civ 1 final digests

8/9/2019 CIV 1 FINAL Digests

1/78

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2013-2014 Cases

Persons and Family RelationsNagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. Military S!rine Ser ices "P!ili##ine Veterans A$$airs %$$ice, &e#artment o$ National &e$enseGR 187587 5 June 2013Sereno, CJ.

Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis is a consolidated etitions !or re"ie# on certiorari under rule 45 assailin$ the decision o! theC% #hich re"ersed the decision o! C&S'%( in a etition !or reclassi!ication o! land !ro) u*lic toaliena*le and dis osa*le land.

FAC(S

(resident Carlos (. Garcia, *+ "irtue o! (rocla)ation no 423, reser"ed arcels o! land in theunici alities o! (asi$, Ta$ui$, (ara a ue, (ro"ince o! Ri/al and (asa+ Cit+ !or a )ilitar+

reser"ation. The )ilitar+ reser"ation, then no#n as ort illia) c inle+, #as later on rena)ed Fort Andres Bonifacio or Fort Bonifacio. &n 28 a+ 1 7, (resident erdinand 6. arcos (resident arcos issued (rocla)ation 9o. 208,a)endin$ (rocla)ation 9o. 423, #hich e:cluded a certain area o! ort ;oni!acio and reser"ed it !ora national shrine. The e:cluded area is no# no#n as 'i*in$an n$ )$a ;a+ani, #hich is under thead)inistration o! herein res ondent ilitar+ Shrine Ser"ices < (hili ine =eterans %!!airs &!!ice

SS-(=%& .

Su*se uentl+, (resident arcos issued (rocla)ation 9o. 247 , !urther a)endin$(rocla)ation 9o. 423, #hich e:cluded *aran$a+s 'o#er ;icutan, > er ;icutan and Si$nal

=illa$e !ro) the o eration o! (rocla)ation 9o. 423 and declared it o en !or dis ositionunder the ro"isions o! Re u*lic %ct 9os. 274 and 730. ?e then included estern ;icutan ina hand#ritten addendu). %t the *otto) o! (rocla)ation 9o. 247 , (resident arcos )adea hand#ritten addendu), #hich reads@

"P.S. This includes Western Bicutan(SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos"

Proclamation No. )*+ -as #' lis!ed in t!e %$$icial /a0ette on Fe r'ary 1,234 , -it!o't t!e addend'm.

&n &cto*er 1 , 1 87, (resident Cora/on C. % uino issued (rocla)ation 9o. 172, #hich reiterated(rocla)ation 9o. 247 , as u*lished, *ut this ti)e e:cluded 'ots 1 and 2 o! estern ;icutan !ro)the o eration o! (rocla)ation 9o. 423 and declared the said lots o en !or dis osition under the

ro"isions o! R.%. 274 and 730. e)orandu) &rder 9o. 11 , i) le)entin$ (rocla)ation 9o. 172, #as issued on the sa)e da+.

;ecause the in!or)al settlers increased and occu ied so)e areas o! ort ;oni!acio includin$ortions o! the 'i*in$an n$ )$a ;a+ani, ;ri$adier General redelito ;autista issued General &rder

9o. 1323 creatin$ Tas orce ;anta+ to re"ent unauthori/ed occu ation and to cause thede)olition o! ille$al structures at ort ;oni!acio.

An 1 , )e)*ers o! the etitioner or$ani/ation 9 S A !iled a Petition with theCommission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP), and prayed for thereclassification of the areas the+ occu ied in estern ;icutan, !ro) u*lic land to aliena*leand dis osa*le land ursuant to (rocla)ation 9o. 247 . Therea!ter, etitioner estern ;icutan 'ot

1


2/78


ners %ssociation, Anc. !iled a (etition-in-Anter"ention su*stantiall+ ra+in$ !or the sa)e relie!s asthose ra+ed !or *+ 9 S A #ith re$ard to the area the !or)er then occu ied.

The C&S'%( ruled that the hand#ritten addendu) o! (resident arcos #as an inte$ral arto! (rocla)ation 9o. 247 , and #as there!ore, controllin$. The intention o! the (residentcould not *e de!eated *+ the ne$li$ence or inad"ertence o! others.

SS-(=%& !iled a (etition #ith the Court o! % eals see in$ to re"erse the C&S'%( Resolutions.The Court o! % eals irst Bi"ision rendered the assailed Becision $rantin$ SS-(=%& s (etition.;oth 9 S A and ;'&%A a ealed the said Becision.

ISS5E

hether the hand#ritten addendu), #hich #as not included in the u*lication o! the la#, )ust *econsidered u*lished also at the ti)e the (rocla)ation #as u*lished.

6EL&

N%, t!e -ritten addend'm -as not considered #' lis!ed. Co'rt cannot rely on a!and-ritten note t!at -as not #art o$ Proclamation No. )*+ as #' lis!ed. Wit!o't#' lication, t!e note ne er !ad any legal $orce and e$$ect.

Considerin$ that etitioners #ere occu +in$ 'ots 3 and 7 o! estern ;icutan su*Dect lots , theirclai)s #ere anchored on the hand#ritten addendu) o! (resident arcos to (rocla)ation 9o.247 . The+ alle$e that the !or)er (resident intended to include all estern ;icutan in thereclassi!ication o! ortions o! ort ;oni!acio as dis osa*le u*lic land #hen he )ade a notation Dust

*elo# the rinted "ersion o! (rocla)ation 9o. 247 .

?o#e"er, it is undis uted that the hand#ritten addendu) #as not included #hen (rocla)ation 9o.247 #as u*lished in the &!!icial Ga/ette.

The resolution o! #hether the su*Dect lots #ere declared as reclassi!ied and dis osa*le lies in thedeter)ination o! #hether the hand#ritten addendu) o! (resident arcos has the !orce and e!!ecto! la#. An relation thereto, %rticle 2 o! the Ci"il Code e: ressl+ ro"ides@ :::

ART. . !a s shall ta#e e$$ect a$ter $i$teen da%s $ollo in& the co' letion o$ their u lication in the *$$icial Ga+ette, unless it is other ise ro-ided. This ode shall ta#ee$$ect one %ear a$ter such u lication.

>nder the a*o"e ro"ision, the re uire)ent o! u*lication is indis ensa*le to $i"e e!!ect to the la#,unless the la# itsel! has other#ise ro"ided. The hrase Eunless other#ise ro"idedE re!ers to adi!!erent e!!ecti"it+ date other than a!ter !i!teen da+s !ollo#in$ the co) letion o! the la# s

u*lication in the &!!icial Ga/ette, *ut does not i) l+ that the re uire)ent o! u*lication )a+ *edis ensed #ith. :::

e a!ree that the p"blication m"st be in f"ll or it is no p"blication at all since its p"rpose is to inform the p"blic of the contents of the laws. %s correctl+ ointed out *+ the

etitioners, the )ere )ention o! the nu)*er o! the residential decree, the title o! such decree, its #herea*outs e.$., E#ith Secretar+ Tu"eraE , the su osed date o! e!!ecti"it+, and in a )eresu le)ent o! the &!!icial Ga/ette cannot satis!+ the u*lication re uire)ent. This is not e"ensu*stantial co) liance. This #as the )anner, incidentall+, in #hich the General % ro riations %ct!or F 1 75, a residential decree undenia*l+ o! $eneral a lica*ilit+ and interest, #as E u*lishedE

*+ the arcos ad)inistration. The e"ident ur ose #as to #ithhold rather than disclosein!or)ation on this "ital la#. :::

'a#s )ust co)e out in the o en in the clear li$ht o! the sun instead o! s ul in$ in the shado#s #iththeir dar , dee secrets. +sterious ronounce)ents and ru)ored rules cannot *e reco$ni/ed as

2


3/78


*indin$ unless their e:istence and contents are con!ir)ed *+ a "alid u*lication intended to )a e!ull disclosure and $i"e ro er notice to the eo le. The !urti"e la# is li e a sca**arded sa*er thatcannot !eint, arr+ or cut unless the na ed *lade is dra#n.

% l+in$ the !ore$oin$ rulin$ to the instant case, this Court cannot rel+ on a hand#ritten note that #as not art o! (rocla)ation 9o. 247 as u*lished. ithout u*lication, the note ne"er had an+ le$al !orce and e!!ect.

urther)ore, under Section 24, Cha ter , ;oo A o! the %d)inistrati"e Code, Ethe u*lication o! an+ la#, resolution or other o!!icial docu)ents in the &!!icial Ga/ette shall *e ri)a !acie e"idenceo! its authorit+.E #h"s, whether or not President $arcos intended to incl"de estern

Bic"tan is not only irrele%ant b"t spec"lati%e. Si) l+ ut, the courts )a+ not s eculate asto the ro*a*le intent o! the le$islature a art !ro) the #ords a earin$ in the la#. #his Co"rt cannot r"le that a word appears in the law when, e%idently, there is none. An(a$ alain ?aulers, Anc. ". ?on. TraDano, #e ruled that Eunder %rticle 8 o! the Ci"il Code, Dudicialdecisions a l+in$ or inter retin$ the la#s or the Constitution shall !or) a art o! the le$al s+ste)o! the (hili ines. This does not )ean, ho#e"er, that courts can create la#. The courts e:ist !orinter retin$ the la#, not !or enactin$ it. To allo# other#ise #ould *e "iolati"e o! the rinci le o! se aration o! o#ers, inas)uch as the sole !unction o! our courts is to a l+ or inter ret the la#s,

articularl+ #here $a s or lacunae e:ist or #here a)*i$uities *ecloud issues, *ut it #ill not arro$ateunto itsel! the tas o! le$islatin$.E #he remedy so"!ht in these Petitions is not &"dicial interpretation, b"t another le!islation that wo"ld amend the law 'to incl"de

petitioners lots in the reclassification.

Rodol$o Francisco Emiliana Ro7as, et al.GR 1 7120 21 % ril 2014(eralta, J.

Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis is a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45, assailin$ the decision o! C% nulli!+in$ thedecision o! the RTC in a land re$istration case.

FAC(S

Bon ;uena"entura Guido + Santa %na o#ned ?acienda de %n$ono in %n$ono, Ri/al, co"ered *+ &CT 33. ?e has t#o sons, rancisco Guido and ?er)o$enes Guido. Title o"er the ro ert+ #astrans!erred to the t#o sons. 9ine +ears later, the heirs o! rancisco and ?er$o)enes adDudicateda)on$ the)sel"es and trans!erred hal! o! the ortion o! the hacienda to the Jose Ro/as,

redecessor-in-interest o! the res ondents in this case in an e:tra-Dudicial settle)ent o! estate #ithuitclai).

So)e )onths a!ter the trans!er, heirs o! Bon ;uena"entura Guido, re resented *+ their la#+er,re uested the then 'and Re$istration Co))ission to issue the corres ondin$ &CT *ased onBecreto 9o. 145, e"identl+ *ecause &CT 9o. 33 #hich #as earlier issued on the *asis o! the sa)e

Decreto #as re"iousl+ cancelled. The re uest, ho#e"er, #as denied.

ean#hile, %l!redo Guido, Sr., re resentin$ the other heirs, !iled #ith the Re$istr+ o! Beeds o! oron$ a etition !or reconstitution o! TCT 9o. 23377, alle$in$ that the ori$inal o! the sa)e title

could not *e located in the !iles o! the Re$istr+ o! Beeds o! Ri/al #hen he and his co-heirs sou$ht there$istration o! their a!ore)entioned e:tra-Judicial Settle)ent o! 6state ith Huitclai). The

etition #as su orted *+ the o#ner s du licate co + o! the title sou$ht to *e reconstituted. (etition!or reconstruction #as $ranted. Su*se uentl+, the entire arcel o! land co"ered *+ Becreto 9o. 145

#as su*di"ided into 21 lots and 21 di!!erent certi!icates o! title #ere issued in lieu o! thereconstituted TCT 9o. 23377.

Therea!ter, the heirs #ho e:ecuted the a!oresaid docu)ent o! e:tra-Dudicial settle)ent, includin$the no# s ouses Jose RoDas and 6)iliana RoDas, sold the ro ert+ to (acil ana$e)entCor oration, #hich in turn then trans!erred the title Anter ort Resources Cor oration.

