Persons and Family Relations June 10 Assigned Readings

8/11/2019 Persons and Family Relations June 10 Assigned Readings

1/42


2/42

her husband durin+ their short lived relation, to hold on to said scandalous a+ree#ent and enter an i##oral relationship )ver! #uch #arried )o#an and a co"court e#plo!ee at that is hi+hl! i#proper. It is contrar! to the -ode of -onduct and (tStandards of Public Officials and (#plo!ees )hich provides that public e#plo!ees of )hich respondent is one, . . . :shall ti#es sic/ respect the ri+hts of others, and shall refrain fro# doin+ acts contrar! to la), +ood #orals, +ood custo#s, ppolic!, public order, public safet! and public interest. Moreover, respondent cannot see0 refu+e and :slin+ #ud: at co#plafor havin+ e;ecuted an *ffidavit dated Septe#ber $5, $&&', ac0no)led+in+ that he bore a )o#an other than his )ife, a chi)ould see# that respondent )ould )ant to appl! the principle of in pari delicto in the instant case. Respondent )ould happear that a #arried #an )ith an e;tra"#arital relation and an ille+iti#ate child is precluded fro# co#plainin+ if his )ife einto a relationship )ith another #an.

Second, the records sho) that an *ffidavit of Desistance )as e;ecuted b! herein co#plainant. Ho)ever, a cursor! readin+ o

docu#ent reveals that it favors onl! Ded2e Irader *cebedo and not herein respondent. Interestin+l!, the date of said affidavSepte#ber $&47. Respondent had the te#erit! to clai# it as evidence in his favor )hen the instant co#plaint )as onl! so#eti#e in $&&'.

Third, )hen respondent )as as0ed b! the investi+atin+ 2ud+e if he attended the baptis# of the dau+hter of Ded2e Irader *cehis for#er co"e#plo!ee and e;"inti#ate friend, he ans)ered, :I did not. I1# not sure the child is #ine:.


3/42

ate1s polic! of pro#otin+ a hi+h standard of ethics and ut#ost responsibilit! in the public service.33

lthou+h ever! office in the +overn#ent service is a public trust, no position e;acts a +reater de#and for #oral ri+hteousnespri+htness fro# an individual than in the 2udiciar!.35 That is )h! this -ourt has fir#l! laid do)n e;actin+ standards #oralit!ecenc! e;pected of those in the service of the 2udiciar!.3' Their conduct, not to #ention behavior, is circu#scribed )ith the hurden of responsibilit!,38 characteri>ed b!, a#on+ other thin+s, propriet! and decoru# so as to earn and 0eep the public1s respeconfidence in the 2udicial service.39 It #ust be free fro# an! )hiff of i#propriet!, not onl! )ith respect to their duties in the 2udanch but also to their behaviour outside the court as private individuals.37 There is no dichoto#! of #oralit!? court e#plo!ees ared+ed b! their private #orals.34

espondent1s act of havin+ illicit relations )ith co#plainant1s )ife is, )ithin the purvie) of Section '98/ of Subtitle *, Title I, oo0;ecutive Order No. 3&3, other)ise 0no)n as the *d#inistrative -ode of $&47, a dis+raceful and i##oral conduct.

nder Rule IV, Section 83*$8/ of the Revised Enifor# Rules on *d#inistrative -ases in the -ivil Service, an i##oral conduassified as a +rave offense )hich calls for a penalt! of suspension for si; 9/ #onths and one $/ da! to one $/ !ear for the first off

nd dis#issal is i#posed for the second offense.

nce the present char+e of i##oralit! a+ainst respondent constitutes his first offense, his suspension for si; 9/ #onths and one $/ dorder.

W?ERE@ORE, this -ourt finds respondent (ddie P. *ruero, Process Server of the Municipal Trial -ourt of roo0e1s Point, PalaEIGT= of i##oralit!, for )hich he is hereb! SESP(ND(D for si; 9/ #onths and one $/ da! )ithout pa! )ith a ST(RN B*RNat co##ission of the sa#e or si#ilar acts shall be dealt )ith severel!.

et a cop! of this decision be filed in the personal record of respondent.

O ORDERED.

no, $anganiban, an*ova!"Gtierre- an* Corona, JJ .,concur.


4/42

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

S(-OND DIVISION

.R. No. 1223 A'r 12, 2000

I!IPINA =. S=,petitioner,.?E ?ONORAB!E COURT O@ APPEA!S, T?E ?ONORAB!E REIONA! TRIA! COURT, SAN @ERNANDO,AMPANA, BRANC? !I, a() @ERNANDO S=,respondents.

UISUMBIN,J.:

or revie) is the decision$ dated Ma! 3$, $&&9 of the -ourt of *ppeals in -*"F.R. -V No. ''$'', )hich a//irme*the decision3e+ional Trial -ourt of San


5/42

etitioner appealed to the -ourt of *ppeals )hich affir#ed the decision of the trial court. In the decision $7of the -ourt of *ppeals Ma! 3$, $&&9, it ruled that the testi#on! of petitioner concernin+ respondent1s purported ps!cholo+ical incapacit! falls short o

uantu# of evidence reuired to nullif! a #arria+e celebrated )ith all the for#al and essential reuisites of la). Moreover, the -ouppeals held that petitioner failed to sho) that the alle+ed ps!cholo+ical incapacit! of respondent had e;isted at the ti#e olebration of their #arria+e in $&75. It reiterated the findin+ of the trial court that the couple1s #arital proble#s surfaced onl! in $&4#ost ten !ears fro# the date of the celebration of their #arria+e. *nd prior to their separation in $&45, the! )ere livin+ to+ar#oniousl!. Thus, the -ourt of *ppeals affir#ed the 2ud+#ent of the lo)er court )hich it found to be in accordance )ith la) anvidence on record.$4

etitioner filed a #otion for reconsideration, $& )hich the -ourt of *ppeals denied in its resolution dated Nove#ber 3$, $&&9. 36

ence, this appeal b! &ertiorari3$)herein petitioner no) raises the follo)in+ issues@

$. BH(TH(R OR NOT TH( HONOR*G( -OERT O< *PP(*GS M*NI


6/42

(;hibits :: and :-: in the course of the trial. 3&These pieces of evidence on record plainl! and indubitabl! sho) that on the de #arria+e cere#on!, there )as no #arria+e license. * #arria+e license is a for#al reuire#ent? its absence renders the #arria+e

b initio. In addition, the #arria+e contract sho)s that the #arria+e license, nu#bered 93578$&, )as issued in -ar#ona, -aviteeither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in -ar#ona. 56

arefull! revie)in+ the docu#ents and the pleadin+s on record, )e find that indeed petitioner did not e;pressl! state in her petition be trial court that there )as incon+ruit! bet)een the date of the actual celebration of their #arria+e and the date of the issuance ofarria+e license.


7/42

T?IRD DIISION

ESTITUTO M. A!CANTARA,Petitioner,

" verss "

OSITA A. A!CANTARA a() ?ON. COURT O@PPEA!S,

Respondents.

.R. No. 14Present@=N*R(S"S*NTI*FO,J., -hairperson,*ESTRI*"M*RTIN(K,-HI-O"N*K*RIO,N*-HER*, and

R(=(S,JJ.Pro#ul+ated@*u+ust 34, 3667

;" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ";

D ( - I S I O N

HI-O"N*K*RIO,J.@

efore this -ourt is a Petition for Revie) on Certiorarifiled b! petitioner Restituto *lcantara assailin+ the Decision$of the -

f *ppeals dated 56 Septe#ber 366' in -*"F.R. -V No. 9973' den!in+ petitionerLs appeal and affir#in+ the decision3of the Re+i

rial -ourt RT-/ of Ma0ati -it!, ranch $'5, in -ivil -ase No. &7"$538 dated $'


8/42

au+hter na#ed Rachel *nn *lcantara on 37 October $&&3.7 Petitioner has a #istress )ith )ho# he has three children.4Petition

nl! filed the annul#ent of their #arria+e to evade prosecution for concubina+e.& Respondent, in fact, has filed a case for concubin

+ainst petitioner before theMetropolitan Trial -ourt of Mandalu!on+ -it!, ranch 96.$6 Respondent pra!s that the petition for

nnul#ent of #arria+e be denied for lac0 of #erit.

On $'


9/42

elon+s.$9 He and respondent did not +o to -ar#ona, -avite, to appl! for a #arria+e license. *ssu#in+ a #arria+e license

o#-ar#ona, -avite, )as issued to the#, neither he nor the respondent )as a resident of the place. The certification of the Municipa

ivil Re+istrar of -ar#ona, -avite, cannot be +iven )ei+ht because the certification states that Marria+e Gicense nu#ber 768'$55 )

sued in favor of Mr. Restituto *lcantara and Miss Rosita *l#ario$7but their #arria+e contract bears the nu#ber 768'655 for the

arria+e license nu#ber.

