhelr ob[ecL publlc order pollcy and good cusLoms shall noL be rendered lneffecLlve
by laws or [udgmenLs promulgaLed or by deLermlnaLlons or convenLlons agreed upon ln a forelgn
counLry

ln relaLlon Lo Lhe presenL lamlly Code
ArL 2 of Lhe lamlly Code no marrlage shall be valld unless Lhe essenLlal requlslLes are presenL
Legal capaclLy of conLracLlng parLles who musL be male and female
ConsenL freely glven ln Lhe presence of a solemnlzlng offlcer

ArL 3 of Lhe lamlly Code 1he formal requlslLes of marrlage are
AuLhorlLy of Lhe solemnlzlng offlcer
valld marrlage llcense excepL ln Lhe cases provlded for ln ChapLer 2
A marrlage ceremony whlch Lakes place wlLh Lhe appearance of Lhe conLracLlng parLles before Lhe
solemnlzlng offlcer and Lhelr personal declaraLlon LhaL Lhey Lake each oLher as husband and wlfe ln
Lhe presence of noL less Lhan Lwo wlLnesses of legal age

ArL 6 of Lhe lamlly Code no prescrlbed form or rellglous rlLe for Lhe solemnlzaLlon of Lhe marrlage
ls requlred lL shall be necessary however for Lhe conLracLlng parLles appear personally before Lhe
solemnlzlng offlcer and declare ln Lhe presence of noL less Lhan Lwo wlLnesses of legal age LhaL Lhey
Lake each oLher as husband and wlfe 1hls declaraLlon shall be conLalned ln Lhe marrlage cerLlflcaLe
whlch shall be slgned by boLh conLracLlng parLles and Lhelr wlLnesses and aLLesLed by Lhe
solemnlzlng offlcer

ArL 7 of Lhe lamlly Code Marrlage mar be solemnlzed by
Any prlesL rabbl lmam or mlnlsLer of any church or rellglous secL duly auLhorlzed by hls church or
secL and reglsLered wlLh Lhe clvll reglsLrar general acLlng wlLhln Lhe llmlLs of Lhe wrlLLen auLhorlLy
granLed hlm by hls church or rellglous secL and provlded LhaL aL leasL one of Lhe conLracLlng parLles
belongs Lo Lhe solemnlzlng offlcer's church or secL
Any mlllLary commander of a unlL Lo whlch a chaplaln ls asslgned ln Lhe absence of Lhe laLLer durlng
a mlllLary operaLlon llkewlse only ln Lhe cases menLloned ln ArL 32












1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 123
Case 1lLle uelgado vda de ue la 8osa peLlLloner vs Pelrs of Marclana vda de uamlan
respondenLs
Case no
uaLe !anuary 27 2006

lAC1S
1hls case concerns Lhe seLLlemenL of Lhe lnLesLaLe esLaLes of Culllermo 8usLla and !osefa uelgado
SomeLlme ln 1917 Culllermo 8usLla proposed marrlage Lo !osefa uelgado buL wheLher a marrlage ln
facL Look place ls dlspuLed 1he Lwo evenLually llved LogeLher as husband and wlfe allegedly marrled on
!une 3 1919 unLll Lhe deaLh of !osefa no record of Lhe conLesLed marrlage exlsLed ln Lhe clvll reglsLry
uurlng Lhe span of a perlod of more Lhan half a cenLury Lhey were known among relaLlves as husband
and wlfe and Lo have ln facL been marrled

1he never really had any chlldren of Lhelr own and lnsLead Look lnLo Lhelr home Lhe youngsLers
Culllermlna 8usLla 8usLla and nanle 8usLla Lhelr ampunampunan alLhough never legally adopLed
Culllermo was able Lo faLhered and llleglLlmaLe chlld respondenL Culllerma 8usLla among Lhe
respondenLs who was never duly acknowledged as an llleglLlmaLe chlld

lSSuLS
WheLher who beLween Lhe peLlLloners and respondenLs are Lhe lawful helrs of Lhe decedenLs

WheLher or noL a marrlage ls valld ln Lhe absence of a marrlage cerLlflcaLe

Who should lssue Lhe leLLers of AdmlnlsLraLlons

8uLlnC
Culllermo 8usLla's !une 13 1973 affldavlL of selfad[udlcaLlon ls annulled 1he lnLesLaLe esLaLe of
Culllermo 8usLla shall lnherlL half of Lhe esLaLe of !osefa uelgado 1he remalnlng half shall perLaln Lo Lhe
full and half slbllngs of !osefa uelgado who survlved her and Lhe chlldren of any of !osefa uelgado's full
or half slbllngs who may have predeceased her also survlvlng nephews and grand nleces are excluded
from her esLaLe 1he Lrlal courL ls ordered Lo deLermlne Lhe ldenLlLles of Lhe relaLlves of !osefa uelgado
who are enLlLled Lo lnherlL
Culllermo 8usLla's esLaLe lncludlng one half share of !osefa uelgado's esLaLe shall be lnherlLed by
Marclan 8usLla vda de uamlan and PoLencla 8usLla Cruz and Lhe chlldren of Lhe laLe 8oman 8usLla Sr