&n % ril 25, 1 80, all the na)ed heirs in the e:tra-Judicial Settle)ent o! 6state ith Huitclai)renounced their ri$hts o"er the re)ainin$ ortion o! the 3,181.74 hectares in !a"or o! their co-heir

%l!redo Guido, Sr., in e:chan$e !or )onetar+ considerations. At a ears ho#e"er that *arel+ !i"e 5)onths !ro) the ti)e %l!redo Guido, Sr. !iled his etition !or reconstitution o! TCT 9o. 23377 on

3


4/78


arch 2 , 1 7 , an % lication !or Re$istration o! Title o"er !our 4 arcels o! land lots 1, 2, 3 and4 , as sho#n in lan (su-04- 0014 3, #hich lots are resentl+ alle$ed *+ the Ires ondents RoDasesto *e /o-erla in& a ortion o$ the area co-ered % T T 0o. 1122 ,3 : : : #as !iled #ith the thenCourt o! irst Anstance C A o! Ri/al, ;ranch 10, *+ Rosalina, Rodol!o, Car)ela and Car)en, allsurna)ed rancisco the ranciscos , a*out #hich etition the RoDases no# clai) to *e una#are o!.

C A !a"ored the ranciscos and declared that the+ are the true and a*solute o#ners o! 'ots 1, 2, 3and 4 o! (su-04- 0014 3. This decision *eca)e !inal.

The re u*lic !iled a co) laint !or declaration o! nullit+ o! Becreto 9o. 145 and the o#ner sdu licate co + o! TCT 9o. 23377 a$ainst the heirs o! rancisco Guido and ?er)o$enes Guido, thes ouses Jose RoDas and 6)iliana RoDas, the (acil Be"elo )ent Cor oration and Anter ortResources Cor oration, on the $round that the+ #ere !alse, s urious and !a*ricated and #ere ne"erissued *+ "irtue o! Dudicial roceedin$s !or re$istration o! land. C A ruled the decreto and the TCT$enuine and authentic. Re u*lic a ealed to C%, #hich onl+ a!!ir)ed the decision o! the lo#ercourt.

The Re u*lic )o"ed !or a reconsideration #ith an alternati"e ra+er declarin$ Becreto 9o. 145

and its deri"ati"e titles authentic e:ce t #ith res ect to such ortions o! the dis uted ro ert+ #hich #ere either@ 1 ossessed and o#ned *+ ona $ide occu ants #ho alread+ ac uiredinde!easi*le titles theretoK or 2 ossessed and o#ned *+ ona $ide occu ants and their !a)ilies

#ith len$ths o! ossession #hich a)ounted to o#nershi .

ISS5E

hether a rulin$ o! a articular di"ision o! the C% is *indin$ on another di"ision o! the C%

6EL&

o. A r"lin! of a partic"lar di%ision of the CA, while may be ta*en co!ni+ance of in

some cases, cannot bind or pre&"dice a r"lin! of another di%ision thereof, the former bein! a co ordinate a"thority and, relati%e to -s, is still considered as a lower co"rt albeit empowered with an appellate &"risdiction.

9e:t, etitioner calls &ur attention to an alle$ed Lclosel+ related case,M Ci"il Case 9o. 01-052 thenendin$ *e!ore ;ranch 8 o! the RTC o! ;inan$onan, Ri/al, entitled L?eirs o! %l!redo A. Guido,

re resented *+ Ro*erto %. Guido ". Car)en =. rancisco, et al.M !or L%nnul)ent o! the Becision and&rder dated %u$ust 7, 2000 in 'RC Case 9o. 5-0004 #ith (ra+er !or Assuance o! rit o! (reli)inar+ AnDunction.M At #as dis)issed *+ the trial court on Se te)*er 13, 2002 and,su*se uentl+, *+ the C% on June 11, 2003 in C%-G.R. C= 9o. 777 4. The C% Becision *eca)e !inaland e:ecutor+ on Jul+ 3, 2004. (etitioner o ines that #ith the C% dis)issal o! the Guidos a eal, ithas *een settled that the land re$istration case is an La ro riate roceedin$.M ?e osits that C%-

G.R. C= 9o. 777 4 has esta*lished a recedent and that the challen$ed orders o! the landre$istration court constitute the la# *et#een the arties *ecause the Guidos and the RoDases aresi)ilarl+ situated in the sense that the+ are *oth re$istered co- o#ners o! the Guido 6state and *otho! the) assailed the sa)e decisions and orders al*eit -ia di!!erent )odes o! a eal. The e!!ect o! this, etitioner holds, is that the C% Becision assailed in this etition #as not "alidl+ ro)ul$ated,since a l+in$ the doctrine o! stare decisis , the C% did not !ollo# the authorit+ esta*lished in C%-G.R. C= 9o. 777 4.

e do not a$ree. The rinci le o! stare decisis et non 4uieta 'o-ere to adhere to recedents andnot to unsettle thin$s #hich are esta*lished is #ell entrenched in Article of the Ci%il Code,which states that /0&1"dicial decisions applyin! or interpretin! the laws or theConstit"tion shall form part of the le!al system of the Philippines.2 The doctrinee)*odies the le$al )a:i) that a rinci le or rule o! la# #hich has *een esta*lished *+ the decisiono! a court o! controllin$ Durisdiction #ill *e !ollo#ed in other cases in"ol"in$ a si)ilar situation. At is!ounded on the necessit+ !or securin$ certaint+ and sta*ilit+ in the la# and does not re uire identit+ o! or ri"it+ o! arties. An a hierarchical Dudicial s+ste) li e ours, the decisions o! the hi$her courts

*ind the lo#er courtsK the courts o! co-ordinate authorit+ do not *ind each otherK and the onehi$hest court does not *ind itsel!, it *ein$ in"ested #ith the innate authorit+ to rule accordin$ to its

*est li$hts.

#he principle of stare decisis en&oins adherence by lower co"rts todoctrinal r"les established by the S"preme Co"rt in its final decisions. Thus, a rulin$ o! a articular di"ision o! the C%, #hile )a+ *e ta en co$ni/ance o! in so)e cases, cannot *ind or

reDudice a rulin$ o! another di"ision thereo!, the !or)er *ein$ a co-ordinate authorit+ and, relati"eto >s, is still considered as a lo#er court al*eit e) o#ered #ith an a ellate Durisdiction.

Visayas /eot!ermal Po-er Com#any Commissioner o$ Internal Re en'eGR 1 7525 4 June 2014

endo/a, J.

4


5/78


Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis is a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45, assailin$ the resolution o! the CT% 6n ;anc.

FAC(S

(etitioner =isa+as Geother)al (o#er Co) an+ =G(C is a s ecial li)ited artnershi dul+ or$ani/ed and e:istin$ under (hili ine 'a#s rinci all+ en$a$ed in the *usiness o! o#er$eneration throu$h $eother)al ener$+ and the sale o! $enerated o#er to the (hili ine 9ational&il Co) an+ (9&C , ursuant to the 6ner$+ Con"ersion %$ree)ent.

=G(C !iled #ith the ;ureau o! Anternal Re"enue ;AR its &ri$inal Huarterl+ =%T Returns !or the!irst to !ourth uarters o! ta:a*le +ear 2005 on % ril 25, 2005, Jul+ 25, 2005, &cto*er 25, 200 , andJanuar+ 20, 200 , res ecti"el+.

&n Bece)*er , 200 , it !iled an ad)inistrati"e clai) !or re!und !or the a)ount o! 14,1 0,807. 5 #ith the ;AR Bistrict &!!ice 9o. 8 o! &r)oc Cit+ on the $round that it #as entitled to reco"ere:cess and unutili/ed in ut =%T a+)ents !or the !our uarters o! ta:a*le +ear 2005, ursuant to

Re u*lic %ct R.%. 9o. 13 , #hich treated sales o! $enerated o#er su*Dect to =%T to a /ero

ercent 0N rate startin$ June 2 , 2001.

9earl+ one )onth later, on Januar+ 3, 2007, #hile its ad)inistrati"e clai) #as endin$, =G(C !iledits Dudicial clai) "ia a etition !or re"ie# #ith the CT% ra+in$ !or a re!und or the issuance o! a ta:credit certi!icate in the a)ount o! 14,1 0,807. 5, co"erin$ the !our uarters o! ta:a*le +ear 2005.

CT% artiall+ $ranted the etition and !ound that onl+ the a)ount o! 7, ,3 .37 #as dul+ su*stantiated *+ the re uired e"idence. %s to the ti)eliness o! the !ilin$ o! the Dudicial clai), theCourt ruled that !ollo#in$ the case o! Co))issioner o! Anternal Re"enue CAR ". irant (a$*ilaoCor oration irant , *oth the ad)inistrati"e and Dudicial clai)s #ere !iled #ithin the t#o-+ear

rescri ti"e eriod ro"ided in Section 112 % o! the 9ational Anternal Re"enue Code o! 1 7

9ARC , the rec onin$ oint o! the eriod *ein$ the close o! the ta:a*le uarter #hen the sales #ere)ade.

CT% denied the se arate )otions !or artial reconsideration. Thus, *oth =G(C and the CAR a ealed to the CT% 6n ;anc.

The CT% 6n ;anc re"ersed and set aside the decision and resolution o! the CT% SecondBi"ision, and dis)issed the ori$inal etition !or re"ie# !or ha"in$ *een !iled re)aturel+.The CT% 6n ;anc e: lained that althou$h =G(C seasona*l+ !iled its ad)inistrati"e clai)

#ithin the t#o-+ear rescri ti"e eriod, its Dudicial clai) !iled #ith the CT% Second Bi"ision #as re)aturel+ !iled under Section 112 B o! the 9ational Anternal Re"enue Code 9ARC .Citin$ the case o! C34 %. Aichi For!in! Company of Asia, 3nc. (Aichi),

the CT% 6n

;anc held that the Dudicial clai) !iled 28 da+s a!ter the etitioner !iled its ad)inistrati"eclai), #ithout #aitin$ !or the e: iration o! the 120-da+ eriod, #as re)ature and, thus, theCT% ac uired no Durisdiction o"er the case.

The =G(C !iled a )otion !or reconsideration, *ut the CT% 6n ;anc denied it in the assailed June 27,2011 Resolution !or lac o! )erit. At stated that the case o! %tlas Consolidated inin$ ". CAR %tlasrelied u on *+ the etitioner had lon$ *een a*andoned.

ISS5E

hether the inter retation o! the la# in a rior decided Su re)e Court case (Aichi) should not *e)ade to a l+ to the resent case !or *ein$ contrar+ to e:istin$ Duris rudence as laid do#n in casesdecided *+ the Court o! Ta: % eals at the ti)e the etition #as !iled.

6EL&

No, t!e inter#retation o$ t!e la- in a #rior decided case s!o'ld a##ly. C(A decisionsdo not constit'te #recedent and do not ind t!is Co'rt or t!e #' lic. Only decisionsof this Co"rt constit"te bindin! precedents, formin! part of the Philippine le!al system.

(etitioner =G(C also ar$ues that %ichi should *e a lied ros ecti"el+ and, there!ore, should not *ea lied to the resent case. This osition cannot *e $i"en consideration.

Article of the Ci%il Code pro%ides that &"dicial decisions applyin! or interpretin!the law shall form part of the le!al system of the Philippines and shall ha%e the force

5


6/78


of law. The inter retation laced u on a la# *+ a co) etent court esta*lishes theconte) oraneous le$islati"e intent o! the la#. Thus, such inter retation constitutes a art o! the la# as o! the date the statute is enacted. At is onl+ #hen a rior rulin$ o! the Court is o"erruled, and adi!!erent "ie# ado ted, that the ne# doctrine )a+ ha"e to *e a lied ros ecti"el+ in !a"or o!

arties #ho ha"e relied on the old doctrine and ha"e acted in $ood !aith.

Considerin$ that the nature o! the 120O30 da+ eriod #as !irst settled in %ichi, the inter retation *+ the Court o! its *ein$ )andator+ and Durisdictional in nature retroacts to the date the 9ARC #asenacted. At cannot *e a lied ros ecti"el+ as no old doctrine #as o"erturned.

The etitioner cannot rel+ either on the alle$ed Duris rudence re"ailin$ at the ti)e it !iled its Dudicial clai). The Court notes that the Duris rudence relied u on *+ the etitioner consists o! CT% cases. At is ele)entar+ that CT% decisions do not constitute recedent and do not *ind this Court orthe u*lic. Only decisions of this Co"rt constit"te bindin! precedents, formin! part of the Philippine le!al system.