The #arria+e involved herein havin+ been sole#ni>ed on 4 Dece#ber $&43, or prior to the effectivit! of the ed unless all these reuisites are co#plied )ith@

$/ Ge+al capacit! of the contractin+ parties?

3/ Their consent, freel! +iven?

5/ *uthorit! of the person perfor#in+ the #arria+e? and

'/ * #arria+e license, e;cept in a #arria+e of e;ceptional character.

The reuire#ent and issuance of a #arria+e license is the StateLs de#onstration of its involve#ent and participation in ever!arria+e, in the #aintenance of )hich the +eneral public is interested.3$

Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a #arria+e license to i#pu+n the validit! of his #arria+e. The cases )here the court

onsidered the absence of a #arria+e license as a +round for considerin+ the #arria+e void are clear"cut.

InRepb!i& o/ t+e $+i!ippines v. Cort o/ Appea!s,33the Gocal -ivil Re+istrar issued a certification of due search and inabilit

nd a record or entr! to the effect that Marria+e Gicense No. 5$&9$43 )as issued to the parties. The -ourt held that the certification

due search and inabilit! to find a record or entr! as to the purported #arria+e license, issued b! the -ivil Re+istrar of Pasi+, en2o!s

obative value, he bein+ the officer char+ed under the la) to 0eep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a #arria+e license.

ased on said certification, the -ourt held that there is absence of a #arria+e license that )ould render the #arria+e void ab initio.

In Cari4ov. Cari4o,35the -ourt considered the #arria+e of therein petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased Santia+o S. -a

void abinitio. The records reveal that the #arria+e contract of petitioner and the deceased bears no #arria+e license nu#ber and,

rtified b! the Gocal -ivil Re+istrar of San %uan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such #arria+e license. The court held t

e certification issued b! the local civil re+istrar is adeuate to prove the non"issuance of the #arria+e license. Their #arria+e havin
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn23


10/42

een sole#ni>ed )ithout the necessar! #arria+e license and not bein+ one of the #arria+es e;e#pt fro# the #arria+e license reuire

e #arria+e of the petitioner and the deceased is undoubtedl! void abinitio.

In yv. Cort o/ Appea!s,[24]the #arria+e license )as issued on $7 Septe#ber $&7', al#ost one !ear after the cere#on! too0

n $8 Nove#ber $&75. The -ourt held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the #arria+e )as indeed contracted )ithout a #arria+e

cense.

In all these cases, there )as clearl! an absence of a #arria+e license )hich rendered the #arria+e void.

-learl!, fro# these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered void on the +round of absence of a #arria+e license, the la)

uires that the absence of such #arria+e license #ust be apparent on the #arria+e contract, or at the ver! least, supported b! a

rtification fro# the local civil re+istrar that no such #arria+e license )as issued to the parties. In this case, the #arria+e contract

et)een the petitioner and respondent reflects a #arria+e license nu#ber. * certification to this effect )as also issued b! the local civ

+istrar of -ar#ona, -avite.38 The certification #oreover is precise in that it specificall! identified the parties to )ho# the #arriacense )as issued, na#el! Restituto*lcantara and Rosita *l#ario, further validatin+ the fact that a license )as in fact issued to the p

erein.

The certification of Municipal -ivil Re+istrar Macrino G. Dia> of -ar#ona, -avite, reads@

This is to certif! that as per the re+istr! Records of Marria+e filed in this office, Marria+e Gicense No. 768'$55

)as issued in favor of Mr. Restituto *lcantara and Miss Rosita *l#ario on Dece#ber 4, $&43.

This -ertification is bein+ issued upon the reuest of Mrs. Rosita *. *lcantara for )hatever le+al purpose orintents it #a! serve.39

This certification en2o!s the presu#ption that official dut! has been re+ularl! perfor#ed and the issuance of the #arria+e licens

as done in the re+ular conduct of official business.37 The presu#ption of re+ularit! of official acts #a! be rebutted b! affir#ativ

vidence of irre+ularit! or failure to perfor# a dut!. Ho)ever, the presu#ption prevails until it is overco#e b! no less than clear and

onvincin+ evidence to the contrar!. Thus, unless the presu#ption is rebutted, it beco#es conclusive. (ver! reasonable intend#ent )

e #ade in support of the presu#ption and, in case of doubt as to an officerLs act bein+ la)ful or unla)ful, construction should be in

f its la)fulness.34 Si+nificantl!, apart fro# these, petitioner, b! counsel, ad#itted that a #arria+e license )as, indeed, issued in

ar#ona, -avite.3&

Petitioner, in a faint atte#pt to de#olish the probative value of the #arria+e license, clai#s that neither he nor respondent is a

sident of -ar#ona, -avite. (ven then, )e still hold that there is no sufficient basis to annul petitioner and respondentLs #arria+e.

suance of a #arria+e license in a cit! or #unicipalit!, not the residence of either of the contractin+ parties, and issuance of a #arria+

cense despite the absence of publication or prior to the co#pletion of the $6"da! period for publication are considered #ere irre+ula

at do not affect the validit! of the #arria+e.56 *n irre+ularit! in an! of the for#al reuisites of #arria+e does not affect its validi
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn30


11/42

e part! or parties responsible for the irre+ularit! are civill!, cri#inall! and ad#inistrativel! liable.5$

*+ain, petitioner harps on the discrepanc! bet)een the #arria+e license nu#ber in the certification of the Municipal -ivil Re+

hich states that the #arria+e license issued to the parties is No. 768'$55, )hile the #arria+e contract states that the #arria+e license

u#ber of the parties is nu#ber 768'655. Once #ore, this ar+u#ent fails to s)a! us. It is not i#possible to assu#e that the sa#e is

ere a t!po+raphical error, as a closer scrutin! of the #arria+e contract reveals the overlappin+ of the nu#bers 6 and $, such that the

arria+e license #a! read either as 768'$55 or 768'655. It therefore does not detract fro# our conclusion re+ardin+ the e;istence an

suance of said #arria+e license to the parties.

Ender the principle that he )ho co#es to court #ust co#e )ith clean hands,53petitioner cannot pretend that he )as not

sponsible or a part! to the #arria+e celebration )hich he no) insists too0 place )ithout the reuisite #arria+e license. Petitioner

d#itted that the civil #arria+e too0 place because he initiated it.55 Petitioner is an educated person. He is a #echanical en+ine

ofession. He 0no)in+l! and voluntaril! )ent to the Manila -it! Hall and li0e)ise, 0no)in+l! and voluntaril!, )ent throu+h a #ar

re#on!. He cannot benefit fro# his action and be allo)ed to e;tricate hi#self fro# the #arria+e bond at his #ere sa!"so )hen thetuation is no lon+er palatable to his taste or suited to his lifest!le. Be cannot countenance such effronter!. His atte#pt to #a0e a

oc0er! of the institution of #arria+e betra!s his bad faith.5'

Petitioner and respondent )ent throu+h a #arria+e cere#on! t)ice in a span of less than one !ear utili>in+ the sa#e #arria+e

cense. There is no clai# that he )ent throu+h the second )eddin+ cere#on! in church under duress or )ith a +un to his head.

ver!thin+ )as e;ecuted )ithout nar! a )hi#per on the part of the petitioner.

In fact, for the second )eddin+ of petitioner and respondent, the! presented to the San %ose de Manu+uit -hurch the #arria+e

ontract e;ecuted durin+ the previous )eddin+ cere#on! before the Manila -it! Hall. This is confir#ed in petitionerLs testi#on! as

llo)s

BITN(SS

*s I re#e#ber !our honor, the! as0ed us to +et the necessar! docu#ent prior to the )eddin+.-OERT

Bhat particular docu#ent did the church as0ed !ou to produceC I a# referrin+ to the San %ose deManu+uit church.BITN(SS

I donLt re#e#ber !our honor.-OERT

Bere !ou as0ed b! the church to present a Marria+e GicenseCBITN(SS
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/august2007/167746.htm#_ftn34


12/42


13/42

IRST DIVISION #A.M. No. MTF-02-1390. A'r 11, 2002$

MERCEDITA MATA ARAGES,petitioner, vs.FUDE SA!ADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

UNO,J."

Petitioner Mercedita Mata *raes char+es respondent 2ud+e )ith Fross I+norance of the Ga) viaa s)orn Getter"-o#plaint datMa! 366$. Respondent is the Presidin+ %ud+e of the Municipal Trial -ourt of alatan, -a#arines Sur. Petitioner alle+es that o

ebruar! 3666, respondent 2ud+e sole#ni>ed her #arria+e to her late +roo# Do#inador . Orobia )ithout the reuisite #arria+e licnd at Nabua, -a#arines Sur )hich is outside his territorial 2urisdiction.