LeLLers of admlnlsLraLlon over unseLLled lnLesLaLe esLaLes of Culllermo 8usLla and !osefa uelgado
shall lssue Lo CarloLa uelgado vda de ue la 8osa and Lo a nomlnee from among Lhe helrs of Culllermo
8usLla

AlLhough a marrlage conLracL ls consldered a prlmary evldence of marrlage lLs absence ls noL always
proof LhaL no marrlage ln facL Look place Cnce Lhe presumpLlon of marrlage arlses oLher evldence
maybe presenLed ln supporL Lhereof 1he marrlage need noL necessarlly or dlrecLly esLabllsh Lhe
marrlage buL aL leasL be enough Lo sLrengLhen Lhe presumpLlon of marrlage 1he cerLlflcaLe off ldenLlLy
lssued Lo !osefa uelgado as Mrs Culllermo 8usLlaLhe passporL lssued Lo her as !osefa 8usLla Lhe
declaraLlon under oaLh of Culllermo 8usLla LhaL he was marrled Lo !osefa uelgado and Lhe LlLles Lo Lhe
properLles ln Lhe name of Culllermo 8usLla and !osefa uelgado are adequaLe supporL on Lhe
presumpLlon of marrlage















1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 147
Case 1lLle valdes vs 81C 8r 102 Cuezon ClLy
Case no C8 no 122749
uaLe !uly 31 1996

lAC1S
eLlLloner avers LhaL Lhe courL a quo has falled Lo apply Lhe correcL law LhaL should govern Lhe
dlsposlLlon of a famlly dwelllng ln a slLuaLlon where a marrlage ls declared vold ab lnlLlo because of
psychologlcal lncapaclLy on Lhe parL of elLher or boLh of Lhe parLles Lo Lhe conLracL

AnLonlo valdes and Consuelo Comez were marrled on !anuary 3 1971 and were blessed wlLh 3
chlldren Cn !une 22 1992 valdes soughL Lhe declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhe marrlage pursuanL Lo ArLlcle
36 of Lhe lamlly Code on Lhe ground of Lhelr muLual lncapaclLy Lo comply wlLh Lhelr essenLlal marlLal
obllgaLlons1he courL granLed Lhe peLlLlon declarlng Lhe marrlage as null and vold 1hey were dlrecLed
Lo sLarL proceedlngs on Lhe llquldaLlon of Lhelr common properLles as deflned by ArLlcle 147 of Lhe
lamlly Code and Lo comply wlLh Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 30 31 and 32

Consuelo soughL clarlflcaLlon on ArLlcle 30 31and 32 and asserLed LhaL Lhere were no provlslons
on Lhe procedures for Lhe llquldaLlon of common properLy ln unlons wlLhouL marrlage" ln an order
Lhe courL made Lhe clarlflcaLlon LhaL pursuanL Lo arLlcle 147 Lhe properLy reglme of peLlLloner and
respondenL shall be governed by Lhe rules on coownershlp Consuelo moved for reconslderaLlon

lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe coownershlp be Lhe rule Lo be followed ln Lhe llquldaLlon of Lhe properLy
reglme

8uLlnC
1he moLlon was denled 1he quesLloned orders of Lhe Lrlal courL were afflrmed ArLlcle 147 of
Lhe lamlly Code provldes LhaL Lhe properLy acqulred by boLh parLles durlng Lhelr unlon ln Lhe absence
of marrlage are presumed Lo have been obLalned Lhrough Lhe [olnL efforLs of Lhe parLles and wlll be
owned by Lhem ln equal shares 1he plalnLlff and defendanL wlll own Lhelr famlly home" and all oLher
properLles for LhaL maLLer ln equal shares

ln a vold marrlage regardless of Lhe cause Lhe properLy relaLlons of Lhe parLles durlng Lhelr
perlod of cohablLaLlon ls governed by Lhe provlslons of ArLlcle 147 and 148 ln addlLlon ArLlcle 144
furLher clarlfles LhaL nelLher parLy can dlspose or encumber by acL lnLer vlvos hls or her share ln co
ownershlp properLy wlLhouL Lhe consenL of Lhe oLher durlng Lhe perlod of cohablLaLlon and ln case any
parL ln bad falLh shall forfelL hls or her share ln Lhe coownershlp ln favor of Lhelr common chlldren
Lach vacanL share shall belong Lo Lhe respecLlve survlvlng descendanLs or sLlll ln defaulL Lo Lhe lnnocenL
parLy 1he forfelLure shall Lake place upon Lhe LermlnaLlon of Lhe cohablLaLlon or declaraLlon of nulllLy of
Lhe marrlage