%s re$ards the cases #hich #ere later decided alle$edl+ in contra"ention o! %ichi, it is o! note that all

o! the) #ere decided *+ Bi"isions o! this Court, and not *+ the Court 6n ;anc. %n+ doctrine or

rinci le o! la# laid do#n *+ the Court, either rendered 6n ;anc or in Bi"ision, )a+ *e o"erturnedor re"ersed onl+ *+ the Court sittin$ 6n ;anc. Thus, the cases cited *+ the etitioner could not ha"eo"erturned the doctrine laid do#n in %ichi.

Cali$ornia Clot!ing, Inc. and Mic!elle 8 a9e0 S!irley :'i9ones

GR 175822 23 &cto*er 2013

(eralta, J.

Nat're o$ t!e Action

This is a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45, assailin$ the Becision and Resolution o! C% re"ersed and set aside the Becision o! the RTC in an action !or da)a$es.

FAC(S

Res ondent Shirle+ Hui ones, a Reser"ation Tic etin$ %$ent o! Ce*u (aci!ic %ir in 'a u 'a u Cit+, #ent inside the Guess >S% ;outi ue at the second !loor o! Ro*inson s Be art)ent Store in Ce*uCit+. She !itted !our ite)s and alle$edl+ aid to the cashier e"idenced *+ a recei t issued *+ thestore. hile she #as #al in$ throu$h the s +#al connectin$ Ro*inson s and ercur+ Bru$ Store, aGuess e) lo+ee a roached and in!or)ed her that she !ailed to a+ the ite) she $ot. ?o#e"er, sheinsisted that she aid and sho#ed the e) lo+ee the recei t issued in her !a"or. She then su$$estedthat the+ tal a*out it at the Ce*u (aci!ic &!!ice located at the *ase)ent o! the )all, to #hich the$uess e) lo+ee a$reed.

hen she arri"ed at the Ce*u (aci!ic &!!ice, the Guess e) lo+ees alle$edl+ su*Dected her to

hu)iliation in !ront o! the clients o! Ce*u (aci!ic and re eatedl+ de)anded a+)ent !or the *lac Deans. The+ searched her #allet to chec ho# )uch )one+ she had, !ollo#ed *+ another ar$u)ent.

&n the sa)e da+, the Guess e) lo+ees alle$edl+ $a"e a letter to the Birector o! Ce*u (aci!ic %irnarratin$ the incident, *ut the latter re!used to recei"e it as it did not concern the o!!ice and thesa)e too lace #hile res ondent #as o!! dut+. %nother letter #as alle$edl+ re ared and #assu osed to *e sent to the Ce*u (aci!ic &!!ice in Ro*inson s, *ut the latter a$ain re!used to recei"eit. Res ondent also clai)ed that the ?u)an Resource Be art)ent o! Ro*inson s #as !urnished saidletter and the latter in !act conducted an in"esti$ation !or ur oses o! cancelin$ res ondent sRo*inson s credit card. Res ondent !urther clai)ed that she #as not $i"en a co + o! said da)a$in$

letter.


7/78


:'inones $iled t!e Com#laint $or &amages e$ore t!e R(C a$ainst etitioners Cali!orniaClothin$, Anc., F*ane/ and se"eral other e) lo+ees. She de)anded the a+)ent o! )oral, no)inal,and e:e) lar+ da)a$es, lus attorne+ s !ees and liti$ation e: enses.

The RTC dis)issed *oth the co) laint and counterclai) o! the arties. The trial courtconcluded that the etitioners and the other de!endants *elie"ed in $ood !aith thatres ondent !ailed to )a e a+)ent. Considerin$ that no )oti"e to !a*ricate a lie could *eattri*uted to the Guess e) lo+ees, the court held that #hen the+ de)anded a+)ent !ro)res ondent, the+ )erel+ e:ercised a ri$ht under the honest *elie! that no a+)ent #as)ade.

&n a eal, the C% re"ersed the decision o! the RTC and ordered Cali!ornia Clothin$ and F*ane/ to a+ )oral da)a$es to Huinones.

ISS5E

hether the )anner o! "eri!ication e) lo+ed *+ the etitioners #as )ade in $ood !aith or #as ana*use o! ri$ht

6EL&

8ES, t!e manner o$ eri$ication -as an a 'sed o$ t!eir rig!t.

Res ondent cried !oul #hen etitioners alle$edl+ e)*arrassed her #hen the+ insisted that she did

not a+ !or the *lac Deans she urchased !ro) their sho des ite the e"idence o! a+)ent #hich isthe o!!icial recei t issued *+ the sho . The issuance o! the recei t not#ithstandin$, etitioners hadthe ri$ht to "eri!+ !ro) res ondent #hether she indeed )ade a+)ent i! the+ had reason to *elie"ethat she did not. ?o#e"er, the e:ercise o! such ri$ht is not #ithout li)itations. %n+ a*use in thee:ercise o! such ri$ht and in the er!or)ance o! dut+ causin$ da)a$e or inDur+ to another isactiona*le under the Ci"il Code. :::

#he elements of ab"se of ri!hts are as follows5 (6) there is a le!al ri!ht or d"ty7 (8) which is e9ercised in bad faith7 (:) for the sole intent of pre&"dicin!or in&"rin! another.

An this case, etitioners clai)ed that there #as a )isco))unication *et#een the cashier and thein"oicer leadin$ to the erroneous issuance o! the recei t to res ondent. hen the+ reali/ed the)ista e, the+ )ade a cash count and disco"ered that the a)ount #hich is e ui"alent to the rice o! the *lac Deans #as )issin$. The+, thus, concluded that it #as res ondent #ho !ailed to )a e such

a+)ent. At #as, there!ore, #ithin their ri$ht to "eri!+ !ro) res ondent #hether she indeed aid ornot and collect !ro) her i! she did not. ?o#e"er, the uestion no# is #hether such ri$ht #ase:ercised in $ood !aith or the+ #ent o"er*oard $i"in$ res ondent a cause o! action a$ainst the).

7


8/78


>nder the a*use o! ri$hts rinci le !ound in %rticle 1 o! the Ci"il Code, a erson )ust, in thee:ercise o! le$al ri$ht or dut+, act in $ood !aith. ?e #ould *e lia*le i! he instead acted in *ad !aith,

#ith intent to reDudice another. Good !aith re!ers to the state o! )ind #hich is )ani!ested *+ theacts o! the indi"idual concerned. At consists o! the intention to a*stain !ro) ta in$ anunconsciona*le and unscru ulous ad"anta$e o! another. alice or *ad !aith, on the other hand,i) lies a conscious and intentional desi$n to do a #ron$!ul act !or a dishonest ur ose or )oralo*li uit+.

Anitiall+, there #as nothin$ #ron$ #ith etitioners as in$ res ondent #hether she aid ornot. The Guess e) lo+ees #ere a*le to tal to res ondent at the Ce*u (aci!ic &!!ice. Thecon!rontation started #ell, *ut it e"entuall+ turned sour #hen "oices #ere raised *+ *oth

arties. %s a tl+ held *+ *oth the RTC and the C%, such #as the natural conse uence o! t#oarties #ith con!lictin$ "ie#s insistin$ on their res ecti"e *elie!s. Considerin$, ho#e"er, that

res ondent #as in ossession o! the ite) urchased !ro) the sho , to$ether #ith the o!!icialrecei t o! a+)ent issued *+ etitioners, the latter cannot insist that no such a+)ent #as)ade on the *asis o! a )ere s eculation. Their clai) should ha"e *een ro"en *+ su*stantiale"idence in the ro er !oru).

At is e"ident !ro) the circu)stances o! the case that etitioners #ent o"er*oard and tried to!orce res ondent to a+ the a)ount the+ #ere de)andin$. An the $uise o! as in$ !orassistance, etitioners e"en sent a de)and letter to res ondent s e) lo+er not onl+ in!or)in$ it o! the incident *ut o*"iousl+ i) utin$ *ad acts on the art o! res ondent.(etitioners clai)ed that a!ter recei"in$ the recei t o! a+)ent and the ite) urchased,res ondent L#as noted to hurriedl+ le!t sic the store.M The+ also accused res ondent thatshe #as not co) letel+ *ein$ honest #hen she #as as ed a*out the circu)stances o!

a+)ent. :::

At can *e in!erred !ro) the !ore$oin$ that in sendin$ the de)and letter to res ondent se) lo+er, etitioners intended not onl+ to as !or assistance in collectin$ the dis uteda)ount *ut to tarnish res ondent s re utation in the e+es o! her e) lo+er. To )ali$nres ondent #ithout su*stantial e"idence and des ite the latter s ossession o! enou$he"idence in her !a"or, is clearl+ i) er)issi*le. % erson should not use his ri$ht unDustl+ orcontrar+ to honest+ and $ood !aith, other#ise, he o ens hi)sel! to lia*ilit+. The e:ercise o! ari$ht )ust *e in accordance #ith the ur ose !or #hich it #as esta*lished and )ust not *ee:cessi"e or undul+ harsh. An this case, etitioners o*"iousl+ a*used their ri$hts. :::

An "ie# o! the !ore$oin$, res ondent is entitled to an a#ard o! )oral da)a$es and attorne+ s !ees.

Fe Floro Valino . Rosario Adriano, et al.GR 1828 4 22 % ril 2014

endo/a, J.

Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis etition assails the decision o! C%, #hich re"ersed and set aside the decision o! RTC to dis)issthe co) laint o! Rosario %driano et al. !or da)a$es #ith ra+er that the re)ains o! the deceased *ee:hu)ed and trans!erred to their !a)il+ lot.

FAC(S

%tt+ %driano %driano #as )arried to res ondent Rosario %driano. The+ had children. hen their)arria$e turned sour, %tt+ %driano and Rosario e"entuall+ se arated-in-!act. %tt+ %driano courted

=alino, one o! his clients, and the+ decided to li"e to$ether. Bes ite such arran$e)ent, %tt+ %drianocontinued to ro"ide su ort to Rosario and their children.

An 1 2, %tt+ %driano died o! acute e) h+se)a. %t the ti)e, Rosario and their children #ere in the>nited States. > on learnin$ o! his hus*and s death, Rosario called =alino and re uested that shedela+ the inter)ent !or a !e# da+s. =alino did not heed the re uest. Anstead, the re)ains o! %tt+.

%driano #ere then interred at the )ausoleu) o! the !a)il+ o! =alino at the anila e)orial (ar .Res ondents #ere not a*le to attend the inter)ent.

8


9/78


Rosario and his children, #ho #here de ri"ed o! the chance to "ie# the re)ains o! the deceased,!iled suit ra+in$ that the+ *e inde)ni!ied !or actual, )oral and e:e) lar+ da)a$es and attorne+ s!ees and that the re)ains o! %tt+. %driano *e e:hu)ed and trans!erred to the !a)il+ lot at the ?ol+ Cross e)orial Ce)eter+ in 9o"aliches, Hue/on Cit+.

=alino, in her de!ense, clai)ed that@

1. >nli e Rosario, she too $ood care o! %tt+. %driano and aid !or all his )edical e: enses #hen he $ot seriousl+ ill.

2. She also clai)ed that des ite no#in$ that %tt+. %driano #as in a co)a and d+in$, Rosariostill le!t !or the >nited States.

3. %ccordin$ to =alino, it #as %tt+. %driano s last #ish that his re)ains *e interred in the =alino !a)il+ )ausoleu) at the anila e)orial (ar .

4. =alino also clai)ed !or )oral and e:e) lar+ da)a$es and attorne+ s !ees.

4#C dismissed the complaint of respondents, as well as the co"nterclaim of ;alino, for lac* of merit. RTC relied on the last #ish o! %tt+ %driano to *e *uried at the

anila e)orial (ar . At !urthered that Rosario did not sho# lo"e and care !or hi), thus it

could *e reasona*l+ resu)ed that he #ished to *e *uried in the =alino !a)il+ )ausoleu).CA re%ersed and set aside the decision of 4#C. At directed =alino to ha"e the re)ains o!

%tt+. %driano e:hu)ed at the e: ense o! res ondents. At li e#ise directed res ondents, at theire: ense, to trans!er, trans ort and inter the re)ains o! the decedent in the !a)il+ lot. Citin$

%rticle 305 o! the 9e# Ci"il Code in relation to %rticle 1 o! the a)il+ Code, it #as theconsidered "ie# o! the a ellate court that the la# $a"e the sur"i"in$ s ouse not onl+ the dut+

*ut also the ri$ht to )a e arran$e)ents !or the !uneral o! her hus*and .

ISS5E

hether it is the #i!e, to #ho) the deceased #as se arated-in-!act !ro), or the li"e-in artner o!

the deceased #ho is entitled to the re)ains o! the deceased.6EL&

(!e -i$e is entitled to t!e remains o$ t!e deceased. Petition denied.