The! lived to+ether as husband and )ife on the stren+th of this #arria+e until her husband passed a)a!. Ho)ever, since the #aras a nullit!, petitionerLs ri+ht to inherit the vast properties left b! Orobia )as not reco+ni>ed. She )as li0e)ise deprived of recee pensions of Orobia, a retired -o##odore of the Philippine Nav!.

Petitioner pra!s that sanctions be i#posed a+ainst respondent 2ud+e for his ille+al acts and unethical #isrepresentations )le+edl! caused her so #uch hardships, e#barrass#ent and sufferin+s.

On 34 Ma! 366$, the case )as referred b! the Office of the -hief %ustice to then *ctin+ -ourt *d#inistrator Kenaida N. (lepappropriate action. On 4 %une 366$, the Office of the -ourt *d#inistrator reuired respondent 2ud+e to co##ent.

In his -o##ent dated 8 %ul! 366$, respondent 2ud+e averred that he )as reuested b! a certain %uan *rro!o on $8 e the #arria+e of the parties on $7 e the #arria+e in his sala at the Municipal Trial -ourt of alatan, -a#arines Sur. Ho)ever, on $7 e the #arria+e in Nabua, to )uest he acceded.

Respondent 2ud+e further avers that before he started the cere#on!, he carefull! e;a#ined the docu#ents sub#itted to hietitioner. Bhen he discovered that the parties did not possess the reuisite #arria+e license, he refused to sole#ni>e the #arria+u++ested its resettin+ to another date. Ho)ever, due to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influ; of visitors, and the deliver! of provir the occasion, he proceeded to sole#ni>e the #arria+e out of hu#an co#passion. He also feared that if he reset the )eddin+, it #

++ravate the ph!sical condition of Orobia )ho 2ust suffered fro# a stro0e. *fter the sole#ni>ation, he reiterated the necessit! foarria+e license and ad#onished the parties that their failure to +ive it )ould render the #arria+e void. Petitioner and Orobia asspondent 2ud+e that the! )ould +ive the license to hi# in the afternoon of that sa#e da!. Bhen the! failed to co#pl!, respondent 2llo)ed it up )ith *rro!o but the latter onl! +ave hi# the sa#e reassurance that the #arria+e license )ould be delivered to his sala

Municipal Trial -ourt of alatan, -a#arines Sur.

Respondent 2ud+e vi+orousl! denies that he told the contractin+ parties that their #arria+e is valid despite the absence of a #arcense. He attributes the hardships and e#barrass#ent suffered b! the petitioner as due to her o)n fault and ne+li+ence.

On $3 Septe#ber 366$, petitioner filed her *ffidavit of Desistance dated 34 *u+ust 366$ )ith the Office of the -ourt *d#inishe attested that respondent 2ud+e initiall! refused to sole#ni>e her #arria+e due to the )ant of a dul! issued #arria+e license and tas because of her proddin+ and reassurances that he eventuall! sole#ni>ed the sa#e. She confessed that she filed this ad#inistr

ase out of ra+e. Ho)ever, after readin+ the -o##ent filed b! respondent 2ud+e, she reali>ed her o)n shortco#in+s and is no) both! her conscience.

Revie)in+ the records of the case, it appears that petitioner and Orobia filed their *pplication for Marria+e Gicense on 8 %an666. It )as sta#ped in this *pplication that the #arria+e license shall be issued on $7 %anuar! 3666. Ho)ever, neither petitionerobia clai#ed it.

It also appears that the Office of the -ivil Re+istrar Feneral issued a -ertification that it has no record of such #arria+e that alleo0 place on $7


14/42

abua, -a#arines Sur. In a letter dated & Ma! 366$, a -ler0 of said office, Frace T. (scobal, infor#ed respondent 2ud+e that their annot issue the #arria+e license due to the failure of Orobia to sub#it the Death -ertificate of his previous spouse.

The Office of the -ourt *d#inistrator, in its Report and Reco##endation dated $8 Nove#ber 3666, found the respondent 2uilt! of sole#ni>in+ a #arria+e )ithout a dul! issued #arria+e license and for doin+ so outside his territorial 2urisdiction. * fi8,666.66 )as reco##ended to be i#posed on respondent 2ud+e.

Be a+ree.

Ender the %udiciar! Reor+ani>ation *ct of $&46, or .P.$3&, the authorit! of the re+ional trial court 2ud+es and 2ud+es of in

ourts to sole#ni>e #arria+es is confined to their territorial 2urisdiction as defined b! the Supre#e -ourt.

The case at bar is not )ithout precedent. In Naarro &. Do+a*o:,$respondent 2ud+e held office and had 2urisdiction iMunicipal -ircuit Trial -ourt of Sta. Monica"ur+os, Suri+ao del Norte. Ho)ever, he sole#ni>ed a )eddin+ at his residence i

unicipalit! of Dapa, Suri+ao del Norte )hich did not fall )ithin the 2urisdictional area of the #unicipalities of Sta. Monica and uBe held that@

* priest )ho is co##issioned and allo)ed b! his local ordinance to #arr! the faithful is authori>ed to do so onl! )ithin the area orocese or place allo)ed b! his ishop. *n appellate court %ustice or a %ustice of this -ourt has 2urisdiction over the entire Philippinele#ni>e #arria+es, re+ardless of the venue, as lon+ as the reuisites of the la) are co#plied )ith. ?o%%r, 8)%& ho ar% a''o&'%cc 8r&)c*o(&, +a: oca*% ( %))(& o(: *h( &a) ar%a& a() (o* %:o(). Wh%r% a 8)% &o%+(H%& a +arra

8*&)% h& co8r*& 8r&)c*o(, *h%r% & a r%&8*a(* rr%8ar*: ( *h% or+a r%J8&*% a) )o( ( Ar*c% 3, hch h% * +o* a%c* *h% a)*: o *h% +arra%, +a: &8%c* *h% oca*( oca *o a)+(&*ra*% a*:.3Emp+asis spp!ie*./

In said case, )e suspended respondent 2ud+e for si; 9/ #onths on the +round that his act of sole#ni>in+ a #arria+e outsidrisdiction constitutes +ross i+norance of the la). Be further held that@

The 2udiciar! should be co#posed of persons )ho, if not e;perts, are at least, proficient in the la) the! are s)orn to appl!, #ore thadinar! la!#en. The! should be s0illed and co#petent in understandin+ and appl!in+ the la). It is i#perative that the! be conversanith basic le+al principles li0e the ones involved in the instant case. ; ; ; Bhile #a+istrates #a! at ti#es #a0e #ista0es in 2ud+#enthich the! are not penali>ed, the respondent 2ud+e e;hibited i+norance of ele#entar! provisions of la), in an area )hich has +reatl!e2udiced the status of #arried persons.5

In the case at bar, the territorial 2urisdiction of respondent 2ud+e is li#ited to the #unicipalit! of alatan, -a#arines Sur. His ale#ni>in+ the #arria+e of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, -a#arines Sur therefore is contrar! to la) and sub2ects hi# to ad#inist

abilit!. His act #a! not a#ount to +ross i+norance of the la) for he alle+edl! sole#ni>ed the #arria+e out of hu#an co#passio

onetheless, he cannot avoid liabilit! for violatin+ the la) on #arria+e.

Respondent 2ud+e should also be faulted for sole#ni>in+ a #arria+e )ithout the reuisite #arria+e license. In P%o'% &. !ae held that a #arria+e )hich preceded the issuance of the #arria+e license is void, and that the subseuent issuance of such lic

annot render valid or even add an iota of validit! to the #arria+e. (;cept in cases provided b! la), it is the #arria+e license that +ivole#ni>in+ officer the authorit! to sole#ni>e a #arria+e. Respondent 2ud+e did not possess such authorit! )hen he sole#ni>earria+e of petitioner. In this respect, respondent 2ud+e acted in +ross i+norance of the la).

Respondent 2ud+e cannot be e;culpated despite the *ffidavit of Desistance filed b! petitioner. This -ourt has consistentl! heldatena of cases that the )ithdra)al of the co#plaint does not necessaril! have the le+al effect of e;oneratin+ respondent fro# disciplction. Other)ise, the pro#pt and fair ad#inistration of 2ustice, as )ell as the discipline of court personnel, )ould be under#ineisciplinar! actions of this nature do not involve purel! private or personal #atters. The! can not be #ade to depend upon the )

ver! co#plainant )ho #a!, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act. Be cannot be bound b! the unilateral acto#plainant in a #atter )hich involves the -ourtLs constitutional po)er to discipline 2ud+es. Other)ise, that po)er #a! be put to nander#ine the trust character of a public office and i#pair the inte+rit! and di+nit! of this -ourt as a disciplinin+ authorit!.9

W?ERE@ORE, respondent %ud+e Salvador M. Occiano, Presidin+ %ud+e of the Municipal Trial -ourt of alatan, -a#arines Sned P8,666.66 pesos )ith a ST(RN B*RNINF that a repetition of the sa#e or si#ilar offense in the future )ill be dealt )ith verel!.

