2008 Updates in Family Law
-
Upload
angelica-sendaydiego-ventayen -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of 2008 Updates in Family Law
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
1/117
SURVEY OF THE RECENT
LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCEIN FAMILY LAWS
BY:
ALEX L. MONTECLAR
Dean
College of Law
University of San Carlos
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
2/117
RECENT LAWS AND SC RULES
WITH SALIENT FEATURES
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
3/117
R.A. 9255
An Act AllowingIllegitimate Children to
Use the Surname of
their Father, amendingArticle 176 of the Family
Code
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
4/117
Remember that
It allows illegitimate children to usethe surname of their fatherprovided their filiation has beenexpressly recognized through thefollowing documents:
Record of Birth in the Civil Registrar
Admission in Public Documents
Admission in Private Handwritten
Instruments
It amends Article 176 of the FamilyCode and sets aside the SC ruling inMossesgeld vs. CA.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
5/117
R.A. 9262
An Act Defining Violence Against Women
and Children, Providing Protective
Measures for Victims
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
6/117
It says that.
Violence must be AGAINST the Wife, ex-
Wife, a Woman with Whom the Person has
Sexual Relationship, their children, etc.
Specific on Acts Resulting to Physical,
Sexual, Psychological Harm, or Economic
Abuse, INCLUDING threats thereof.
Jurisdiction is with RTC designated as the
Family Court.
Protection Order is issued for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence againstwomen or child. It may be issued by the
Barangay Captain (BPO) or the Court
(TPO) or (PPO)
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
7/117
Protection Order shall prohibit respondent
from harming or communicating with the
petitioner. It may include removal fromthe residence of the petitioner and staying
away from the residence, school, and place
of employment of the petitioner at specified
distance.
Respondent may be ordered to Support the
Petitioner. An appropriate percentage of
the income or salary of the respondent maybe withheld by the Court and
AUTOMATICALLY remitted to the
victim.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
8/117
PPO may be filed by
Offended Party
Parents or guardians of the offended party
DSWD
Police Officers
Punong Barangay
Lawyer, counsel, therapist
At least 2 concerned responsible citizens.
Violence Against Women and Children is a Public
Crime.
In cases of Legal Separation, where violence is
alleged as a ground, Art. 58 of the FC shall not
apply.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
9/117
Victims Who Are Found to Be Suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome do not
incur criminal or civil liability even in theabsence of any element of self defense.
Victim shall be entitled to custody and
support.
Barangay Captain or the Court hearing the
Application for Protection Order should not
Attempt to force or unduly Influence
Petitioner to Compromise or Abandon herClaim.
Victim is entitled to Paid Leave of Absence
up to Ten Days in Addition to Other Paid
Leaves under the Labor Code
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
10/117
A.M. 02-11-10-SC
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
11/117
ONLY the Husband and the Wife can file aPetition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity.
In case of Voidable Marriages, the action may be
filed by the parties or their parents or guardiansdepending upon the grounds.
A petition must be verified and signed
PERSONALLY by the petitioner.Copy of the Petition MUST BE SERVED to theSol. Gen and Office of the Prosecutor WITHINFIVE (5) DAYS from filing and submit proof of
compliance.
I t says that:
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
12/117
No Motion to Dismiss except on the Ground ofLack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter orover a person shall be allowed.
Pre-trial is Mandatory
Trial must be done PERSONALLY by the Judge
Decision must state that the Decree of Nullity or
Annulment shall be issued ONLY afterCOMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLES 50 and 52.
NO appeal unless a Motion for Reconsideration orNew Trial was filed.
I t fur ther says that:
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
13/117
Liquidation, Partition, and Distribution, custody,support of common children, and the Delivery of
Presumptive Legitime shall Take Place AFTERENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
It is the DUTY OF THE PREVAILING PARTY to
CAUSE THE REGISTRATION of the DECREEof Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage.