1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 172
Case 1lLle labrlgas vs San lranclsco del MonLe lnc
Case no C8 no 132346
uaLe november 23 2003

lAC1S
A peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl under rule 43 of Lhe 1997 8ules of Clvll rocedure assalllng
Lhe declslon of Lhe CA and lLs resoluLlon denylng Lhe peLlLloner's moLlon for reconslderaLlon Lhus
orderlng Lhe peLlLloner Lo make compleLe paymenLs of ConLracL Lo Sell no 2491v or lf Lhey choose Lo
surrender possesslon of properLy an order of paymenL ls Lo be made Lo Lhe defendanLs

eLlLloner spouses lsalas and Marcellna labrlgas and respondenL San lranclsco del MonLe lnc
enLered lnLo agreemenL denomlnaLed as ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v whereby Lhe laLLer agreed Lo sell
Lo spouses labrlgas a parcel of resldenLlal land ln 8arrlo Almanza Las lnas for ln conslderaLlon of an
amounL of 10920000

A downpaymenL of 2000000 was made buL Lhe spouses falled Lo make any lnsLallmenL
paymenLs on Lhe balance purchases prlce 2 noLlces were senL Lo Lhem and a flnal demand leLLer was
senL lnformlng LhaL del MonLe wlll conslder ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v cancelled wlLhln 13 days afLer
recelvlng Lhereof buL Lhe Lhey dld noL furnlsh Lhe peLlLloners any noLlce of cancellaLlon

1he followlng year Marcellna remlLLed an amounL Lo del MonLe and Lhen agaln Lhe followlng
year for Lhe same properLy 1he Lwo enLered lnLo anoLher agreemenL denomlnaLed as ConLracL Lo Sell
no 2491v coverlng Lhe same properLy buL under resLrucLured Lerms of paymenL wlLh a new prlce of
13164238 1he spouses labrlgas agaln falled Lo regularly meeL paymenLs Lo Lhelr remalnlng balance
whereln Lhelr lasL paymenL was on !uly 1986

CcLober 1987 labrlgas Lendered an amounL as paymenL Lo Lhelr remalnlng balance buL del
MonLe refused Lo accepL on Lhe clalm LhaL Lhe paymenL was lnLended for ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v
had already been prevlously cancelled

March 1988 del MonL senL a demand leLLer for paymenL of accrued lnsLallmenLs under ConLracL
Lo Sell no 2491v ln Lhe amounL of 163739 less 4812842 whlch was Lhe LoLal paymenLs made by
spouses labrlgas allowlng Lhe peLlLloners a grace perlod of 30 days Lo avold resclsslon of Lhe conLracL

March 1989 del MonLe noLlfled Lhe peLlLloners LhaL ConLracL Lo Sell no 2491v had been
cancelled and demanded LhaL peLlLloners vacaLe Lhe properLy

lSSuL
WheLher or noL ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v was exLlngulshed Lhrough resclsslon or was lL
novaLed by Lhe subsequenL ConLracL Lo Sell no 2491v

WheLher or noL ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v was resclnded dld Lhe manner of resclsslon
complled wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of 8A 6331 (Maceda Law)
WheLher ConLracL Lo Sell no 2482v was subsequenLly novaLed by ConLracL Lo Sell no 2491v
are Lhe peLlLloners llable for breach under Lhe subsequenL agreemenL

8uLlnC
1here ls noLhlng Lo prevenL respondenL del MonLe from enforclng lLs conLracLual sLlpulaLlons
and pursulng Lhe proper courL Lo hold peLlLloners llable for Lhelr breach Lhereof 1he peLlLlon for revlew
was denled and Lhe CA declslon was afflrmed

8LASCn lC8 1PL 8uLL
1here was an lmproper resclsslon of Lhe conLracL 1he facLs of Lhe case shows LhaL ConLracL Lo
Sell no 2482v was subsequenLly novaLed by ConLracL Lo Sell no 2491v and LhaL lLs execuLlon was
accompanled by an upward change ln Lhe conLracL prlce 1he peLlLloners agreed Lo Lhe Lerms and
condlLlons of Lhe new conLracL noL only Lo acqulre ownershlp over Lhe sub[ecL properLy buL also Lo avold
Lhe consequences of Lhelr defaulL All Lhe essenLlal requlslLes of novaLlon have been meL a prevlous
valld obllgaLlon an agreemenL of all parLles concerned Lo a new conLracL Lhe exLlngulshmenL of an old
obllgaLlon and Lhe blrLh of a valld new obllgaLlon whlch makes conLracL Lo sell valld