SO ORDERED.

Davi*e, Jr., C.J., (C+airman), Kapnan, and5nares"antiago, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/am_mtj_02_1390.htm#_edn6


15/42

IRST DIVISION

#A.M. No. MTF-00-1329. March , 2001$

ERMINIA BORFA-MANKANO,petitioner, vs.FUDE ROUE R. SANC?EK, MTC, I(a(*a, Pa(a&(a(, respondent.

R E S O ! U T I O N

AIDE, FR., C.J."

The sole#ni>ation of a #arria+e bet)een t)o contractin+ parties )ho )ere both bound b! a prior e;istin+ #arria+e is the bonontention of the instant co#plaint a+ainst respondent %ud+e Roue R. Sanche>, Municipal Trial -ourt, Infanta, Pan+asinan. ano, havin+ been #arried to hi# on 3$ Ma! $&99 inabriel *rchan+el Parish, *raneta *venue, -aloocan -it!.$vi#inda Pa!ao before respondent %ud+e.5Bhen respondent %le#ni>ed said #arria+e, he 0ne) or ou+ht to 0no) that the sa#e )as void and bi+a#ous, as the #arria+e contract clearl! statedoth contractin+ parties )ere separated.

Respondent %ud+e, on the other hand, clai#s in his -o##ent that )hen he officiated the #arria+e bet)een Man>ano and Pa!ad not 0no) that Man>ano )as le+all! #arried. Bhat he 0ne) )as that the t)o had been livin+ to+ether as husband and )ife for

ears alread! )ithout the benefit of #arria+e, as #anifested in their 2oint affidavit. '*ccordin+ to hi#, had he 0no)n that thMan>ano )as #arried, he )ould have advised the latter not to #arr! a+ain? other)ise, he Man>ano/ could be char+ed )ith bi+a#!

en pra!ed that the co#plaint be dis#issed for lac0 of #erit and for bein+ desi+ned #erel! to harass hi#.

*fter an evaluation of the -o#plaint and the -o##ent, the -ourt *d#inistrator reco##ended that respondent %ud+e be found +f +ross i+norance of the la) and be ordered to pa! a fine of P3,666, )ith a )arnin+ that a repetition of the sa#e or si#ilar act )ou

ealt )ith #ore severel!.

On 38 October 3666, this -ourt reuired the parties to #anifest )hether the! )ere )illin+ to sub#it the case for resolution oasis of the pleadin+s thus filed. -o#plainant ans)ered in the affir#ative.

ano and of Pa!ao, )hichle+edl! unearthed b! a #e#ber of his staff upon his instruction. In those affidavits, both David Man>ano and Gu>vi#inda P

;pressl! stated that the! )ere #arried to Her#inia or2a and Do#in+o Relos, respectivel!? and that since their respective #arria+eeen #ar0ed b! constant uarrels, the! had both left their fa#ilies and had never cohabited or co##unicated )ith their spouses an!#espondent %ud+e alle+es that on the basis of those affidavits, he a+reed to sole#ni>e the #arria+e in uestion in accordance )ith *' of the


16/42

3. The parties #ust have no le+al i#pedi#ent to #arr! each other?

5. The fact of absence of le+al i#pedi#ent bet)een the parties #ust be present at the ti#e of #arria+e?

'. The parties #ust e;ecute an affidavit statin+ that the! have lived to+ether for at least five !ears and are )ithout le+ali#pedi#ent to #arr! each other? and

8. The sole#ni>in+ officer #ust e;ecute a s)orn state#ent that he had ascertained the ualifications of the parties and that hehad found no le+al i#pedi#ent to their #arria+e.9

Not all of these reuire#ents are present in the case at bar. It is si+nificant to note that in their separate affidavits e;ecuted oMarch $&&5 and s)orn to before respondent %ud+e hi#self, David Man>ano and Gu>vi#inda Pa!ao e;pressl! stated the fact of their;istin+ #arria+e. *lso, in their #arria+e contract, it )as indicated that both )ere separated.

Respondent %ud+e 0ne) or ou+ht to 0no) that a subsistin+ previous #arria+e is a diri#ent i#pedi#ent, )hich )ould #a0ubseuent #arria+e null and void.7In fact, in his -o##ent, he stated that had he 0no)n that the late Man>ano )as #arried he )ave discoura+ed hi# fro# contractin+ another #arria+e. *nd respondent %ud+e cannot den! 0no)led+e of Man>anoLs and Paubsistin+ previous #arria+e, as the sa#e )as clearl! stated in their separate affidavits )hich )ere subscribed and s)orn to before hi#

The fact that Man>ano and Pa!ao had been livin+ apart fro# their respective spouses for a lon+ ti#e alread! is i##aterial. *5$/ of the

arties to re#arr!. This holds true all the #ore )hen the separation is #erel! *e /a&to, as in the case at bar.

Neither can respondent %ud+e ta0e refu+e on the %oint *ffidavit of David Man>ano and Gu>vi#inda Pa!ao statin+ that the! hadohabitin+ as husband and )ife for seven !ears. %ust li0e separation, free and voluntar! cohabitation )ith another person for at leasears does not severe the tie of a subsistin+ previous #arria+e. Marital cohabitation for a lon+ period of ti#e bet)een t)o indiviho are %a: ca'ac*a*%)to #arr! each other is #erel! a +round for e;e#ption fro# #arria+e license. It could not servestification for respondent %ud+e to sole#ni>e a subseuent #arria+e vitiated b! the i#pedi#ent of a prior e;istin+ #arria+e.

-learl!, respondent %ud+e de#onstrated +ross i+norance of the la) )hen he sole#ni>ed a void and bi+a#ous #arria+e. The #+norance of the la) e;cuses no one has special application to 2ud+es,4)ho, under Rule $.6$ of the -ode of %udicial -onduct, se the e#bodi#ent of co#petence, inte+rit!, and independence. It is hi+hl! i#perative that 2ud+es be conversant )ith the la) and +al principles.&*nd )hen the la) trans+ressed is si#ple and ele#entar!, the failure to 0no) it constitutes +ross i+norance of the6

ACCORDIN!=, the reco##endation of the -ourt *d#inistrator is hereb! *DOPT(D, )ith the MODI is increased to P36,666.

SO ORDERED.

$no, Kapnan, $ar*o, and 5nares"antiago, JJ., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/am_mtj_00_1329.htm#_edn10


17/42

IRST DIVISION#.R. No. 133. March 14, 2000$

NRACE NIGA! or ?%r&% a() a& 8ar)a( a) !*%+ o *h% +(or& BAB=!INE NIGA!, INRID NIGA!, ARC?IE NIGPEPITO NIGA!, FR.,petitioners, vs. NORMA BA=ADO, respondent.Nc++&

D E C I S I O N

NARESSANTIAO,J."

Ma! the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullit! of his #arria+e after his deathC

epito Nial )as #arried to Teodulfa ellones on Septe#ber 39, $&7'. Out of their #arria+e )ere born herein petitioners. Teodulfa )

hot b! Pepito resultin+ in her death on *pril 3', $&48. One !ear and 4 #onths thereafter or on Dece#ber $$, $&49, Pepito and responor#a ada!o+ +ot #arried )ithout an! #arria+e license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Nor#a e;ecuted an affidavit dated Dece#ber $&49 statin+ that the! had lived to+ether as husband and )ife for at least five !ears and )ere thus e;e#pt fro# securin+ a #arria+ecense. On


18/42

Bor0in+ on the assu#ption that Pepito and Nor#a have lived to+ether as husband and )ife for five !ears )ithout the benefit of #arriat five"!ear period should be co#puted on the basis of a cohabitation as :husband and )ife: )here the onl! #issin+ factor is the sp

ontract of #arria+e to validate the union. In other )ords, the five"!ear co##on"la) cohabitation period, )hich is counted bac0 fro#ate of celebration of #arria+e, should be a period of le+al union had it not been for the absence of the #arria+e. This 8"!ear periodhould be the !ears i##ediatel! before the da! of the #arria+e and it should be a period of cohabitation characteri>ed b! e;clusivit! eanin+ no third part! )as involved at an! ti#e )ithin the 8 !ears and continuit! that is unbro0en. Other)ise, if that continuous 8"

ohabitation is co#puted )ithout an! distinction as to )hether the parties )ere capacitated to #arr! each other durin+ the entire fiveears, then the la) )ould be sanctionin+ i##oralit! and encoura+in+ parties to have co##on la) relationships and placin+ the# on #e footin+ )ith those )ho lived faithfull! )ith their spouse. Marria+e bein+ a special relationship #ust be respected as such and ituire#ents #ust be strictl! observed. The presu#ption that a #an and a )o#an deportin+ the#selves as husband and )ife is basede appro;i#ation of the reuire#ents of the la). The parties should not be afforded an! e;cuse to not co#pl! )ith ever! sin+le

uire#ent and later use the sa#e #issin+ ele#ent as a pre"conceived escape +round to nullif! their #arria+e. There should be no;e#ption fro# securin+ a #arria+e license unless the circu#stances clearl! fall )ithin the a#bit of the e;ception. It should be notedlicense is reuired in order to notif! the public that t)o persons are about to be united in #atri#on! and that an!one )ho is a)are ono)led+e of an! i#pedi#ent to the union of the t)o shall #a0e it 0no)n to the local civil re+istrar.$7The -ivil -ode provides@