I t f inal ly says that:
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
14/117
A.M. NO. 02-11-11-SC
RULE ON LEGAL SEPARATION
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
15/117
It says that:
Petition may be DENIED or DISMISSED if any ofthe GROUNDS stated in Art. 56 FC is present.
Donations made by innocent spouse in favorof the Offending Spouse may be Revoked.In case of RECONCILIATION, the Spouses shallFile a JOINT MANIFESTATION under OATH with
the court.The FORMER property regime may be
REVIVED or a NEW ONE may be adopted.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
16/117
A.M. 02-11-12 SC
RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
17/117
It says that. This Rule Refers to the Provisional Orders issued by the court
during the PENDENCY of the case for Declaration of Nullity ofMarriage, Annulment of Marriage, and Legal Separation.
The provisional Orders may refer to Spousal Support, ChildSupport, Visitation Rights, Hold Departure Order, and Order ofProtection.
These provisional orders may be issued by the court motu propioor upon application under oath by any party with or without a
bond.
Hold Departure Order may be issued by the Court motu proprio
or upon application under oath to prevent the departure of thechild of the parties during the pendency of the case.
Order of Protection may be issued by the Court to prevent a partyfrom Harassing or Intimidating the other party or child, or to stayaway from the other party.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
18/117
A.M. 02-11-12 SC
RULE ON PROVISIONAL ORDER
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
19/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
20/117
It says that..
It can be filed by any person whohave rightful custody of the minor.
Motion to Dismiss is NOT allowed.
Answer must be VERIFIED and filedwithin FIVE days from RECEIPT Ofsummons.
After Answer or Expiration of the
Period, the Court may Require aSocial Worker to CONDUCT a studyof the Child and the Parties andSubmit Report.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
21/117
It further says that..
Pre-trial is MANDATORY. During
the Pre-trial the case may be referred
to MEDIATION.
After Answer, the court may award
PROVISIONAL ORDER awarding
custody of the child. Doing so, the
court shall consider the BESTINTEREST OF THE CHILD.
HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER may
be issued MOTU PROPIO
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
22/117
It finally says that..
The Court may Issue Protection Order.
Judgment may award custody of the child to
EITHER PARENTS or TO OTHER PERSON, if
both are unfit.
NO APPEAL shall be allowed unless the appellantfiled a MOTION FOR RECON or NEW TRIAL
within 15 DAYS from notice of judgment.
APPEAL is by Notice of Appeal.
Petition for Habeas Corpus involving CUSTODYOF MINOR must be FILED in the FAMILY
COURT. The WRIT will be ENFORCEABLE
ONLY in the JUDICIAL REGION to which the
FAMILY COURT belongs.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
23/117
UPDATES IN JURISPRUDENCE
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
24/117
MARRIAGE
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
25/117
Silverio vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, Oct.
22, 2007) Sex reassignment or sex change
does not make a man into awoman.
The sex of a person is determinedat the time of birth. There is yet nolaw legally recognizing sex
reassignment, thus, thedetermination of a persons sex atthe time of his birth, if not attendedby error, is immutable.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
26/117
Morigo vs. People (G.R. No. 145226, Feb.
6, 2004)
Absence of marriage
ceremony renders the
marriage null and void
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
27/117
Sevilla vs. Cardenas
(G.R. 167684, July 31, 2006) No marriage license certification
issued by the Local Civil
Registrar must categorically
state that the document does not
exist in his office or that it could
not be found in the register
despite diligent search.
Marriage license
xxxx xxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
28/117
Alcantara vs. Alcantara
(G.R. No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007) Absence of marriage
license renders the
marriage void. The
absence must be
apparent on the
marriage contract.
Marriage license
xxxx xxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
xxxxxx
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
29/117
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals.
(505 SCRA, Oct. 27, 2006) A threat from NPA on petitioner to marry
respondent is not so overwhelming as to
deprive him of the will to entervoluntarily the marriage thus, it is not
sufficient to annul the marriage .