%rticle 305 o! the Ci"il Code, in relation to #hat is no# %rticle 1 o! the a)il+ Code, s eci!ies theersons #ho ha"e the ri$ht and dut+ to )a e !uneral arran$e)ents !or the deceased. At is

undenia*le that the la# si) l+ con!ines the ri$ht and dut+ to )a e !uneral arran$e)ents to the)e)*ers o! the !a)il+ to the e:clusion o! one s co))on la# artner. ::: /5ndeed, Phili ine !adoes not reco!ni+e common law marria!es. 3 (To'as Eu&enio, Sr. -. 6ele+)

#he law !i%es the ri!ht and d"ty to ma*e f"neral arran!ements to 4osario, shebein! the s"r%i%in! le!al wife of Atty. Adriano.

The !act that she #as li"in$ se aratel+ !ro) her hus*and and #as in the >nited States #henhe died has no controllin$ si$ni!icance. To sa+ that Rosario had, in e!!ect, #ai"ed orrenounced, e: ressl+ or i) liedl+, her ri$ht and dut+ to )a e arran$e)ents !or the !uneralo! her deceased hus*and is *aseless.

Therig!t and d'ty to )a e !uneral arran$e)ents, li e an+ other ri$ht, -ill not e

considered as !a ing een -ai ed or reno'nced, e;ce#t '#on clear andsatis$actory #roo$ o$ cond'ct indicati e o$ a $ree and ol'ntary intent to t!atend . hile there #as disa!!ection *et#een %tt+. %driano and Rosario and their children

#hen he #as still ali"e, the Court also reco$ni/es that hu)an co) assion, )ore o!ten thannot, o ens the door to )erc+ and !or$i"eness once a !a)il+ )e)*er Doins his Creator. :::

;alino insists that the e9pressed wishes of the deceased sho"ld ne%ertheless pre%ail p"rs"ant to Article :s own testimony that it was Atty. Adriano>s wish to be b"ried in their family plot is bein! relied "pon hea%ily.

At should *e noted, ho#e"er, that other than =alino s clai) that %tt+. %driano #ished to *e *uried at the anila e)orial (ar , no other e%idence was presented to corro*oratesuch clai). Considerin$ that Rosario e uall+ clai)s that %tt+. %driano #ished to *e *uriedin the %driano !a)il+ lot in 9o"aliches, it *eco)es a arent that the su osed *urial #isho! %tt+. %driano #as unclear and unde!inite . onsiderin& this a' i&uit% as to the true

ishes o$ the deceased, it is the la that su lies the resu' tion as to his intent. 0o resu' tion can e said to ha-e een created in 6alino7s $a-or, solel% on account o$ a lon&8


10/78


ti'e relationshi ith Att%. Adriano. :::

S!o'ld t!ere e any do' t as to t!e tr'e intent o$ t!e deceased, t!e la- $a orst!e legitimate $amily. ?ere, Rosario s eenness to e:ercise the ri$hts and o*li$ationsaccorded to the le$al #i!e #as e"en *olstered *+ the !act that s!e -as 7oined y t!ec!ildren in t!is case. :::

?%en ass"min!, e9 !ratia ar!"menti, that Atty. Adriano tr"ly wished to be b"ried inthe ;alino family plot at the $anila $emorial Par*, the res"lt remains the same.

ro) its ter)s, it is a arent that %rticle 307 si) l+ see s to rescri*e the L $or' o$ the $uneral rites3 that should $o"ern in the *urial o! the deceased. ::: 6"en i! %rticle 307 #ereto *e inter reted to include the lace o! *urial a)on$ those on #hich the #ishes o! thedeceased shall *e !ollo#ed, Br. %rturo . Tolentino (Dr. Tolentino) , an e)inent authorit+ on ci"il la#, co))ented that it is generally recogni0ed t!at any in$erences as to t!e

-is!es o$ t!e deceased s!o'ld e esta lis!ed y some $orm o$ testamentary dis#osition .

%s %rticle 307 itsel! ro"ides, the #ishes o! the deceased )ust *e e9 ressl%

ro"ided. It cannot e in$erred lig!tly , such as !ro) the circu)stance that %tt+. %driano

s ent his last re)ainin$ da+s #ith =alino. ::: %t an+ rate, it should *e re)e)*ered that the -is!es o$ t!e decedent #ith res ect to his!uneral are not a sol'te . The -is!es o! the deceased #ith res ect to his !uneral arelimited y Article 1


11/78


since. There #as ne"er an+ co))unication *et#een the). ?e tried to loo !or her, *ut he could not!ind her. Se"eral +ears a!ter she le!t, one o! their to#n )ates in 'una, 'a >nion ca)e ho)e !ro)Sin$a ore and told hi) that the last ti)e she sa# his #i!e, the latter #as alread+ li"in$ #ith aSin$a orean hus*and.

An "ie# o! her a*sence and his desire to re)arr+, respondent filed with the 4#C in 8


12/78


declaration o! resu) ti"e death, should not *e treated di!!erentl+. At had no ri$ht to a eal theRTC decision o! 9o"e)*er 7, 2001. :::

or the ur ose o! contractin$ the su*se uent )arria$e under the recedin$ ara$ra h, the s ouseresent )ust institute a su))ar+ roceedin$ as ro"ided in this Code !or the declaration o! resu) ti"e death o! the a*sentee, #ithout reDudice to the e!!ect o! rea earance o! the a*sent

s ouse. :::

%s e: lained in Re u*lic ". Tan$o, the remedy of a losin! party in a s"mmary proceedin!is not an ordinary appeal, b"t a petition for certiorari , to #it@

B% e9 ress ro-ision o$ la , the ;ud&'ent o$ the court in a su''ar% roceedin& shall ei''ediatel% $inal and e9ecutor%. As a 'atter o$ course, it $ollo s that no a eal can ehad o$ the trial court=s ;ud&'ent in a su''ar% roceedin& $or the declaration o$

resu' ti-e death o$ an a sent s ouse under Article o$ the Fa'il% ode. 5t &oes ithout sa%in&, ho e-er, that an a&&rie-ed art% 'a% $ile a etition $or certiorari to 4uestiona use o$ discretion a'ountin& to lac# o$ ;urisdiction. Such etition should e $iled in the

ourt o$ A eals in accordance ith the Doctrine o$ ?ierarch% o$ ourts. To e sure, e-eni$ the ourt=s ori&inal ;urisdiction to issue a rit o$ certiorari is concurrent ith the RT sand the ourt o$ A eals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction anunrestricted $reedo' o$ choice o$ court $oru'. Fro' the decision o$ the ourt o$ A eals,the losin& art% 'a% then $ile a etition $or re-ie on certiorari under Rule


13/78


Burin$ the trial, S+ed, a (a istani citi/en, testi!ied that a!ter *ein$ )arried in Tai#an #ith Gloriaand #hile sta+in$ in the (hili ines, his )other-in-la# )ade hi) artici ate in a cere)on+

ur ortedl+ re uired !or his sta+ in the countr+ and )ade hi) si$n a docu)ent. ?e clai)ed that hedid not no# that the cere)on+ #as a )arria$e until Gloria told hi) later. ?e did not $o toCar)ona, Ca"ite to a l+ !or a )arria$e license, and that he had ne"er resided in that area. An 2003,he #ent to the &!!ice o! the Ci"il Re$istrar o! Car)ona to chec on their )arria$e license, and #asas ed to sho# a co + o! their )arria$e contract #herein the )arria$e license nu)*er could *e!ound. The unici al Ci"il Re$istrar then issued a certi!ication to the e!!ect that the )arria$elicense nu)*er a earin$ in the )arria$e contract he su*)itted, arria$e 'icense 9o. 7,

#as the nu)*er o! another )arria$e license issued to a certain %rlindo Getalado and +raa*ilan$an.

4#C held that no %alid marria!e license #as issued *+ the unici al Ci"il Re$istrarin !a"or o! the arties, as arria$e 'icense 9o. 7 had *een issued to another cou e,and the !or)er had certi!ied that no )arria$e license had *een issued !or Gloria and S+ed. Atalso too into account the !act that neither art+ #as a resident o! Car)ona, the lace #herethe )arria$e license #as issued, in "iolation o! %rticle o! the a)il+ Code. %s the )arria$e

#as not one o! those e:e) t !ro) the license re uire)ent, and that the lac o! a "alid)arria$e license #as an a*sence o! a !or)al re uisite, the )arria$e #as declared "oid a*initio.

#he CA, on appeal, !a%e credence to loria>s ar!"ments and did not !i%e probati%e %al"e to the certification of the ci%il re!istrar , !ailin$ to statecate$oricall+ that a dili$ent search #as )ade. ?ence, it re"ersed the decision o! the RTC anddeclared the )arria$e as "alid and su*sistin$.

ISS5E

hether or not the certi!ication o! the Ci"il Re$istrar o! non-issuance o! a )arria$e license #assu!!icient roo! o! the a*sence o! a !or)al re uisite o! )arria$e

6EL&

8ES, certi$ication iss'ed y t!e ci il registrar en7oyed #ro ati e al'e, as !is d'ty -asto maintain records o$ data relati e to t!e iss'ance o$ a marriage license.

There is no issue #ith the essential re uisites under %rt. 2 o! the a)il+ Code, nor #ith the !or)alre uisites o! the authorit+ o! the sole)ni/in$ o!!icer and the conduct o! the )arria$e cere)on+. 9oris the )arria$e one that is e:e) t !ro) the re uire)ent o! a "alid )arria$e license under Cha ter2, Title A o! the a)il+ Code. The resolution o! this case, thus, hin$es on #hether or not a "alid)arria$e license had *een issued !or the cou le. The RTC held that no "alid )arria$e license had

*een issued. The C% held that there #as a "alid )arria$e license. e !ind the RTC to *e correct inthis instance.

Res ondent Gloria !ailed to resent the actual )arria$e license, or a co + thereo!, and relied on the)arria$e contract as #ell as the testi)onies o! her #itnesses to ro"e the e:istence o! said license.To ro"e that no such license #as issued, S+ed turned to the o!!ice o! the unici al Ci"il Re$istraro! Car)ona, Ca"ite #hich had alle$edl+ issued said license. At #as there that he re uested

13


14/78


certi!ication that no such license #as issued. An the case o! Re u*lic ". Court o! % eals suchcerti!ication #as allo#ed, as er)itted *+ Sec. 2 , Rule 132 o! the Rules o! Court. :::

The a*o"e Rule authori/ed the custodian o! the docu)ents to certi!+ that des ite dili$ent search, aarticular docu)ent does not e:ist in his o!!ice or that a articular entr+ o! a s eci!ied tenor #as not

to *e !ound in a re$ister. %s custodians o! u*lic docu)ents, ci"il re$istrars are u*lic o!!icerschar$ed #ith the dut+, inter alia, o! )aintainin$ a re$ister *oo #here the+ are re uired to enter alla lications !or )arria$e licenses, includin$ the na)es o! the a licants, the date the )arria$elicense #as issued and such other rele"ant data.

The Court held in that case that the certi!ication issued *+ the ci"il re$istrar enDo+ed ro*ati"e "alue,as his dut+ #as to )aintain records o! data relati"e to the issuance o! a )arria$e license.