Arti&!e 67@ :; ; ;. This notice shall reuest all persons havin+ 0no)led+e of an! i#pedi#ent to the #arria+e to advithe local civil re+istrar thereof. ; ; ;.:

Arti&!e 68@ :Epon bein+ advised of an! alle+ed i#pedi#ent to the #arria+e, the local civil re+istrar shall forth)ith #an investi+ation, e;a#inin+ persons under oath. ; ; ;: Sdaad

his is reiterated in the


19/42

ontrar! to the trial courtLs rulin+, the death of petitionerLs father e;tin+uished the alle+ed #arital bond bet)een hi# and respondent.onclusion is erroneous and proceeds fro# a )ron+ pre#ise that there )as a #arria+e bond that )as dissolved bet)een the t)o. It shoe noted that their #arria+e )as void hence it is dee#ed as if it never e;isted at all and the death of either e;tin+uished nothin+.

urisprudence under the -ivil -ode states that no 2udicial decree is necessar! in order to establish the nullit! of a #arria+e.3':* voarria+e does not reuire a 2udicial decree to restore the parties to their ori+inal ri+hts or to #a0e the #arria+e void but thou+h nontence of avoidance be absolutel! necessar!, !et as )ell for the sa0e of +ood order of societ! as for the peace of #ind of all concernis e;pedient that the nullit! of the #arria+e should be ascertained and declared b! the decree of a court of co#petent 2urisdiction.:

Ender ordinar! circu#stances, the effect of a void #arria+e, so far as concerns the conferrin+ of le+al ri+hts upon the parties, is as tho #arria+e had ever ta0en place. *nd therefore, bein+ +ood for no le+al purpose, its invalidit! can be #aintained in an! proceedin+ hich the fact of #arria+e #a! be #aterial, either direct or collateral, in an! civil court bet)een an! parties at an! ti#e, )hether befo

fter the death of either or both the husband and the )ife, and upon #ere proof of the facts renderin+ such #arria+e void, it )ill besre+arded or treated as non"e;istent b! the courts.: It is not li0e a voidable #arria+e )hich cannot be collaterall! attac0ed e;cept inrect proceedin+ instituted durin+ the lifeti#e of the parties so that on the death of either, the #arria+e cannot be i#peached, and is #

ood ab initio.39ut *rticle '6 of the


20/42

THIRD DIVISION

.R. No. 1551 March 2, 200

EPUB!IC O@ T?E P?I!IPPINES,Petitioner,.

OSE A. DA=OT,Respondent.

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ";

.R. No. 1944

E!ISA TECSON-DA=OT,Petitioner,

.OSE A. DA=OT,Respondent.

D ( - I S I O N

?ICO-NAKARIO,J.:

efore us are t)o consolidated petitions. F.R. No. $7884$ and F.R. No. $7&'7' are Petitions for Revie) under Rule '8 of the Rulourt filed b! the Republic of the Philippines and ed that@

n! person in his ri+ht fra#e of #ind )ould easil! suspect an! atte#pt to #a0e hi# or her si+n a blan0 sheet of paper. %ose couldread! detected that so#ethin+ )as a#iss, unusual, as the! )ere at Pasa! -it! Hall to +et a pac0a+e for


21/42

oseLs clai# that he did not consent to the #arria+e )as belied b! the fact that he ac0no)led+ed


22/42

ach other, the Supre#e -ourt ruled as follo)s@

; ; ; In other )ords, the five"!ear co##on"la) cohabitation period, )hich is counted bac0 fro# the date of celebration of #arhould be a period of le+al union had it not been for the absence of the #arria+e. This 8"!ear period should be the !ears i##edefore the da! of the #arria+e and it should be a period of cohabitation characteri>ed b! e;clusivit! #eanin+ no third part!volved at an! ti#e )ithin the 8 !ears and continuit! that is unbro0en. Other)ise, if that continuous 8"!ear cohabitation is co#pithout an! distinction as to )hether the parties )ere capacitated to #arr! each other durin+ the entire five !ears, then the la) )ounctionin+ i##oralit! and encoura+in+ parties to have co##on la) relationships and placin+ the# on the sa#e footin+ )ith those

ved faithfull! )ith their spouse. Marria+e bein+ a special relationship #ust be respected as such and its reuire#ents #ust be stbserved. The presu#ption that a #an and a )o#an deportin+ the#selves as husband and )ife is based on the appro;i#ation ouire#ents of the la). The parties should not be afforded an! e;cuse to not co#pl! )ith ever! sin+le reuire#ent and later use the

issin+ ele#ent as a pre"conceived escape +round to nullif! their #arria+e. There should be no e;e#ption fro# securin+ a #arrcense unless the circu#stances clearl! fall )ithin the a#bit of the e;ception. It should be noted that a license is reuired in ordotif! the public that t)o persons are about to be united in #atri#on! and that an!one )ho is a)are or has 0no)led+e of an! i#pedi

the union of the t)o shall #a0e it 0no)n to the local civil re+istrar.

rticle 465/ of the -ivil -ode provides that a #arria+e sole#ni>ed )ithout a #arria+e license, save #arria+es of e;ceptional charahall be void fro# the be+innin+. Inas#uch as the #arria+e bet)een %ose and in+ officer )as not reuired to investi+ate hether the said affidavit )as le+all! obtained. The Republic opines that as a #arria+e under a license is not invalidated b! the face license )as )ron+full! obtained, so #ust a #arria+e not be invalidated b! the fact that the parties incorporated a fabricated statetheir affidavit that the! cohabited as husband and )ife for at least five !ears. In addition, the Republic posits that the partiesL #ar

ontract states that their #arria+e )as sole#ni>ed under *rticle 79 of the -ivil -ode. It also bears the si+nature of the parties anditnesses, and #ust be considered a pri#ar! evidence of #arria+e. To further fortif! its Petition, the Republic adduces the folloocu#ents@ $/ %oseLs notari>ed State#ent of *ssets and Giabilities, dated $3 Ma! $&44 )herein he )rote


23/42

he first assi+n#ent of error co#pels this -ourt to rule on the issue of the effect of a false affidavit under *rticle 79 of the -ivil -ourve! of the prevailin+ rules is in order.

is be!ond dispute that the #arria+e of %ose and ed )ithout a license first bein+ issued b! the local civil re+istrar ounicipalit! )here either contractin+ part! habituall! resides, save #arria+es of an e;ceptional character authori>ed b! the -ivil -

ut not those under *rticle 78.34 *rticle 465/3& of the -ivil -ode #a0es it clear that a #arria+e perfor#ed )ithout the corresponarria+e license is void, this bein+ nothin+ #ore than the le+iti#ate conseuence flo)in+ fro# the fact that the license is the essene #arria+e contract.56 This is in star0 contrast to the old Marria+e Ga),5$ )hereb! the absence of a #arria+e license did not #a0arria+e void. The rationale for the co#pulsor! character of a #arria+e license under the -ivil -ode is that it is the authorit! +rantee State to the contractin+ parties, after the proper +overn#ent official has inuired into their capacit! to contract #arria+e.53

nder the -ivil -ode, #arria+es of e;ceptional character are covered b! -hapter 3, Title III, co#prisin+ *rticles 73 to 7&. To )it, arria+es are@ $/ #arria+es in articulo #ortis or at the point of death durin+ peace or )ar, 3/ #arria+es in re#ote places, 3/ conarria+es,555/ ratification of #arital cohabitation, '/ reli+ious ratification of a civil #arria+e, 8/ Moha##edan or pa+an #arri

nd 9/ #i;ed #arria+es.5'

he instant case pertains to a ratification of #arital cohabitation under *rticle 79 of the -ivil -ode, )hich provides@