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
30/117
Abunado vs. People (G.R. No. 159218,
March 30, 2004) Annulment of marriage is not a
prejudicial question to bigamy case.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
31/117
Duncan vs. Glaxo (G.R. No. 162994, Sept.
17, 2004) Marriage prohibition in employment
contract is valid as it is reasonable under
the circumstance because relationship ofemployees of competing companies may
prejudice the interest of the company.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
32/117
Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol
(G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006) The company policy provides that no
employee of the company can marry each
other. The company policy is an invalidexercise of management prerogative for
the failure of the employer to present any
evidence of business necessity of the no-
spouse employment policy. Absence ofsuch a bona fide occupational
qualification renders the policy invalid.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
33/117
Alvarez vs. Ramirez
(G.R. No. 143439, Oct. 14, 2005) Marital disqualification rule does not
apply if the relationship of the spouses is
already so strained that there is no moreharmony to be preserved nor peace and
tranquility which may be disturbed.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
34/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
35/117
Delgado Vda. De la Rosa vs. Heirs of
Damian (January 27, 2006)
Absence of marriage certificate in the
civil registry does not conclusively prove
that there was no marriage. If a man and
woman have lived together as husband
and wife for a long period they are
presumed to have entered into a lawful
contract of marriage. Marriage contract
is not the only evidence of marriage as itcan also be proven by other documents
especially if they have already been
living together as husband and wife.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
36/117
De Castro vs. De Castro
(G.R. No. 160172, Feb. 13, 2008) The validity of a void marriage may be
collaterally attacked. Thus, even in action
for Support, the court may pass upon thevalidity of the marriage so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
37/117
Ancheta vs. Ancheta
(G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004) In cases of Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage and Annulment of Mariage, no
declaration of default can be issued bythe court despite the failure of the
defendant to file answer.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
38/117
Lam vs. Chua
(G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004) The court cannot grant the nullity of
marriage on the basis of evidences
presented but not alleged in thecomplaint. However, since the defendant
did not question it, then he is now
estopped to question it.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
39/117
Tribiana vs. Tribiana
(G.R. No.137359, Sept. 13, 2004) The condition precedent under Art. 151
of the Family Code that in a suit between
members of the same family, there mustbe an allegation of earnest effort to
compromise, is deemed complied with
when the parties have passed through the
barangay level for conciliation as shownby the certification issued by the
barangay.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
40/117
ARTICLE 26
OF THE FAMILY CODE
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
41/117
Republic vs. Orbecido III
(G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005) A Filipino spouse who acquired a foreign
nationality and thereafter divorced the
other spouse capacitates the latter to alsoremarry.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
42/117
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
(Art. 36 F.C.)
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
43/117
Dedel vs. C.A.
(G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004) Personality disorder, sexual infidelity
or perversion and abandonment do not
constitute psychological incapacity.Likewise, trial court has no jurisdiction to
dissolve church marriage.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
44/117
Tenebro vs. C.A.
(G.R. No. 150758, Feb. 18, 2004) Judicial declaration of nullity of the
second marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity is not a defensein the bigamy case
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
45/117
Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano
(G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004) Art. 36 applies to mixed marriage. There
is no difference between a Filipino
spouse and an alien spouse in so far aspsychological incapacity is concerned.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
46/117
Corpus vs. Ochotorena
(A.M. RTJ 04-1861, July 30, 2004) No collusion report of the Public
Prosecutor is a condition sine qua non for
further proceedings to go on indeclaration of nullity of marriage cases.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
47/117
Carating-Siayungco vs. Siayungco (G.R.