The unici al Ci"il Re$istrar o! Car)ona, Ca"ite, #here the )arria$e license o! Gloria and S+ed #as alle$edl+ issued, issued a certi!ication to the e!!ect that no such )arria$e license !or Gloria andS+ed #as issued, and that the serial nu)*er o! the )arria$e license ertained to another cou le,

%rlindo Getalado and +ra a*ilan$an. % certi!ied )achine co + o! arria$e 'icense 9o. 7 #as resented, #hich #as issued in Car)ona, Ca"ite, and indeed, the na)es o! Gloria and S+ed donot a ear in the docu)ent :::

An the case o! Cari o ". Cari o, !ollo#in$ the case o! Re u*lic, it #as held that the certi!ication o! the

'ocal Ci"il Re$istrar that their o!!ice had no record o! a )arria$e license #as ade uate to ro"e thenon-issuance o! said license. The case o! Cari o !urther held that the resu)ed "alidit+ o! the)arria$e o! the arties had *een o"erco)e, and that it *eca)e the *urden o! the art+ alle$in$ a

"alid )arria$e to ro"e that the )arria$e #as "alid, and that the re uired )arria$e license had *eensecured. Gloria has !ailed to dischar$e that *urden, and the onl+ conclusion that can *e reached isthat no "alid )arria$e license #as issued. At cannot *e said that there #as a si) le irre$ularit+ inthe )arria$e license that #ould not a!!ect the "alidit+ o! the )arria$e, as no license #as resented

*+ the res ondent. 9o )arria$e license #as ro"en to ha"e *een issued to Gloria and S+ed, *ased onthe certi!ication o! the unici al Ci"il Re$istrar o! Car)ona, Ca"ite and Gloria s !ailure to roduce aco + o! the alle$ed )arria$e license. :::

%ll the e"idence cited *+ the C% to sho# that a #eddin$ cere)on+ #as conducted and a )arria$econtract #as si$ned does not o erate to cure the a*sence o! a "alid )arria$e license. %rticle 4 o! the

a)il+ Code is clear #hen it sa+s, EThe a*sence o! an+ o! the essential or !or)al re uisites shallrender the )arria$e "oid a* initio, e:ce t as stated in %rticle 35 2 .E %rticle 35 3 o! the a)il+ Code also ro"ides that a )arria$e sole)ni/ed #ithout a license is "oid !ro) the *e$innin$, e:ce tthose e:e) t !ro) the license re uire)ent under %rticles 27 to 34, Cha ter 2, Title A o! the sa)eCode. %$ain, this )arria$e cannot *e characteri/ed as a)on$ the e:e) tions, and thus, ha"in$ *eensole)ni/ed #ithout a )arria$e license, is "oid a* initio.

%s to the )oti"e o! S+ed in see in$ to annul his )arria$e to Gloria, it )a+ #ell *e that his )oti"esare less than ure, that he see s to e"ade a *i$a)+ suit. ;e that as it )a+, the sa)e does not )a eu !or the !ailure o! the res ondent to ro"e that the+ had a "alid )arria$e license, $i"en the #ei$hto! e"idence resented *+ etitioner. The lac o! a "alid )arria$e license cannot *e attri*uted to hi),as it #as Gloria #ho too ste s to rocure the sa)e. The la# )ust *e a lied. %s the )arria$elicense, a !or)al re uisite, is clearl+ a*sent, the )arria$e o! Gloria and S+ed is "oid a* initio.

Peo#le %dt'!an >)


15/78


(etition !or certiorari under rule 45 o! the Rules o! Court

FAC(S

Res ondent 6d$ardo &dtuhan )arried Jas)in odina in 1 80. An 1 3, &dtuhan contracted asecond )arria$e #ith 6leanor %. %la$on. An 1 4, Res ondent &dtuhan !iled a etition !orannul)ent o! his !irst )arria$e #ith odina. An 1 , RTC $ranted res ondent s etition anddeclared his )arria$e #ith odina "oid a* initio !or lac o! a "alid )arria$e license.

An June 2003, ri"ate co) lainant %la$on,u on learnin$ o! res ondent s !irst )arria$e, she !iled aco) laint-a!!ida"it char$in$ res ondent o! ;i$a)+. %la$on died on 10 9o"e)*er 2003.

Res ondent )o"ed !or the uashal o! the in!or)ation on the $round that the !acts do not char$e theo!!ense o! *i$a)+ and that his cri)inal lia*ilit+ has *een e:tin$uished *ecause o! the declaration o! nullit+ o! the !irst )arria$e. Trial court denied the )otion reasonin$ that the declaration o! nullit+ o! the !irst )arria$e is not one o! the )odes o! e:tin$uishin$ cri)inal lia*ilit+.

Res ondent instituted a s ecial ci"il action on certiorari under rule 4 *e!ore C%, assailin$ thedenial o! his )otion to uash. C% $ranted the etition and concluded that the RTC $ra"el+ a*usedits discretion in den+in$ res ondent s )otion to uash the in!or)ation considerin$ that the !actsalle$ed in the in!or)ation do not char$e an o!!ense. At *ased its decision on Mori&o - eo le, that i! the e"idence #ould esta*lish that his !irst )arria$e #as indeed "oid a* initio, one essential ele)ento! the cri)e o! *i$a)+ #ould *e lac in$. Thus, this etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISS5E

1. hether it #as ro er !or res ondent to raise the court s declaration o! nullit+ o! the !irst)arria$e in a )otion to uash.

2. hether the su*se uent court Dud$)ent declarin$ res ondent s !irst )arria$e "oid a* initiodid not e:tin$uish res ondent s cri)inal lia*ilit+ #hich alread+ attached rior the said

Dud$)ent.

6EL&

2. N%, (6E EVI&ENCE S6%WIN/ C%5R(@S &ECLARA(I%N %F N5LLI(8 %F(6E FIRS( MARRIA/E IS A MA((ER %F &EFENSE (6A( CANN%( ERAISE& IN A M%(I%N (% :5AS6. I( M5S( E RES%LVE& WI(6 (6E

ENEFI( %F A F5LL" L%WN (RIAL.

Res ondent s e"idence sho#in$ the court s declaration that his )arria$e to odina is null and "oid!ro) the *e$innin$ *ecause o! the a*sence o! a )arria$e license is onl+ an e"idence that see s to

esta*lish a !act contrar+ to that alle$ed in the in!or)ation that a !irst "alid )arria$e #as su*sistin$at the ti)e he contracted the second )arria$e. This should not *e considered at all, *ecause)atters o! de!ense cannot *e raised in a )otion to uash. At is not ro er, there!ore, to resol"e thechar$es at the "er+ outset #ithout the *ene!it o! a !ull *lo#n trial. The issues re uire a !ullere:a)ination and it #ould *e un!air to shut o!! the rosecution at this sta$e o! the roceedin$s andto uash the in!or)ation on the *asis o! the docu)ent resented *+ res ondent. ith the

resentation o! the court decree, no !acts ha"e *een *rou$ht out #hich destro+ed the ri'a $acie truth accorded to the alle$ations o! the in!or)ation on the h+ othetical ad)ission thereo!.

). S5 SE:5EN( C%5R( B5&/MEN( &ECLARIN/ RESP%N&EN(@S FIRS(MARRIA/E V%I& A INI(I% &I& N%( E (IN/5IS6 RESP%N&EN(@S

CRIMINAL LIA ILI(8.

A declaration of the absol"te n"llity of a marria!e is now e9plicitly re@"ired either as a ca"se of action or a !ro"nd for defense. At has *een held in a nu)*er o! cases that a

Dudicial declaration o! nullit+ is re uired *e!ore a "alid su*se uent )arria$e can *e contractedK orelse, #hat trans ires is a *i$a)ous )arria$e, re rehensi*le and i))oral.

hat )a es a erson cri)inall+ lia*le !or *i$a)+ is #hen he contracts a second or su*se uent)arria$e durin$ the su*sistence o! a "alid )arria$e. (arties to the )arria$e should not *e er)ittedto Dud$e !or the)sel"es its nullit+, !or the sa)e )ust *e su*)itted to the Dud$)ent o! co) etentcourts and onl+ #hen the nullit+ o! the )arria$e is so declared can it *e held as "oid, and so lon$ as

there is no such declaration, the resu) tion is that the )arria$e e:ists. There!ore, he #hocontracts a second )arria$e *e!ore the Dudicial declaration o! nullit+ o! the !irst )arria$e assu)es

15


16/78


the ris o! *ein$ rosecuted !or *i$a)+. 3f we allow respondent>s line of defense and theCA>s ratiocination, a person who commits bi!amy can simply e%ade prosec"tion byimmediately filin! a petition for the declaration of n"llity of his earlier marria!eand hope that a fa%orable decision is rendered therein before anyone instit"tes acomplaint a!ainst him.

Res ondent, li e#ise, clai)s that there are )ore reasons to uash the in!or)ation a$ainst hi), *ecause he o*tained the declaration o! nullit+ o! )arria$e *e!ore the !ilin$ o! the co) laint !or *i$a)+ a$ainst hi). %$ain, #e cannot sustain such contention. C"lpability attaches to theoffender "pon the commission of the offense and from that instant, liability appendsto him "ntil e9tin!"ished as pro%ided by law and that the time of filin! of thecriminal complaint or information is material only for determinin! prescription.

A&&I(I%NAL N%(ESDThe issues are not no"el and ha"e *een s uarel+ ruled u on *+ this Court in Monta e+ -. i riano ,Te-es -. Peo le, and Antone -. Beronilla @

/5n $ontaDe+ , res ondent i riano 'arried Socrates in A ril > 2C, ut durin& thesu sistence o$ their 'arria&e on :anuar% 1, res ondent 'arried Sil-erio. 5n >,res ondent $iled a etition $or the annul'ent o$ her 'arria&e ith Socrates on the &round o$ s%cholo&ical inca acit% hich as &ranted on :ul% > , 1. *n Ma% > . Durin& the su sistence o$ their 'arria&e on Dece' er > , >, he a&ain 'arried Edita. *n Ma% 2 , ut durin& the su sistence o$ their'arria&e, res ondent contracted a second 'arria&e in > >. *n A ril C, 2,res ondent o tained a declaration o$ nullit% o$ her $irst 'arria&e hich decision eca'e

$inal and e9ecutor% on Ma% >@, 2. *n :une >, 2, the rosecution $iled anin$or'ation $or i&a'% a&ainst res ondent hich the latter sou&ht to e 4uashed on the&round that the $acts char&ed do not constitute an o$$ense.3

Amelia /arcia":'ia0on, et al. Ma. Lo'rdes elen

GR 18 121 31 Jul+ 2013

(ere/, J.


This is a (etition !or Re"ie# on Certiorari !iled ursuant to Rule 45 o! the Re"ised Rules o! Court,ri)aril+ assailin$ the Becision rendered *+ the 9inth Bi"ision o! the Court o! % eals, den+in$ the

a eal and a!!ir)in$ the decision o! the RTC in a etition !or letters o! ad)inistration.

FAC(S

The case started as a (etition !or 'etters o! %d)inistration o! the 6state o! 6liseo Huia/on !iled *+ herein res ondents #ho #ere 6liseo s co))on-la# #i!e and dau$hter. The etition #as o osed *+

etitioners %)elia Garcia-Huai/on to #ho) 6liseo #as )arried. %)elia #as Doined *+ her children,Jenneth and aria Jenni!er.

1


17/78


6liseo died intestate on Bece)*er 12, 1 2. &n Se te)*er 12, 1 4, aria 'ourdes 6lise Huia/on,re resented *+ her )other, a. 'ourdes ;elen, !iled a (etition !or 'etters o! %d)inistration *e!orethe Re$ional Trial Court o! 'as (i as Cit+. To ro"e her !iliation to the decedent, 6lise, a)on$others, attached to the (etition !or 'etters o! %d)inistration her Certi!icate o! 'i"e ;irth si$ned *+ 6liseo as her !ather. At #as !urther alle$ed that 6liseo le!t real and ersonal ro erties. An order to

reser"e the estate o! 6liseo and to re"ent the dissi ation o! its "alue, 6lise sou$ht hera oint)ent as ad)inistratri: o! her late !ather s estate. Clai)in$ that the "enue o! the etition #asi) ro erl+ laid, etitioners %)elia, to$ether #ith her children o osed the issuance o! the letters o! ad)inistration. The etitioners asserted that as sho#n *+ his Beath Certi!icate, 6liseo #as aresident o! Ca as, Tarlac and not o! 'as (i as Cit+, at the ti)e o! his death.

The RTC directed the issuance o! 'etters o! %d)inistration to 6lise u on ostin$ the necessar+ *ond. The lo#er court ruled that the "enue o! the etition #as ro erl+ laid in 'as (i as Cit+. TheC% a!!ir)ed the !indin$s o! the RTC that that 6lise #as a*le to ro"e that 6liseo and 'ourdes li"edto$ether as hus*and and #i!e *+ esta*lishin$ a co))on residence in 'as (i as Cit+, !ro) 1 75 u tothe ti)e o! 6liseo s death in 1 2.

ISS5E

1. hether 6lise had a cause o! action to i) u$n the "alidit+ o! 6liseo s )arria$e to %)elia

2. hether or not the decedent s )arria$e to %)elia is "oid !or *ein$ *i$a)ous.

3. hether 6lise, a co) ulsor+ heir, is uali!ied to *e the ad)inistrator o! the estate.