RT. 79. No #arria+e license shall be necessar! )hen a #an and a )o#an )ho have attained the a+e of #a2orit! and )ho, bn#arried, have lived to+ether as husband and )ife for at least five !ears, desire to #arr! each other. The contractin+ parties shall stare+oin+ facts in an affidavit before an! person authori>ed b! la) to ad#inister oaths. The official, priest or #inister )ho sole#ni>earria+e shall also state in an affidavit that he too0 steps to ascertain the a+es and other ualifications of the contractin+ parties and thund no le+al i#pedi#ent to the #arria+e.

he reason for the la),58 as espoused b! the -ode -o##ission, is that the publicit! attendin+ a #arria+e license #a! discoura+eersons )ho have lived in a state of cohabitation fro# le+ali>in+ their status.59

is not contested herein that the #arria+e of %ose and


24/42

Moreover, it is note)orth! that the uestion as to )hether the! satisfied the #ini#u# five"!ear reuisite is factual in nature. * uestict arises )hen there is a need to decide on the truth or falsehood of the alle+ed facts. '9Ender Rule '8, factual findin+s are ordinari

ub2ect to this -ourtLs revie).'7It is alread! )ell"settled that@

he +eneral rule is that the findin+s of facts of the -ourt of *ppeals are bindin+ on this -ourt. * reco+ni>ed e;ception to this rule is e -ourt of *ppeals and the trial court, or in this case the ad#inistrative bod!, #a0e contradictor! findin+s. Ho)ever, the e;ception

ot appl! in ever! instance that the -ourt of *ppeals and the trial court or ad#inistrative bod! disa+ree. The factual findin+s of the -f *ppeals re#ain conclusive on this -ourt if such findin+s are supported b! the record or based on substantial evidence.'4

herefore, the falsit! of the affidavit dated 3' Nove#ber $&49, e;ecuted b! %ose and


25/42


26/42

*nent the -anadian divorce obtained b! Gucia, the trial court cited Ramire- v.Gmr,&)hich held that the court of a counthich neither of the spouses is do#iciled and in )hich one or both spouses #a! resort #erel! for the purpose of obtainin+ a divorceo 2urisdiction to deter#ine the #atri#onial status of the parties. *s such, a divorce +ranted b! said court is not entitled to reco+n!)here. Debun0in+ GucioLs defense of +ood faith in contractin+ the second #arria+e, the trial court stressed that follo)in+ $eoit*,$6ever!one is presu#ed to 0no) the la), and the fact that one does not 0no) that his act constitutes a violation of the la)ot e;e#pt hi# fro# the conseuences thereof.

Seasonabl!, petitioner filed an appeal )ith the -ourt of *ppeals, doc0eted as -*"F.R. -R No. 36766.

Mean)hile, on October 35, $&&7, or )hile -*"F.R. -R No. 36766 )as pendin+ before the appellate court, the trial court rendeecision in -ivil -ase No. 9636 declarin+ the #arria+e bet)een Gucio and Gucia void ab initiosince no #arria+e cere#on! actuall!ace. No appeal )as ta0en fro# this decision, )hich then beca#e final and e;ecutor!.

On October 3$, $&&&, the appellate court decided -*"F.R. -R No. 36766 as follo)s@

BH(R(


27/42

BH(TH(R OR NOT TH( -OERT O< *PP(*GS (RR(D IN


28/42

subseuent #arria+e )ithout first obtainin+ such 2udicial declaration is +uilt! of bi+a#!. This principle applies even if the earlier uncharacteri>ed b! statutes as void.39

It bears stressin+ thou+h that in 3er&a*o, the first #arria+e )as actuall! sole#ni>ed not 2ust once, but t)ice@ first before a 2here a #arria+e certificate )as dul! issued and then a+ain si; #onths later before a priest in reli+ious rites. Ostensibl!, at least, thearria+e appeared to have transpired, althou+h later declared void ab initio.

In the instant case, ho)ever, no #arria+e cere#on! at all )as perfor#ed b! a dul! authori>ed sole#ni>in+ officer. Petitioneucia arrete #erel! si+ned a #arria+e contract on their o)n. The #ere private act of si+nin+ a #arria+e contract bears no se#blancalid #arria+e and thus, needs no 2udicial declaration of nullit!. Such act alone, )ithout #ore, cannot be dee#ed to constitutensibl! valid #arria+e for )hich petitioner #i+ht be held liable for bi+a#! unless he first secures a 2udicial declaration of nullit! b

e contracts a subseuent #arria+e.

The la) abhors an in2ustice and the -ourt is #andated to liberall! construe a penal statute in favor of an accused and )ei+h rcu#stance in favor of the presu#ption of innocence to ensure that 2ustice is done. Ender the circu#stances of the present case, )eat petitioner has not co##itted bi+a#!.


29/42


30/42

he appealed 2ud+#ent did not decree a le+al separation, but freed the plaintiff fro# supportin+ his )ife and to acuire propert! t;clusion of his )ife. It allo)ed the counterclai# of Ma#erto (scao and Mena (scao for #oral and e;e#plar! da#a+es and attores a+ainst the plaintiff"appellant, to the e;tent of P'8,666.66, and plaintiff resorted directl! to this -ourt.

he appellant ascribes, as errors of the trial court, the follo)in+@

$. In not declarin+ le+al separation? in not holdin+ defendant Vicenta ethe Philippines, even thou+h livin+ abroad.

he -ivil -ode of the Philippines, no) in force, does not ad#it absolute divorce, e its restrictive polic! on the #atter, in contrast to the precedin+ le+islation that ad#itted absolute divorounds of adulter! of the )ife or concubina+e of the husband *ct 37$6/. Instead of divorce, the present -ivil -ode onl! providega! separationTitle IV, oo0 $, *rts. &7 to $64/, and, even in that case, it e;pressl! prescribes that :the #arria+e bonds shall nvered: *rt. $69, subpar. $/.

or the Philippine courts to reco+ni>e and +ive reco+nition or effect to a forei+n decree of absolute divorce betiveen ens, to the detri#ent of those #e#bers of our polit! )hose #eans do not per#it th


31/42

2ourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines.

ro# this point of vie), it is irrelevant that appellant Pastor Tenchave> should have appeared in the Nevada divorce court. Pri#ecause the polic! of our la) cannot be nullified b! acts of private parties -ivil -ode,*rt. $7, 2a# uot./? and additionall!, becausere appearance of a non"resident consort cannot confer 2urisdiction )here the court ori+inall! had none *rea vs. %avier, &8 Phil. 87

ro# the precedin+ facts and considerations, there flo)s as a necessar! conseuence that in this 2urisdiction Vicenta (scao1s divorcecond #arria+e are not entitled to reco+nition as valid? for her previous union to plaintiff Tenchave> #ust be declared to be e;isten

ndissolved. It follo)s, li0e)ise, that her refusal to perfor# her )ifel! duties, and her denial of &onsortimand her desertion ousband constitute in la) a )ron+ caused throu+h her fault, for )hich the husband is entitled to the correspondin+ inde#nit! -ivil -rt. 3$79/. Neither an unsubstantiated char+e of deceit nor an anon!#ous letter char+in+ i##oralit! a+ainst the husband const

ontrar! to her clai#, adeuate e;cuse. Bherefore, her #arria+e and cohabitation )ith Russell Geo Moran is technicall! :intercourse

person not her husband: fro# the standpoint of Philippine Ga), and entitles plaintiff"appellant Tenchave> to a decree of :le+al separnder our la), on the basis of adulter!: Revised Penal -ode, *rt. 555/.

he fore+oin+ conclusions as to the unto)ard effect of a #arria+e after an invalid divorce are in accord )ith the previous doctrinelin+s of this court on the sub2ect, particularl! those that )ere rendered under our la)s prior to the approval of the absolute divorc

*ct 37$6 of the Philippine Ge+islature/. *s a #atter of le+al histor!, our statutes did not reco+ni>e divorces a vin&!obefore $&$7, ct 37$6 beca#e effective? and the present -ivil -ode of the Philippines, in disre+ardin+ absolute divorces, in effect #erel! reverte policies on the sub2ect prevailin+ before *ct 37$6. The rulin+s, therefore, under the -ivil -ode of $44&, prior to the *ct abentioned, are no), full! applicable. Of these, the decision inRamire- vs. Gmr, '3 Phil. 488, is of particular interest. Said this -oat case@

*s the divorce +ranted b! the e their relations? and the circu#stance that the! after)ards passed for husband and )S)it>erland until her death is )holl! )ithout le+al si+nificance. The clai#s of the ver! children to participate in the estaSa#uel ishop #ust therefore be re2ected. The ri+ht to inherit is li#ited to le+iti#ate, le+iti#ated and ac0no)led+ed nachildren. The children of adulterous relations are )holl! e;cluded. The )ord :descendants: as used in *rticle &'$ of the -ode cannot be interpreted to include ille+iti#ates born of a*!terosrelations. (#phasis supplied/