No. 158896, Oct. 29, 2004) Irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities do not
constitute psychological incapacity. An
unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and
void marriage. Burden of proof to show
nullity belongs to the plaintiff.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
48/117
Tenorio vs. Tenorio (G.R.No. 138490,
November 24, 2004) Failure to furnish a copy of the Formal
Offer of Exhibits to the OSG and the
Prosecutor is fatal to the petition. The
belated furnishing of the offer may cause
the dismissal of the case. However, the
case may be refilled as the dismissal is
not on the merit but on technicality, thus,res judicata will not set in.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
49/117
Buenaventura vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 127358,
March 31, 2005) Award of Moral Damages in Art. 36
cases is not proper.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
50/117
Republic vs. Iyoy
(G.R. No. 152577, Sept. 21, 2005) The fact that the wife has already
abandoned the husband, obtained a
divorce against him in the U.S., and
married an American, is no justification
to file a declaration of nullity of marriage
under Art. 36. Psychological Incapacity
must be manifested before the marriage,it must be grave, and incurable.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
51/117
Gonzales vs. Gonzales (478 SCRA 327,
Dec. 16, 2005) A marriage declared void on the ground
of psychological incapacity is governed
by co-ownership under Art. 147 F.C.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
52/117
Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, March
10, 2006) The findings of psychiatrist and clinical
psychologist that the wife is a
pathological liar coupled with the
decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal of
the Archdiocese of Manila annulling the
marriage on the ground of the parties lack
of due discretion is sufficient to establishpsychological incapacity of the wife
under Article 36 of the Family Code .
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
53/117
Republic vs. Melgar
(G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006) While an actual, medical, psychiatric, or
psychological examination is not a
condition sine qua non to a finding of
psychological incapacity, an expert
witness would have strengthened her
claim. Petitioners failure to present one
is fatal to her case.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
54/117
Peres-Ferrarin vs. Ferrarin
(G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006) Respondents leaving the house attitude
whenever the spouses quarelled, violent
tendencies during epileptic attacks,
abandonment and lack of support, and hispreference to spend more time with his
bandmates than his family, were not rooted on
some incapacitating psychological condition but
a mere refusal to assume the essential maritalobligations. There is no evidence that the
defects were incurable and already present at the
inception of the marriage.
lli l (
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
55/117
Mallion vs. Alcantara (G.R. No. 141528,
October 31, 2006)
Husband filed a case of Declaration of Nullity ofMarriage because of psychological incapacityagainst his wife. The court dismissed it for lackof merit. Later on, he filed again a case ofdeclaration of nullity but this time on the ground
of lack of valid marriage license. The RTCdismissed it on the ground of res judicata. TheS.C. affirmed the dismissal because although thetwo cases are based of different grounds, theyare of the same cause of action, which is to
declare the marriage void. Moreover, whenplaintiff filed the first case, he should haveincluded therein all possible grounds (lack ofvalid license), otherwise, they are deemedwaived.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
56/117
Paras vs. Paras
(G.R. No. 147824, Aug 2, 2007) Infidelity, not providing support, dissipating her
business, forging her signature, and being
remiss in his duties as a husband and a father are
not psychological incapacity per se. Even if allthe allegation in the complaint are true, such
traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to
become an ideal husband and father. There is no
proof of juridical antecedence and incurabilitywhich are two of the essential requisites of
psychological incapacity.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
57/117
DECLARATION OF
PRESUMPTIVE DEATH
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
58/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
59/117
Manuel vs. People (G.R. No. 165842, Nov.
29, 2005) The fact that the wife has been absent for
21 years does not create a presumption of
death to justify the husband to marry
again, thus, he can be charged for bigamy
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
60/117
Republic vs. C.A.