6EL&

2. 8ES, Elise !as t!e rig!t to im#'gn Eliseo@s marriage to Amelia

=ie#ed in li$ht o! the !ore$oin$ rinci les, the Court o! % eals cannot *e !aulted !or a!!ir)in$ therulin$ o! the RTC that the "enue !or the settle)ent o! the estate o! 6liseo #as ro erl+ laid in 'as(i as Cit+. At is e"ident !ro) the records that durin$ his li!eti)e, 6liseo resided at 9o. 26"erlastin$ Road, (hase 5, (ilar =illa$e, 'as (i as Cit+. or this reason, the "enue !or the settle)ento! his estate )a+ *e laid in the said cit+. :::

'i e#ise un)eritorious is etitioners contention that the Court o! % eals erred in declarin$ %)elia s )arria$e to 6liseo as "oid a* initio. An a "oid )arria$e, it #as thou$h no )arria$e hasta en lace, thus, it cannot *e the source o! ri$hts. %n+ interested art+ )a+ attac the )arria$edirectl+ or collaterall+. % "oid )arria$e can *e uestioned e"en *e+ond the li!eti)e o! the arties tothe )arria$e. At )ust *e ointed out that at the ti)e o! the cele*ration o! the )arria$e o! 6liseo and

%)elia, the la# in e!!ect #as the Ci"il Code, and not the a)il+ Code, )a in$ the rulin$ in 9i al ".;a+ado$ a lica*le !our-s uare to the case at hand. An 9i al, the Court, in no uncertain ter)s,allo#ed therein etitioners to !ile a etition !or the declaration o! nullit+ o! their !ather s )arria$e totherein res ondent a!ter the death o! their !ather, *+ contradistin$uishin$ "oid !ro) "oida*le)arria$es, to #it@

Conse uentl+, "oid )arria$es can *e uestioned e"en a!ter the death o! either art+ *ut "oida*le )arria$es can *e assailed onl+ durin$ the li!eti)e o! the arties and not a!ter deatho! either, in #hich case the arties and their o!!s rin$ #ill *e le!t as i! the )arria$e had *een

er!ectl+ "alid. That is #h+ the action or de!ense !or nullit+ is i) rescri ti*le, unli e

17


18/78


"oida*le )arria$es #here the action rescri*es. &nl+ the arties to a "oida*le )arria$e canassail it *ut an+ ro er interested art+ )a+ attac a "oid )arria$e.

At #as e) hasi/ed in 9i al that in a "oid )arria$e, no )arria$e has ta en lace and it cannot *e thesource o! ri$hts, such that an+ interested art+ )a+ attac the )arria$e directl+ or collaterall+

#ithout rescri tion, #hich )a+ *e !iled e"en *e+ond the li!eti)e o! the arties to the )arria$e.

Rele"ant to the !ore$oin$, there is no dou*t that 6lise, #hose successional ri$hts #ould *ereDudiced *+ her !ather s )arria$e to %)elia, )a+ i) u$n the e:istence o! such )arria$e e"en

a!ter the death o! her !ather. The said )arria$e )a+ *e uestioned directl+ *+ !ilin$ an actionattac in$ the "alidit+ thereo!, or collaterall+ *+ raisin$ it as an issue in a roceedin$ !or thesettle)ent o! the estate o! the deceased s ouse, such as in the case at *ar. Anelucta*l+, 6lise, as aco) ulsor+ heir, has a cause o! action !or the declaration o! the a*solute nullit+ o! the "oid )arria$eo! 6liseo and %)elia, and the death o! either art+ to the said )arria$e does not e:tin$uish suchcause o! action.

?a"in$ esta*lished the ri$ht o! 6lise to i) u$n 6liseo s )arria$e to %)elia, #e no# roceed todeter)ine #hether or not the decedent s )arria$e to %)elia is "oid !or *ein$ *i$a)ous.

). 8ES, t!e marriage is igamo's.

Contrar+ to the osition ta en *+ the etitioners, the e:istence o! a re"ious )arria$e *et#een %)elia and ili ito #as su!!icientl+ esta*lished *+ no less than the Certi!icate o! arria$e issued *+ the Biocese o! Tarlac and si$ned *+ the o!!iciatin$ riest o! the (arish o! San 9icolas de Tolentino inCa as, Tarlac. The said )arria$e certi!icate is a co) etent e"idence o! )arria$e and thecerti!ication !ro) the 9ational %rchi"e that no in!or)ation relati"e to the said )arria$e e:ists doesnot di)inish the ro*ati"e "alue o! the entries therein. e ta e Dudicial notice o! the !act that the!irst )arria$e #as cele*rated )ore than 50 +ears a$o, thus, the ossi*ilit+ that a record o! )arria$ecan no lon$er *e !ound in the 9ational %rchi"e, $i"en the inter"al o! ti)e, is not co) letel+ re)ote.Conse uentl+, in the a*sence o! an+ sho#in$ that such )arria$e had *een dissol"ed at the ti)e

%)elia and 6liseo s )arria$e #as sole)ni/ed, the inesca a*le conclusion is that the latter )arria$e

is *i$a)ous and, there!ore, "oid a* initio.

1. 8ES, Elise !as t!e rig!t to e a##ointed as Administratri;

9either are #e inclined to lend credence to the etitioners contention that 6lise has not sho#n an+ interest in the (etition !or 'etters o! %d)inistration. P::

%n Einterested art+,E in estate roceedin$s, is one #ho #ould *e *ene!ited in the estate, such as anheir, or one #ho has a clai) a$ainst the estate, such as a creditor. %lso, in estate roceedin$s, the

hrase Ene:t o! inE re!ers to those #hose relationshi #ith the decedent As such that the+ areentitled to share in the estate as distri*utees.

An the instant case, 6lise, as a co) ulsor+ heir #ho stands to *e *ene!ited *+ the distri*ution o! 6liseo s estate, is dee)ed to *e an interested art+. ith the o"er#hel)in$ e"idence on record

roduced *+ 6lise to ro"e her !iliation to 6liseo, the etitioners oundin$ on her lac o! interest inthe ad)inistration o! the decedent s estate, is Dust a des erate atte) t to s#a+ this Court to re"ersethe !indin$s o! the Court o! % eals. Certainl+, the ri$ht o! 6lise to *e a ointed ad)inistrati: o! the

18


19/78


estate o! 6liseo is on $ood $rounds. At is !ounded on her ri$ht as a co) ulsor+ heir, #ho, under thela#, is entitled to her le$iti)ate a!ter the de*ts o! the estate are satis!ied. ?a"in$ a "ested ri$ht inthe distri*ution o! 6liseo s estate as one o! his natural children, 6lise can ri$ht!ull+ *e considered asan interested art+ #ithin the ur"ie# o! the la#.

Edelina (. Ando &e#artment o$ Foreign A$$airsGR 1 5432 27 %u$ust 2014Sereno, CJ.

Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis is a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45, see in$ to nulli!+ the order o! RTCdis)issin$ the etitioner 6delina %ndo s etition !or declarator+ relie!.

FAC(S

(etitioner 6delina )arried Fuichiro o*a+ashi, a Ja anese 9ational, in a ci"il #eddin$ sole)ni/edat Canda*a, (a) an$a. %!ter 3 +ears o! )arria$e, Fuichiro o*tained a di"orce decree in Ja an. SaidBi"orce Certi!icate #as dul+ re$istered #ith the &!!ice o! the Ci"il Re$istr+ o! anila.

;elie"in$ in $ood !aith that said di"orce ca acitated her to re)arr+ and that *+ such she re"erted toher sin$le status, etitioner )arried asato)i F. %ndo on 13 Se te)*er 2005 in a ci"il #eddin$cele*rated in Sta. %na, (a) an$a. An the )eanti)e, Fuichiro o*a+ashi )arried R+o i en on 27Bece)*er 2005.

(etitioner a lied !or the rene#al o! her (hili ine ass ort to indicate her surna)e #ith herhus*and asato)i F. %ndo *ut she #as told at the Be art)ent o! orei$n %!!airs that the sa)ecannot *e issued to her until she can ro"e *+ co) etent court decision that her )arria$e #ith hersaid hus*and asato)i F. %ndo is "alid until other#ise declared.

Petitioner filed with the 4#C a Petition for Eeclaratory 4elief, ra+in$ that Dud$)ent *erendered declarin$ as "alid and su*sistin$ the )arria$e *et#een etitioner 6delina T. %ndo and herhus*and asato)i F. %ndo until other#ise declared *+ a co) etent courtK declarin$ etitionerentitled to the issuance o! a (hili ine (ass ort under the na)e L6delina %ndo + Tun$olMK anddirectin$ the Be art)ent o! orei$n %!!airs to honor etitioner s )arria$e to her hus*and

asato)i F. %ndo and to issue a (hili ine (ass ort to etitioner under the na)e L6delina %ndo + Tun$olM.

4#C dismissed the petition for want of ca"se of action as well as &"risdiction.

An this etition !or re"ie#, (etitioner ar$ues that under %. . 9o. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on the

Beclaration o! %*solute 9ullit+ o! =oid arria$es and %nnul)ent o! =oida*le arria$es, it is solel+ the #i!e or the hus*and #ho can !ile a etition !or the declaration o! the a*solute nullit+ o! a "oid)arria$e. Thus, as the state is not e"en allo#ed to !ile a direct etition !or the declaration o! thea*solute nullit+ o! a "oid )arria$e, #ith e"en )ore reason can it not collaterall+ attac the "alidit+ o! a )arria$e, as in a etition !or declarator+ relie!. urther, etitioner alle$es that under the la#, a)arria$e < e"en one that is "oid or "oida*le < shall *e dee)ed "alid until declared other#ise in a

Dudicial roceedin$.

(etitioner also ar$ues that assu)in$ a court Dud$)ent reco$ni/in$ a Dudicial decree o! di"orce is re uired under %rticle 13 o! the a)il+ Code, nonco) liance there#ith is a )ereirre$ularit+ in the issuance o! a )arria$e license. %n+ irre$ularit+ in the !or)al re uisites o! )arria$e, such as #ith res ect to the )arria$e license, shall not a!!ect the le$alit+ o! the

)arria$e. (etitioner !urther clai)s that all the re uisites !or a etition !or declarator+ relie! ha"e *een co) lied #ith.

ISS5E hether the second )arria$e should *e reco$ni/ed as "alid here in the (hili ines #ithout thereco$nition *+ the (hili ine court o! the !irst )arria$e s !orei$n di"orce.

6EL&N%. 999 -it! res#ect to !er #rayer $or t!e recognition o$ !er second marriage as alid,#etitioner s!o'ld !a e $iled, instead, a #etition $or t!e 7'dicial recognition o$ !er$oreign di orce $rom !er $irst !'s and.

An Garcia -. Recio, #e ruled that a di"orce o*tained a*road *+ an alien )a+ *e reco$ni/ed in our Durisdiction, ro"ided the decree is "alid accordin$ to the national la# o! the !orei$ner. The

1


20/78


resentation solel+ o! the di"orce decree is insu!!icientK *oth the di"orce decree and the $o"ernin$ersonal la# o! the alien s ouse #ho o*tained the di"orce )ust *e ro"en. ;ecause our courts do

not ta e Dudicial notice o! !orei$n la#s and Dud$)ent, our la# on e"idence re uires that *oth thedi"orce decree and the national la# o! the alien )ust *e alle$ed and ro"en and li e an+ other !act.

hile it has been r"led that a petition for the a"thority to remarry filed before atrial co"rt act"ally constit"tes a petition for declaratory relief, we are still "nable to!rant the prayer of petitioner . %s held *+ the RTC, there a ears to *e insu!!icient roo! ore"idence resented on record o! *oth the national la# o! her !irst hus*and, o*a+ashi, and o! the

"alidit+ o! the di"orce decree under that national la#. ?ence, an+ declaration as to the "alidit+ o! thedi"orce can onl+ *e )ade u on her co) lete su*)ission o! e"idence ro"in$ the di"orce decree andthe national la# o! her alien s ouse, in an action instituted in the ro er !oru).

Re#' lic o$ t!e P!ili##ines Li erty Al ios

GR 1 8780 1 &cto*er 2013

endo/a, J


This #as a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45 o! the Rules o! Court assailin$ theBecision o! the C%, #hich a!!ir)ed the Becision o! the RTC, A)us, Ca"ite, declarin$ the )arria$e o! Baniel 'ee rin$er and res ondent 'i*ert+ %l*ios as "oid !ro) the *e$innin$.

FAC(S

An 2004, rin$er, an %)erican citi/en, and %l*ios #ere )arried *e!ore Jud$e Calo o! theetro olitan Trial Court, ;ranch 5 , andalu+on$ Cit+, as e"idenced *+ a Certi!icate o! arria$e.