;cept for the fact that the successional ri+hts of the children, be+otten fro# Vicenta1s #arria+e to Geo Moran after the invalid divorcot involved in the case at bar, the Gmrcase is authorit! for the proposition that such union is adulterous in this 2urisdictionerefore, 2ustifies an action for le+al separation on the part of the innocent consort of the first #arria+e, that stands undissolv

hilippine la). In not so declarin+, the trial court co##itted error.

rue it is that our rulin+ +ives rise to ano#alous situations )here the status of a person )hether divorced or not/ )ould depend onrritor! )here the uestion arises. *no#alies of this 0ind are not ne) in the Philippines, and the ans)er to the# )as +iven in Barreon-a!es, 84 Phil. 997@

The hardship of the e;istin+ divorce la)s in the Philippine Islands are )ell 0no)n to the #e#bers of the Ge+islature. It is the

of the -ourts to enforce the la)s of divorce as )ritten b! Ge+islature if the! are constitutional. -ourts have no ri+ht to sa!such la)s are too strict or too liberal. p. 73/

he appellant1s first assi+n#ent of error is, therefore, sustained.

o)ever, the plaintiff"appellant1s char+e that his )ife1s parents, Dr. Ma#erto (scao and his )ife, the late Doa Mena (scao, aliee affections of their dau+hter and influenced her conduct to)ard her husband are not supported b! credible evidence. The testi#onastor Tenchave> about the (scao1s ani#osit! to)ard hi# stri0es us to be #erel! con2ecture and e;a++eration, and are belied b! Pa)n letters )ritten before this suit )as be+un (;h. :3"(scao: and :Vicenta,: Rec. on *pp., pp. 376"37'/. In these letters he e;prpolo+i>ed to the defendants for :#is2ud+in+ the#: and for the :+reat unhappiness: caused b! his :i#pulsive blunders: and :sinful pffronter! and audacit!: sic. Plaintiff )as ad#itted to the (scao house to visit and court Vicenta, and the record sho)s nothiove that he )ould not have been accepted to #arr! Vicente had he openl! as0ed for her hand, as +ood #anners and breedin+ de#aven after learnin+ of the clandestine #arria+e, and despite their shoc0 at such une;pected event, the parents of Vicenta propose

ran+ed that the #arria+e be recelebrated in strict confor#it! )ith the canons of their reli+ion upon advice that the previous oneanonicall! defective. If no recelebration of the #arria+e cere#on! )as had it )as not due to defendants Ma#erto (scao and his )ut to the refusal of Vicenta to proceed )ith it. That the spouses (scao did not see0 to co#pel or induce their dau+hter to assent tcelebration but respected her decision, or that the! abided b! her resolve, does not constitute in la) an alienation of affections. Ne

oes the fact that Vicenta1s parents sent her #one! )hile she )as in the Enited States? for it )as natural that the! should not )ish au+hter to live in penur! even if the! did not concur in her decision to divorce Tenchave> 37 *#. %ur. $56"$53/.

here is no evidence that the parents of Vicenta, out of i#proper #otives, aided and abetted her ori+inal suit for annul#ent, oubseuent divorce? she appears to have acted independentl!, and bein+ of a+e, she )as entitled to 2ud+e )hat )as best for her and aser decisions be respected. Her parents, in so doin+, certainl! cannot be char+ed )ith alienation of affections in the absence of #aln)orth! #otives, )hich have not been sho)n, +ood faith bein+ al)a!s presu#ed until the contrar! is proved.

S(-. 83&.Liabi!ity o/ $arents, Gar*ians or Kin. The la) distin+uishes bet)een the ri+ht of a parent to interest hi#self i#arital affairs of his child and the absence of ri+hts in a stran+er to inter#eddle in such affairs. Ho)ever, such distinction bet

the liabilit! of parents and that of stran+ers is onl! in re+ard to )hat )ill 2ustif! interference. * parent isliable for alienatio


32/42

affections resultin+ fro# his o)n #alicious conduct, as )here he )ron+full! entices his son or dau+hter to leave his ospouse, but he is not liable unless he acts #aliciousl!, )ithout 2ustification and fro# un)orth! #otives. He is not liable )heacts and advises his child in +ood faith )ith respect to his child1s #arital relations in the interest of his child as he sees i#arria+e of his child not ter#inatin+ his ri+ht and libert! to interest hi#self in, and be e;tre#el! solicitous for, his child1s )and happiness, even )here his conduct and advice su++est or result in the separation of the spouses or the obtainin+ of a divor annul#ent, or )here he acts under #ista0e or #isinfor#ation, or )here his advice or interference are indiscreet or unfortualthou+h it has been held that the parent is liable for conseuences resultin+ fro# rec0lessness. He #a! in +ood faith ta0child into his ho#e and afford hi# or her protection and support, so lon+ as he has not #aliciousl! enticed his child a)a!, ornot #aliciousl! entice or cause hi# or her to sta! a)a!, fro# his or her spouse. This rule has #ore freuentl! been applied icase of advice +iven to a #arried dau+hter, but it is euall! applicable in the case of advice +iven to a son.

aintiff Tenchave>, in falsel! char+in+ Vicenta1s a+ed parents )ith racial or social discri#ination and )ith havin+ e;erted effortessured her to see0 annul#ent and divorce, unuestionabl! caused the# unrest and an;iet!, entitlin+ the# to recover da#a+es. Bis suit #a! not have been i#pelled b! actual #alice, the char+es )ere certainl! rec0less in the face of the proven factsrcu#stances. -ourt actions are not established for parties to +ive vent to their pre2udices or spleen.

the assess#ent of the #oral da#a+es recoverable b! appellant Pastor Tenchave> fro# defendant Vicente (scao, it is proper to ta0ccount, a+ainst his patentl! unreasonable clai# for a #illion pesos in da#a+es, that a/ the #arria+e )as celebrated in secret, anilure )as not characteri>ed b! publicit! or undue hu#iliation on appellant1s part? b/ that the parties never lived to+ether? and c/ere is evidence that appellant had ori+inall! a+reed to the annul#ent of the #arria+e, althou+h such a pro#ise )as le+all! invalid, b

+ainst public polic! cf. *rt. 44, -iv. -ode/. Bhile appellant is unable to re#arr! under our la), this fact is a conseuence odissoluble character of the union that appellant entered into voluntaril! and )ith open e!es rather than of her divorce and her searria+e. *ll told, )e are of the opinion that appellant should recover P38,666 onl! b! )a! of #oral da#a+es and attorne!1s fees.

Bith re+ard to the P'8,666 da#a+es a)arded to the defendants, Dr. Ma#erto (scao and Mena (scao, b! the court belo), )e opin

e sa#e are e;cessive. Bhile the filin+ of this unfounded suit #ust have )ounded said defendants1 feelin+s and caused the# an;iet!#e could in no )a! have seriousl! in2ured their reputation, or other)ise pre2udiced the#, la)suits havin+ beco#e a co##on occurpresent societ!. Bhat is i#portant, and has been correctl! established in the decision of the court belo), is that said defendants )er

uilt! of an! i#proper conduct in the )hole deplorable affair. This -ourt, therefore, reduces the da#a+es a)arded to P8,666 onl!.

u##in+ up, the -ourt rules@

/ That a forei+n divorce bet)een ens, sou+ht and decreed after the effectivit! of the present -ivil -ode Rep. *ct 54ot entitled to reco+nition as valid in this 2urisdiction? and neither is the #arria+e contracted )ith another part! b! the divorced conubseuentl! to the forei+n decree of divorce, entitled to validit! in the countr!?

/ That the re#arria+e of divorced )ife and her co"habitation )ith a person other than the la)ful husband entitle the latter to a decr+al separation confor#abl! to Philippine la)?

/ That the desertion and securin+ of an invalid divorce decree b! one consort entitles the other to recover da#a+es?

/ That an action for alienation of affections a+ainst the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of #alice or un)ootives on their part.

BH(R(


33/42

EPUB!IC O@ T?E P?I!IPPINES,Petitioner,

.R. No. 15430

" versus "

Present@

Davide, %r., C.J.,

-hair#an/, Auisu#bin+, =nares"Santia+o,

-arpio, and *>cuna,JJ.IPRIANO ORBECIDO III,

Respondent.