As Lhe peLlLloners conLend LhaL Lhe subsequenL conLracL ls vold because lsalas labrlgas dld noL
glve hls consenL LhereLo relylng on ArLlcle 172 of Lhe Clvll Code whereln Lhe wlfe cannoL blnd Lhe
con[ugal parLnershlp wlLhouL Lhe husbands consenL Powever ArLlcle 172 expressly clarlfles LhaL a
conLracL execuLed wlLhouL Lhe husbands consenL as merely annullable aL Lhe lnsLance of Lhe wlfe lL
does noL expressly declare Lhe conLracL as vold Slnce Lhey had Loo ln many occaslons expressed Lhelr
concurrence wlLh Lhe conLracL Lhrough conLlnues paymenLs whlch ln effecL raLlfles Lhe conLracL as valld
and cleanses lLs defecLs



























1oplc lamlly Code ArLlcle 6871
Case 1lLle !uanlLa CaraLlngSlayngco peLlLloner vs Manuel Slayngco respondenL
Case no C8 no 138896
uaLe CcLober 27 2004

lAC1S
eLloLner !uanlLa and respondenL Manuel Slayngco were marrled aL clvll rlLes on !une 27 1973
Lhen ln a caLhollc ceremony on AugusL 11 1973 AfLer dlscoverlng Lhey could noL have any chlld of Lhelr
own Lhey declded Lo adopL a baby ln 1977

Cn SepLember 231997 afLer 24 years of marrlage Manuel a respecLed courL [udge flled for a
declaraLlon of nulllLy of Lhelr marrlage on Lhe ground of psychologlcal lncapaclLy of Lhe peLlLloner
!uanlLa Pe alleged LhaL all LhroughouL Lhelr marrled llfe hls wlfe exhlblLed an over domlneerlng and
selflsh aLLlLude Lowards hlm whlch was exacerbaLed by her exLreme volaLlle and belllcose naLure and
LhaL her psychologlcal lncapaclLy arose before marrlage whlch he endured and suffered Lhrough hls
LurbulenL and loveless marrlage Lo her for 22 years

lSSuL
WheLher or noL Lhe courL flnds !uanlLa as psychologlcally lncapable

WheLher or noL Lhe courL erred ln declarlng Lhe peLlLloner and respondenLs marrlage as null and
vold on Lhe ground of psychologlcal lncapaclLy under ArLlcle 36 of Lhe lamlly Code

8uLlnC
1he peLlLlon for revlew was granLed Lhe declslon of Lhe CA was reversed and seL aslde 1he
declslon of Lhe 81C of Cuezon ClLy was relnsLaLed and glven full force 1he courL upheld LhaL Lhe burden
of proof Lo show Lhe nulllLy of marrlage belongs Lo Lhe plalnLlff Any doubL should be resolved ln favor of
Lhe exlsLence and conLlnuaLlon of Lhe marrlage and agalnsL Lhe dlssoluLlon and nulllLy on Lhe basls of our
ConsLlLuLlon recognlzlng Lhe famlly as Lhe baslc foundaLlon of Lhe naLlon lL decrees marrlage as legally
lnvlolable Lhereby proLecLlng lL from dlssoluLlon aL Lhe whlms of Lhe parLles

1he evldence presenLed were noL sufflclenL Lo prove Lhe psychologlcal lncapaclLy of !uanlLa 1he
rooL cause of psychologlcal lncapaclLy musL be esLabllshed Lhrough medlcally or cllnlcally ldenLlfled
alleged ln Lhe complalnL sufflclenLly proven by experLs and explalned clearly ln Lhe declslon ArLlcle 36
of Lhe lamlly Code requlres LhaL lncapaclLy musL be psychologlcal and LhaL Lhe evldence musL convlnce
Lhe courL LhaL Lhe parLy Lhereln was menLally or physlcally lll Lo such exLenL LhaL Lhe person could noL
have known Lhe obllgaLlons he was assumlng could noL have glven valld assumpLlon Lhereof 1haL such
lllness musL be grave enough Lo brlng abouL Lhe dlsablllLy of Lhe parLy Lo assume Lhe essenLlal
obllgaLlons of marrlage as embraced ln ArLlcle 68 71 as well as 220 221 and 223

lnLerpreLaLlons glven by Lhe naLlonal AppellaLe MaLrlmonlal 1rlbunal of Lhe caLhollc Church ln
Lhe hlllpplnes should be glven greaL respecL by our courLs Mere showlng of lrreconcllable dlfferences
and confllcLlng personallLles does noL consLlLuLe psychologlcal lncapaclLy