In )


21/78


hether a )arria$e, contracted !or the sole ur ose o! ac uirin$ %)erican citi/enshi inconsideration o! Q2,000.00, "oid a initio *ecause consent #as lac in$.

6EL&

N%, t!e marriage is alid.

The institution o! )arria$e carries #ith it conco)itant *ene!its. This has led to the de"elo )ent o! )arria$e !raud !or the sole ur ose o! a"ailin$ o! articular *ene!its. An the >nited States, )arria$es

#here a cou le )arries onl+ to achie"e a articular ur ose or ac uire s eci!ic *ene!its, ha"e *eenre!erred to as Lli)ited ur oseM )arria$es. % co))on li)ited ur ose )arria$e is one entered into

solel+ !or the le$iti)i/ation o! a child. %nother, #hich is the su*Dect o! the resent case, is !ori))i$ration ur oses. A))i$ration la# is usuall+ concerned #ith the intention o! the cou le at theti)e o! their )arria$e, and it atte) ts to !ilter out those #ho use )arria$e solel+ to achie"ei))i$ration status. :::

The C% s assailed decision #as, there!ore, $rounded on the arties su osed lac o! consent. >nder %rticle 2 o! the a)il+ Code, consent is an essential re uisite o! )arria$e. %rticle 4 o! the sa)e Code

ro"ides that the a*sence o! an+ essential re uisite shall render a )arria$e "oid a initio .

>nder said %rticle 2, !or consent to *e "alid, it )ust *e 1 !reel+ $i"en and 2 )ade in the resenceo! a sole)ni/in$ o!!icer. % L!reel+ $i"enM consent re uires that the contractin$ arties #illin$l+ anddeli*eratel+ enter into the )arria$e. Consent )ust *e real in the sense that it is not "itiated norrendered de!ecti"e *+ an+ o! the "ices o! consent under %rticles 45 and 4 o! the a)il+ Code, suchas !raud, !orce, inti)idation, and undue in!luence. Consent )ust also *e conscious or intelli&ent , inthat the arties )ust *e ca a*le o! intelli$entl+ understandin$ the nature o!, and *oth the *ene!icialor un!a"ora*le conse uences o! their act. Their understandin$ should not *e a!!ected *+ insanit+,into:ication, dru$s, or h+ notis).

;ased on the a*o"e, consent #as not lac in$ *et#een %l*ios and rin$er. An !act, there #as realconsent *ecause it #as not "itiated nor rendered de!ecti"e *+ an+ "ice o! consent. Their consent #asalso conscious and intelli$ent as the+ understood the nature and the *ene!icial and incon"enientconse uences o! their )arria$e, as nothin$ i) aired their a*ilit+ to do so. That their consent #as!reel+ $i"en is *est e"idenced *+ their conscious ur ose o! ac uirin$ %)erican citi/enshi throu$h)arria$e. Such lainl+ de)onstrates that the+ #illin$l+ and deli*eratel+ contracted the )arria$e.There #as a clear intention to enter into a real and "alid )arria$e so as to !ull+ co) l+ #ith there uire)ents o! an a lication !or citi/enshi . There #as a !ull and co) lete understandin$ o! thele$al tie that #ould *e created *et#een the), since it #as that recise le$al tie #hich #as necessar+ to acco) lish their $oal. :::

The res ondent s )arria$e is not at all analo$ous to a )arria$e in Dest. %l*ios and rin$er had anundenia*le intention to *e *ound in order to create the "er+ *ond necessar+ to allo# the res ondentto ac uire %)erican citi/enshi . &nl+ a $enuine consent to *e )arried #ould allo# the) to !urthertheir o*Decti"e, considerin$ that onl+ a "alid )arria$e can ro erl+ su ort an a lication !orciti/enshi . There #as, thus, an a arent intention to enter into the actual )arria$e status and tocreate a le$al tie, al*eit !or a li)ited ur ose. Genuine consent #as, there!ore, clearl+ resent.

The a"o#ed ur ose o! )arria$e under %rticle 1 o! the a)il+ Code is !or the cou le to esta*lish aconDu$al and !a)il+ li!e. The ossi*ilit+ that the arties in a )arria$e )i$ht ha"e no real intention

to esta*lish a li!e to$ether is, ho#e"er, insu!!icient to nulli!+ a )arria$e !reel+ entered into inaccordance #ith la#. The sa)e %rticle 1 ro"ides that the nature, conse uences, and incidents o!

21


22/78


)arria$e are $o"erned *+ la# and not su*Dect to sti ulation. % )arria$e )a+, thus, onl+ *e declared "oid or "oida*le under the $rounds ro"ided *+ la#. There is no la# that declares a )arria$e "oid i! it is entered into !or ur oses other than #hat the Constitution or la# declares, such as theac uisition o! !orei$n citi/enshi . There!ore, so lon$ as all the essential and !or)al re uisites

recri*ed *+ la# are resent, and it is not "oid or "oida*le under the $rounds ro"ided *+ la#, itshall *e declared "alid.

oti"es !or enterin$ into a )arria$e are "aried and co) le:. The State does not and cannot dictateon the ind o! li!e that a cou le chooses to lead. %n+ atte) t to re$ulate their li!est+le #ould $o intothe real) o! their ri$ht to ri"ac+ and #ould raise serious constitutional uestions. The ri$ht to)arital ri"ac+ allo#s )arried cou les to structure their )arria$es in al)ost an+ #a+ the+ see !it, toli"e to$ether or li"e a art, to ha"e children or no children, to lo"e one another or not, and so on.Thus, )arria$es entered into !or other ur oses, li)ited or other#ise, such as con"enience,co) anionshi , )one+, status, and title, ro"ided that the+ co) l+ #ith all the le$al re uisites, aree uall+ "alid. 'o"e, thou$h the ideal consideration in a )arria$e contract, is not the onl+ "alid cause!or )arria$e. &ther considerations, not recluded *+ la#, )a+ "alidl+ su ort a )arria$e.

%lthou$h the Court "ie#s #ith disdain the res ondent s atte) t to utili/e )arria$e !or dishonestur oses, it cannot declare the )arria$e "oid. ?ence, thou$h the res ondent s )arria$e )a+ *e

considered a sha) or !raudulent !or the ur oses o! i))i$ration, it is not "oid a* initio andcontinues to *e "alid and su*sistin$. :::

%l*ios has indeed )ade a )oc er+ o! the sacred institution o! )arria$e. %llo#in$ her )arria$e #ithrin$er to *e declared "oid #ould onl+ !urther tri"iali/e this in"iola*le institution. The Court cannot

declare such a )arria$e "oid in the e"ent the arties !ail to ualit+ !or i))i$ration *ene!its, a!terthe+ ha"e a"ailed o! its *ene!its, or si) l+ ha"e no !urther use !or it. P::

9o less than our Constitution declares that )arria$e, as an in"iola*le social institution, is the!oundation o! the !a)il+ and shall *e rotected *+ the State.

%$$ice o$ t!e Co'rt Administrator B'dge Anatalio S. Necessario, et al.

%. . 9o. TJ-07-1 1 2 % ril 2013

(er Curia)


This #as an ad)inistrati"e case that ste))ed !ro) the e)orandu) o! the &!!ice o! the Court %d)inistrator &C% . The Dudicial audit tea) created *+ the &C% re orted alle$ed irre$ularities inthe sole)ni/ation o! )arria$es in se"eral *ranches o! the TCCs and RTCs in Ce*u Cit+. Certain

ac a$e !ees #ere o!!ered to interested arties *+ E!i:ersE or E!acilitatorsE !or instant )arria$es.

FAC(S

An 2007, an audit tea) created *+ &C% roceeded to Ce*u Cit+ !or the ur ose o! in"esti$atin$;ranches 2, 3, 4, and 8 o! the TCC in Ce*u Cit+. The &C% su*se uentl+ su*)itted its Re ortre$ardin$ the s+ndicate. 43 )arria$e certi!icates #ere e:a)ined *+ the Dudicial audit tea). Thetea) re orted that out o! the 43 )arria$e certi!icates e:a)ined, 280 )arria$es #ere sole)ni/edunder %rticle 34 o! the a)il+ Code. The lo$*oo s o! the TCC ;ranches indicated a hi$her

nu)*er o! sole)ni/ed )arria$es than the nu)*er o! )arria$e certi!icates in the courts custod+.There #as also an unusual nu)*er o! )arria$e licenses o*tained !ro) the local ci"il re$istrars o! the

22


23/78


to#ns o! ;arili and 'iloan, Ce*u. There #ere e"en )arria$es sole)ni/ed at a) #ith )arria$elicenses o*tained on the sa)e da+.

An its Resolution, this Court treated the e)orandu) o! the Dudicial audit tea) as a formal administrati%e complaint and directed "d!e Anatalio S. ecessario, "d!e il 4.

Acosta, "d!e 4osabella $. #ormis, and "d!e ?d!emelo C. 4osales to su*)it theirres ecti"e co))ents. The Court also sus ended the Dud$es endin$ resolution o! the cases a$ainstthe).

Jud$e 9ecessario relied on the resu) tion o! re$ularit+ re$ardin$ the docu)ents resented to hi) *+ contractin$ arties. Jud$e %costa ar$ued that the la# onl+ re uired a )arria$e license and thathe #as not re uired to in uire #hether the license #as o*tained !ro) a location #here one o! the

arties is an actual resident. The Dud$e *elie"ed that it #as not his dut+ to "eri!+ the si$nature on the)arria$e license to deter)ine its authenticit+ *ecause he relied on the resu) tion o! re$ularit+ o!

u*lic docu)ents. Jud$e Tor)is clai)ed that there #as nothin$ #ron$ #ith sole)ni/in$ )arria$eson the date o! the issuance o! the )arria$e license and #ith the !act that the issued )arria$e license

#as o*tained !ro) a lace #here neither o! the arties resided. %s to the ro !or)a a!!ida"its o! coha*itation, she ar$ued that she cannot *e !aulted !or acce tin$ it as $enuine as she and the other

Dud$es #ere not hand#ritin$ e: erts and that the a!!ida"its also enDo+ed the resu) tion o! re$ularit+. 'astl+, Jud$e Rosales denied "iolatin$ the la# on )arria$e and )aintained that it #asthe local ci"il re$istrar #ho e"aluated the docu)ents su*)itted *+ the arties, and he resu)ed there$ularit+ o! the license issued. At #as onl+ #hen there is no )arria$e license $i"en that heascertains the uali!ications o! the arties and the lac o! le$al i) edi)ent to )arr+.

The &C% reco))ended the dis)issal o! the res ondent Dud$es and so)e court e) lo+ees, and thesus ension or ad)onition o! others.

ISS5E

hether the irre$ularities #ith re$ard to sole)ni/ation o! )arria$es constituted $ross ine!!icienc+ or ne$lect o! dut+ on the art o! the res ondent Dud$es.

6EL&

8ES, $or gross ine$$iciency or neglect o$ d'ty and gross ignorance o$ t!e la-,res#ondent 7'dges -ere dismissed $rom ser ice.

The !indin$s in the 2010 e)orandu) o! the &!!ice o! the Court %d)inistrator are su orted *+ the e"idence on record and a lica*le la# and Duris rudence. This Court has lon$ held that courto!!icials and e) lo+ees are laced #ith a hea"+ *urden and res onsi*ilit+ o! ee in$ the !aith o! the

u*lic. :::

To su))ari/e, the lia*ilities o! the Dud$es are the !ollo#in$@

First, Jud$es 9ecessario, Tor)is and Rosales sole)ni/ed )arria$es e"en i! there uire)ents su*)itted *+ the cou les #ere inco) lete and o! uestiona*le character. ost

23


24/78


o! these docu)ents sho#ed "isi*le si$ns o! ta) erin$, erasures, corrections orsu eri) ositions o! entries related to the arties lace o! residence. These includedindistin$uisha*le !eatures such as the !ont, !ont si/e, and in o! the co) uter- rinted entriesin the )arria$e certi!icate and )arria$e license. These actions o! the res ondent Dud$esconstitute $ross ine!!icienc+. An =e$a ". %sdala, the Court held that ine!!icienc+ i) liesne$li$ence, inco) etence, i$norance, and carelessness.