Pro#ul+ated@

October 8, 3668

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ;

DECISION

UIU!"I#$, J.:

iven a valid #arria+e bet)een t)o ens, )here one part! is later naturali>ed as a forei+n citi>en and obtains a valid divoecree capacitatin+ hi# or her to re#arr!, can the


34/42

valid #i;ed #arria+e? that is, a #arria+e celebrated bet)een a en and an alien. The proper re#ed!, accordin+ to the O

to file a petition for annul#ent or for le+al separation.#5$


35/42

Br% ?&*orca Bacon *uino si+ned into la) (;ecutive Order No. 36&, other)ise 0no)n as the ed outside the Philippines in accordance )ith the la)s in force in the countr! )here the! )eresole#ni>ed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this countr!, e;cept those prohibited under *rticles 58, 57, and54.

n %ul! $7, $&47, shortl! after the si+nin+ of the ori+inal ed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this countr!, e;cept those prohibited under *rticles58$/, '/, 8/ and 9/, 59, 57 and 54.

W+ere a marriage bet#een a 2i!ipino &iti-en an* a /oreigner is va!i*!y &e!ebrate* an* a *ivor&e is t+erea/ter va!i*!y

obtaine* abroa* by t+e a!ien spose &apa&itating +im or +er to remarry, t+e 2i!ipino spose s+a!! +ave &apa&ity to

remarry n*er $+i!ippine !a#. (#phasis supplied/

n its face, the fore+oin+ provision does not appear to +overn the situation presented b! the case at hand. It see#s to appl! onl! to chere at the ti#e of the celebration of the #arria+e, the parties are a en and a forei+ner. The instant case is one )here at#e the #arria+e )as sole#ni>ed, the parties )ere t)o ens, but later on, the )ife )as naturali>ed as an *#erican citi>en

ubseuentl! obtained a divorce +rantin+ her capacit! to re#arr!, and indeed she re#arried an *#erican citi>en )hile residin+ in the.S.*.

ote)orth!, in the Report of the Public Hearin+s#9$on the


36/42

)e are to +ive #eanin+ to the le+islative intent to avoid the absurd situation )here the enship at t+e time

va!i* *ivor&e is obtaine* abroa*b! the alien spouse capacitatin+ the latter to re#arr!.this case, )hen -iprianoLs )ife )as naturali>ed as an *#erican citi>en, there )as still a valid #arria+e that has been celebrated

et)een her and -ipriano. *s fate )ould have it, the naturali>ed alien )ife subseuentl! obtained a valid divorce capacitatin+ her to#arr!. -learl!, the t)in reuisites for the application of Para+raph 3 of *rticle 39 are both present in this case. Thus -ipriano, the

divorced ed as an *#ericanti>en. Gi0e)ise, before a forei+n divorce decree can be reco+ni>ed b! our o)n courts, the part! pleadin+ it #ust prove the divorce ct and de#onstrate its confor#it! to the forei+n la) allo)in+ it.#14$ Such forei+n la) #ust also be proved as our courts cannot ta0dicial notice of forei+n la)s. Gi0e an! other fact, such la)s #ust be alle+ed and proved.#15$ ed as an *#erican citi>en, had obtainvorce decree and had re#arried an *#erican, that respondent is no) capacitated to re#arr!. Such declaration could onl! be #adeoperl! upon respondentLs sub#ission of the aforecited evidence in his favor.

ACCORDIN!=,the petition b! the Republic of the Philippines is RANTED. The assailed Decision dated Ma! $8, 3663, esolution dated %ul! ', 3663, of the Re+ional Trial -ourt of Molave, Ka#boan+a del Sur, ranch 35, are hereb! SET ASIDE.

o pronounce#ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn15


37/42

.R. No. $557'5


38/42

solution of said #otion.

Mila filed a #otion for inhibition $& a+ainst %ud+e Tensuan on Nove#ber $9, $&&'. On even date, (d+ar also filed a #otioconsideration 36 fro# the Order den!in+ their #otion for reconsideration ar+uin+ that it does not state the facts and la) on )hich i

ased.

n Nove#ber 38, $&&', %ud+e Tensuan issued an Order 3$ +rantin+ the #otion for inhibition. The case )as re"raffled to ranchesided b! %ud+e Paul T. *rcan+el.

n *pril 3', $&&8,33the trial court reuired the parties to sub#it their respective position papers on the t)in issues of venue andapacit! of respondent to file the petition. On Ma! 8, $&&8, (d+ar #anifested 35that he is adoptin+ the ar+u#ents and evidence set

his previous #otion for reconsideration as his position paper. Respondent and Rodolfo filed their position papers on %une $', 3

une 36, 38 $&&8, respectivel!.n Septe#ber $3, $&&8, the trial court dis#issed the petition for letters of ad#inistration. It held that, at the ti#e of his death, , Ga

nd not in Ma0ati -it!. It also ruled that respondent )as )ithout le+al capacit! to file the petition for letters of ad#inistration becausarria+e )ith


39/42

nder Section $,5&Rule 75 of the Rules of -ourt, the petition for letters of ad#inistration of the estate of


40/42

urther, she should not be reuired to perfor# her #arital duties and obli+ations. It held@

o +a(*a(, a& 'ra*% r%&'o()%(* )o%&, *ha*, 8()%r o8r a&, '%**o(%r ha& *o % co(&)%r%) &* +arr%) *o 'ra*% r%&'o(() &* &8%c* *o a %>& oa*o(& 8()%r Ar*c% 109, %*. &%J. o *h% C Co)% ca((o* % 8&*. Petitioner should not be obli+ve to+ether )ith, observe respect and fidelit!, and render support to private respondent. The latter should not continue to be one oeirs )ith possible ri+hts to con2u+al propert!. Sh% &ho8) (o* % )&cr+(a*%) aa(&* ( h%r o( co8(*r: *h% %()& o 8&*c

% &%r%). 8'(#phasis added/

his principle )as thereafter applied in Pilapil v. Iba!"So#era88)here the -ourt reco+ni>ed the validit! of a divorce obtained abroe said case, it )as held that the alien spouse is not a proper part! in filin+ the adulter! suit a+ainst his


41/42

e0in+ the #eanin+ of the la), the first concern of the 2ud+e should be to discover in its provisions the intent of the la)#nuestionabl!, the la) should never be interpreted in such a )a! as to cause in2ustice as this is never )ithin the le+islative intentdispensable part of that intent, in fact, for )e presu#e the +ood #otives of the le+islature, is to ren*er sti&e.

hus, )e interpret and appl! the la) not independentl! of but in consonance )ith 2ustice. Ga) and 2ustice are inseparable, and )e eep the# so. To be sure, there are so#e la)s that, )hile +enerall! valid, #a! see# arbitrar! )hen applied in a particular case becaus peculiar circu#stances. In such a situation, )e are not bound, because onl! of our nature and functions, to appl! the# 2ust the sa#avish obedience to their lan+ua+e. Bhat )e do instead is find a balance bet)een the )ord and the )ill, that 2ustice #a! be done eve la) is obe!ed.

s 2ud+es, )e are not auto#atons. Be do not and #ust not unfeelin+l! appl! the la) as it is )orded, !ieldin+ li0e robots to the lo##and )ithout re+ard to its cause and conseuence. :-ourts are apt to err b! stic0in+ too closel! to the )ords of a la),: so )

arned, b! %ustice Hol#es a+ain, :)here these )ords i#port a polic! that +oes be!ond the#.:; ; ;

More than t)ent! centuries a+o, %ustinian defined 2ustice :as the constant and perpetual )ish to render ever! one his due.: That ontinues to #otivate this -ourt )hen it assesses the facts and the la) in ever! case brou+ht to it for decision. %ustice is al)a!sential in+redient of its decisions. Thus )hen the facts )arrants, )e interpret the la) in a )a! that )ill render 2ustice, presu#in+ thas the intention of the la)#a0er, to be+in )ith, that the la) be dispensed )ith 2ustice. 9&

ppl!in+ the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree alle+edl! obtained b! Merr! Gee )hich absolutel! allo)ed


42/42

ho nonetheless live to+ether as husband and )ife, applies to properties acuired durin+ said cohabitation in proportion to their respeontributions. -o"o)nership )ill onl! be up to the e;tent of the proven actual contribution of #one!, propert! or industr!. *bsent proe e;tent thereof, their contributions and correspondin+ shares shall be presu#ed to be eual.

; ; ;

the cases ofAgapay v. $a!ang, and 0m!os v. 2ernan*e-, )hich involved the issue of co"o)nership of properties acuired b! the pa bi+a#ous #arria+e and an adulterous relationship, respectivel!, )e ruled that proof of actual contribution in the acuisition o

opert! is essential. ; ; ;

s in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the part! )ho, as deter#ined b! the pleadin+s or the nature of the case, asserffir#ative issue. -ontentions #ust be proved b! co#petent evidence and reliance #ust be had on the stren+th of the part!Ls o)n evi

nd not upon the )ea0ness of the opponentLs defense. ; ; ; 4$vie) of the fore+oin+, )e find that respondentLs le+al capacit! to file the sub2ect petition for letters of ad#inistration #a! arise fro

atus as the survivin+ )ife of

Documents

Persons and Family Relations June 10 Assigned Readings