CASE FACTS ISSUE/ RULING/ DECISION

1. ALBA vs COURT OF APPEALS

Assailed in this petition for certiorari are the Feb 27, 2004 decision and the May 14, 2004 resolution of the court of appeals which dismissed the petitioner’s original action for annulment of judgement of the RTC Manila, branch 37 denied the motion for reconsideration.

HERRERA filed a petition for the cancellation of the following entries in the following entries in the birth certificate of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.:a. The surname Herrera as appended to the name of said child.b. The reference of the private respondent as the father of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr.c. The alleged marriage of private respondent to the petitioner’s mother, Armi Alba on

Aug 4, 1982 in Mandaluyong city. He claimed that the said entries are false and that it was only sometime in Sept. 1996 hat

he learned the existence of said birth certificate. The respondent alleged that he only married once on June 28, 1965 with Esperanza Santos

and never contracted marriage with Armi or fatherd Rosendo In support thereof, he presented certifications from the civil registrar of Mandaluyong City

and the NSO both stating that they have no record of marriage between the respondent and Armi.

In pursuant to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, judgement is hereby rendered ordering the correction of the entries in the certificate of live birth of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr. in such a way that the entry under the ame of the child, the surname Herrera, Jr. is ordered deleted, and the child shall be known as Rosendo Alba; and that the entry under the date and place of marriage, the date Aug 4 1982, Mandaluyong is likewise ordered deleted

On November 24, 2000, Armi and petitioner a minor filed a petition for nnulment of judgement before the Cout of appeals on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over their person.

Armi averred that he and the respondent cohabited as usband and wife from 1982 to 1988 and their son was born(petitioner) was born on March 8, 1985 and even after their separation, the respondent continued to support them until 1998; and that unit 302 was conveyed to her by private respondent on June 1991 as part for his support for their minor son.

ISSUE:

According to Art. 176 of the Family code as amended by RA 9255, illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the father’s surname. In Wang vs. Cebu Civil registrar, it was held that an illegitimate child, whose filiation is not recognized by the father, bears only a given name and his mother’s surname. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child identifies him as such. It is only when the child is recognized that he may use his father’s surname, reflecting his status as an acknowledged legitimate child.

2. REPUBLIC vs NOLASCO

Nolasco, a seaman, first met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. After that, she lived with him on his ship for 6 months. After his seaman's contract has expired, he brought her to his hometown in San Jose, Antique. They got married in January 1982.

After the marriage celebration, he got another employment contract and left the province. In January 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother that 15 days after Janet gave birth to their son, she left. He cut short his contract to find Janet. He returned home in November 1983.

He did so by securing another contract which England is one of its port calls. He wrote several letters to the bar where he and Janet first met, but all were returned to him. He claimed that he inquired from his friends but they too had no news about Janet. In 1988, Nolasco filed before the RTC of Antique a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet.

RTC granted the petition. The Republic through the Solicitor-General, appealed to the CA, contending that the trial court erred in declaring Janet presumptively dead because Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a well-founded belief for such declaration. CA affirmed the trial court's decision

ISSUE:Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.

RULING:No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third requirement under the Article 41 of the Family Code, the existence of a "well-founded belief" that Janet is already dead.

Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been shortened to 4 years; however, there is a need for judicial declaration of presumptive death to enable the spouse present to marry. However, Article 41 imposes a stricter standard before declaring presumptive death of one spouse. It requires a "well-founded belief" that the absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted.

In the case at bar, the Court found Nolasco's alleged attempt to ascertain about Janet's whereabouts too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or well-founded belief that she was already dead.

Nolasco, after returning from his employment, instead of seeking help of local authorities or of the British Embassy, secured another contract to London. Janet's alleged refusal to give any information about her was too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. He did not explain why he took him 9 months to finally reached San Jose after he asked leave from his captain. He refused to identify his friends whom he inquired from. When the Court asked Nolasco about the returned letters, he said he had lost them. Moreover, while he was in London, he did not even dare to solicit help of authorities to find his wife.

The circumstances of Janet's departure and Nolasco's subsequent behavior make it very difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet was dead a well-founded one

3. RP vs ENCELAN