Second, the Dud$es #ere also !ound $uilt+ o! ne$lect o! dut+ re$ardin$ the a+)ent o! sole)ni/ation !ees. The Court, in Rodri$o-6*ron ". %dol!o, de!ined ne$lect o! dut+ as the!ailure to $i"e one s attention to a tas e: ected o! hi) and it is $ross #hen, !ro) the $ra"it+ o! the o!!ense or the !re uenc+ o! instances, the o!!ense is so serious in its character as toendan$er or threaten u*lic #el!are. The )arria$e docu)ents e:a)ined *+ the audit tea)sho# that corres ondin$ o!!icial recei ts !or the sole)ni/ation !ee #ere )issin$ or a+)ent

*+ *atches #as )ade !or )arria$es er!or)ed on di!!erent dates. P P P

#hird, Jud$es 9ecessario, Tor)is, and Rosales also sole)ni/ed )arria$es #here acontractin$ art+ is a !orei$ner #ho did not su*)it a certi!icate o! le$al ca acit+ to )arr+ !ro) his or her e)*ass+. hat the !orei$ners su*)itted #ere )ere a!!ida"its statin$ theirca acit+ to )arr+. The irre$ularit+ in the certi!icates o! le$al ca acit+ that are re uired under

%rticle 21 o! the a)il+ Code dis la+ed the $ross ne$lect o! dut+ o! the Dud$es. The+ shouldha"e *een dili$ent in scrutini/in$ the docu)ents re uired !or the )arria$e license issuance.

%n+ irre$ularities #ould ha"e *een re"ented in the uali!ications o! arties to contract)arria$e.

Fo"rth, Jud$es 9ecessario, %costa, and Tor)is are li e#ise $uilt+ o! $ross i$norance o! thela# under %rticle 34 o! the a)il+ Code #ith res ect to the )arria$es the+ sole)ni/ed #herele$al i) edi)ents e:isted durin$ coha*itation such as the )inorit+ status o! one art+. :::

At !ollo#s also that althou$h %rticle 21 o! the a)il+ Code re uires the su*)ission o! the certi!icate!ro) the e)*ass+ o! the !orei$n art+ to the local re$istrar !or ac uirin$ a )arria$e license, the

Dud$es should ha"e *een )ore dili$ent in re"ie#in$ the arties docu)ents and uali!ications. %snoted *+ the &C%, the a*sence o! the re uired certi!icates cou led #ith the resence o! )erea!!ida"its should ha"e aroused sus icion as to the re$ularit+ o! the )arria$e license issuance.

The Dud$es $ross i$norance o! the la# is also e"ident #hen the+ sole)ni/ed )arria$es under %rticle34 o! the a)il+ Code #ithout the re uired uali!ications and #ith the e:istence o! le$ali) edi)ents such as )inorit+ o! a art+. arria$es o! e:ce tional character such as those )adeunder %rticle 34 are, dou*tless, the e:ce tions to the rule on the indis ensa*ilit+ o! the !or)alre uisite o! a )arria$e license. >nder the rules o! statutor+ construction, e:ce tions as a $eneralrule should *e strictl+ *ut reasona*l+ construed. The a!!ida"its o! coha*itation should not *e issuedand acce ted ro !or)a articularl+ in "ie# o! the settled rulin$s o! the Court on this )atter. The!i"e-+ear eriod o! coha*itation should *e one o! a er!ect union "alid under the la# *ut renderedi) er!ect onl+ *+ the a*sence o! the )arria$e contract. The arties should ha"e *een ca acitated to)arr+ each other durin$ the entire eriod and not onl+ at the ti)e o! the )arria$e.

The a*sence o! a )arria$e license #ill clearl+ render a )arria$e "oid a* initio. The actions o! the Dud$es ha"e raised a "er+ alar)in$ issue re$ardin$ the "alidit+ o! the )arria$es the+ sole)ni/edsince the+ did not !ollo# the ro er rocedure or chec the re uired docu)ents and uali!ications.An %ranes ". Jud$e Sal"ador &cciano, the Court said that a )arria$e sole)ni/ed #ithout a )arria$elicense is "oid and the su*se uent issuance o! the license cannot render "alid or add e"en an iota o!

"alidit+ to the )arria$e. At is the )arria$e license that $i"es the sole)ni/in$ o!!icer the authorit+ tosole)ni/e a )arria$e and the act o! sole)ni/in$ the )arria$e #ithout a license constitutes $rossi$norance o! the la#.

24


25/78


8as'o I-asa-a Felisa C'stodio /angan >A. .A Felisa /angan Aram 'lo, And Felisa/angan I-asa-a? and t!e Local Ci il Registrar o$ Pasay City

GR 2041 11 Se te)*er 2013

=illara)a, Jr., J


This is a (etition !or re"ie# on certiorari under Rule 45 assailin$ the Becision and &rder o! the RTCden+in$ the etition !or declaration o! nullit+ o! the )arria$e o! etitioner Fasuo A#asa#a.

FAC(S

(etitioner, a Ja anese national, )et ri"ate res ondent in 2002 in one o! his "isits to the(hili ines. (ri"ate res ondent introduced hersel! as Lsin$leM and Lhas ne"er )arried *e!ore.M Sincethen, the t#o *eca)e close to each other. 'ater that +ear, etitioner ca)e *ac to the (hili inesand )arried ri"ate res ondent on 9o"e)*er 28, 2002 in (asa+ Cit+. %!ter the #eddin$, the cou leresided in Ja an. An Jul+ 200 , ri"ate res ondent con!essed to hi) that she recei"ed ne#s that her

re"ious hus*and assed a#a+. (etitioner disco"ered that she #as )arried to one Ra+)onda$lon/o %ra)*ulo and that their )arria$e too lace on June 20, 1 4.

(etitioner !iled a etition !or the declaration o! his )arria$e to ri"ate res ondent as null and "oidon the $round that their )arria$e #as a *i$a)ous one, *ased on %rticle 35 4 in relation to %rticle41 o! the a)il+ Code o! the (hili ines.

The RTC rendered the assailed decision. At ruled that there #as insu!!icient e"idence toro"e ri"ate res ondent s rior e:istin$ "alid )arria$e to another )an. At held that #hileetitioner o!!ered the certi!icate o! )arria$e o! ri"ate res ondent to %ra)*ulo, it #as onl+ etitioner #ho testi!ied a*out said )arria$e. The RTC ruled that etitioner s testi)on+ is

unrelia*le *ecause he has no ersonal no#led$e o! ri"ate res ondent s rior )arria$e noro! %ra)*ulo s death #hich )a es hi) a co) lete stran$er to the )arria$e certi!icate

*et#een ri"ate res ondent and %ra)*ulo and the latter s death certi!icate. At !urther ruledthat etitioner s testi)on+ a*out the 9S& certi!ication is li e#ise unrelia*le since he is astran$er to the re aration o! said docu)ent. (etitioner !iled a )otion !or reconsideration,

*ut the sa)e #as denied *+ the RTC.

ISS5E

hether the testi)on+ o! the 9S& records custodian certi!+in$ the authenticit+ and due e:ecutiono! the u*lic docu)ents issued *+ said o!!ice #as necessar+ *e!ore the+ could *e accordede"identiar+ #ei$ht

6EL&

N%, #he testimony of the records c"stodian of the SO on the a"thenticity and d"ee9ec"tion of p"blic doc"ments is not necessary before s"ch doc"ments co"ld be

25


26/78


accorded e%identiary wei!ht, since "nder Article 6< of the Ci%il Code, /the boo*sma*in! "p the ci%il re!ister and all doc"ments relatin! thereto shall be considered

p"blic doc"ments and shall be prima facie e%idence of the facts there in contained.2

There is no uestion that the docu)entar+ e"idence su*)itted *+ etitioner are all u*licdocu)ents. %s ro"ided in the Ci"il Code@

%RT. 410. The *oo s )a in$ u the ci"il re$ister and all docu)ents relatin$ thereto shall *econsidered u*lic docu)ents and shall *e ri'a $acie e"idence o! the !acts thereincontained.

%s u*lic docu)ents, the+ are ad)issi*le in e"idence e"en #ithout !urther roo! o! their duee:ecution and $enuineness. Thus, the RTC erred #hen it disre$arded said docu)ents on the sole$round that the etitioner did not resent the records custodian o! the 9S& #ho issued the) totesti!+ on their authenticit+ and due e:ecution since roo! o! authenticit+ and due e:ecution #as notan+)ore necessar+. oreo"er, not onl+ are said docu)ents ad)issi*le, the+ deser"e to *e $i"ene"identiar+ #ei$ht *ecause the+ constitute ri'a $acie e"idence o! the !acts stated therein. %nd inthe instant case, the !acts stated therein re)ain unre*utted since neither the ri"ate res ondent northe u*lic rosecutor resented e"idence to the contrar+.

This Court has consistentl+ held that a Dudicial declaration o! nullit+ is re uired *e!ore a "alidsu*se uent )arria$e can *e contractedK or else, #hat trans ires is a *i$a)ous )arria$e, #hich is

"oid !ro) the *e$innin$ as ro"ided in %rticle 35 4 o! the a)il+ Code o! the (hili ines. %nd thisis #hat trans ired in the instant case.

Sally /o" angayan en7amin angayan, Br.GR 2010 1 3 Jul+ 2013Car io, J.

Nat're o$ t!e ActionThis is a etition !or re"ie# on certiorari assailin$ the decision o! C% )odi!ied the Dud$)ent o! RTCin a etition !or declaration o! nullit+ o! )arria$e.

FAC(S

An 1 7 , ;enDa)in de"elo ed a ro)antic relationshi #ith Sall+ Go;an$a+an Sall+ #ho #as acusto)er in the auto arts and su lies *usiness o#ned *+ ;enDa)in s !a)il+. An Bece)*er 1 81,

%/ucena le!t !or the >nited States o! %)erica. An e*ruar+ 1 82, ;enDa)in and Sall+ li"ed to$etheras hus*and and #i!e. Sall+ s !ather #as a$ainst the relationshi . &n 7 arch 1 82, in order toa ease her !ather, Sall+ *rou$ht ;enDa)in to an o!!ice in Santolan, (asi$ Cit+ #here the+ si$ned a

ur orted )arria$e contract. Sall+, no#in$ ;enDa)in s )arital status, assured hi) that the

)arria$e contract #ould not *e re$istered.;enDa)in and Sall+ s coha*itation roduced t#o children, ;ernice and ;entle+

The relationshi o! ;enDa)in and Sall+ ended in 1 4 #hen Sall+ le!t !or Canada, *rin$in$ ;erniceand ;entle+ #ith her. She then !iled a criminal actions for bi!amy and falsification of

p"blic doc"ments a!ainst Ben&amin, "sin! their sim"lated marria!e contract ase%idence. Ben&amin, in t"rn, filed a petition for declaration of a non e9istent marria!e and or declaration of n"llity of marria!e *e!ore the trial court on the $roundthat his )arria$e to Sall+ #as *i$a)ous and that it lac ed the !or)al re uisites to a "alid )arria$e.;enDa)in also as ed the trial court !or the artition o! the ro erties he ac uired #ith Sall+ inaccordance #ith %rticle 148 o! the a)il+ Code, !or his a oint)ent as ad)inistrator o! the

ro erties durin$ the endenc+ o! the case, and !or the declaration o! ;ernice and ;entle+ asille$iti)ate children. % total o! 44 re$istered ro erties *eca)e the su*Dect o! the artition *e!orethe trial court. %side !ro) the se"en ro erties enu)erated *+ ;enDa)in in his etition, Sall+ na)ed 37 ro erties in her ans#er.

The trial court ruled in !a"or o! ;enDa)in. The trial court $a"e #ei$ht to the certi!ication dated 21Jul+ 2004 !ro) the (asi$ 'ocal Ci"il Re$istrar, #hich #as con!ir)ed durin$ trial, that onl+ arria$e'icense Series 9os. 48100 to 48150 #ere issued !or the )onth o! e*ruar+ 1 82 and the

ur orted arria$e 'icense 9o. 9-075 8 #as not issued to ;enDa)in and Sall+. The trial courtruled that the )arria$e #as not recorded #ith the local ci"il re$istrar and the 9ational Statistics&!!ice *ecause it could not *e re$istered due to ;enDa)in s su*sistin$ )arria$e #ith %/ucena.

The trial court ruled that the )arria$e *et#een ;enDa)in and Sall+ #as not *i$a)ous. The trialcourt ruled that the second )arria$e #as "oid not *ecause o! the e:istence o! the !irst )arria$e *ut

2


27/78


*ecause o! other causes, articularl+, the lac o! a )arria$e license. ?ence, *i$a)+ #as notco))itted in this case.

ISS5E

civ 1 final digests

Documents