(477 SCRA 276, December 9, 2005) Presumptive death must be anchored on
well founded belief that the spouse must
have already been dead. The present
spouse must exert every deligent effort to
locate the absent spouse and must present
convincing proof to warrant the
presumption of death.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
61/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
62/117
LEGAL SEPARATION
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
63/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
64/117
PROPERTY RELATIONS
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
65/117
Vilaranda vs. Villaranda (G.R. No. 153447,
Feb. 23, 2004) Without the wifes consent, the
husbands alienation or encumbrance of
conjugal property prior to the effectivity
of the Family Code is not void, but
merely voidable.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
66/117
Joaquino vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 154645, July
13, 2004) Property relation of people living together
without marriage or under a void marriage is
governed by co-ownerships under Art. 147 or
Art. 148. If they have no impediment to marryeach other then they are governed by Art. 147,
otherwise, Art. 148 will apply. Art. 148
requires actual contribution. Registration of
property under the name of the paramour is
tantamount to a donation which is not allowed
under Art. 84 F.C., and so a constructive trust
under Art. 1456 C.C. is created in favor of the
legal wife
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
67/117
Abalos vs. Macatangay
(G.R. No. 155043, Sept. 30, 2004) Disposition or encumbrance of a conjugal
property requires authority of the court or
a WRITTEN consent of the other spouse,
otherwise, it is null and void
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
68/117
Ching vs. C.A.
(G.R. No. 124642, Feb. 23, 2004) All properties acquired during marriage
is presumed to be conjugal and it cannot
be made to answer for the loan obligation
of the husband in the absence of proof
that the obligation redounded to the
benefit of the family.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
69/117
Villanueva vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 143286,
April 14, 2004) Presumption of conjugality of property
acquired during the marriage. The
contention of a concubine that Art. 148
will apply is misplaced as there is no
proof of her actual contribution. The fact
that some properties were placed in the
name of the concubine is of no moment.She failed to prove that these properties
were bought with her exclusive money.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
70/117
Francisco vs. Master Iron Works &
Construction (G.R. No. 151967, Feb. 16,
2005)
In a bigamous marriage, the property
relation of the parties shall be governed
by co-ownership under Art. 148 of theFamily Code. Co-ownership applies only
when there is actual contribution from
both parties.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
71/117
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs.
Dailo (G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005) Mortgage on conjugal property executed
by the husband without the wifes
consent is void. It is not only the share of
the non consenting spouse that is void,
but the entire encumbrance itself
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
72/117
Pelayo vs. Perez (G.R. No. 141323, June 8,
2005) Under Art. 166 of the Civil Code, lack of
consent of one spouse to the sale of
conjugal properties by the other spouse
does not automatically make the
disposition null and void. The contract is
merely voidable at the instance of the
wife.The wifes consent does not alwayshave to be express as it may be implied.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
73/117
Vda de Ramones vs. Agbayani (G.R. No.
137808, Sept. 20, 2005) Same as the Pelayo vs. Peres ruling.
Failure to nullify the sale within 10 years
(Art. 166 and173 C.C.) makes the sale
valid. The action of the wife to annul the
sale has already prescribed.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
74/117
Pintiano-Anno vs. Anno
(G.R. No. 163743, Jan. 27, 2006) For presumption of conjugality to apply,
the one invoking it must first prove that
the subject property was acquired during
the marriage. Failure to prove will mean
that the property is not conjugal
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
75/117
Go vs. Yamane
(G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006) Mere registration of the property in the
name of the wife does not destroy its
conjugal nature. It cannot be made to
answer for the personal obligation of the
wife unless it redounded to the benefit of
the partnership
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
76/117
Bautista vs. Silva
(502 SCRA 334, Sept. 19, 2006) Sale of conjugal property by the husband
without the consent of the wife is null
and void. The nullity is not only as to the
share of the wife but of the entire
property. The buyer here cannot be
considered a buyer in good faith.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
77/117
Ferrer vs. Ferrer
(G.R. No. 166496, November 9, 2006) Improvements made on the exclusive property
of the husband using the conjugal funds is
governed by Article 120 F.C. Ownership of both
the land and improvement belong to the ownerof the property that cost more. In the case at
bar, the land appear to be more valuable than the
improvement, so the property becomes
exclusive property of the husband, subject to
reimbursement of the cost of improvement to
the conjugal partnership.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
78/117
Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro (G.R.
No. 168698, Nov. 29, 2006) Proof of actual contribution is required
for Article 148 of the Family Code to
apply. If the man who claims to be the
source of the money used to buy the
property fails to prove his actual
contribution then he is not entitled to a
share. Article 148 is intended to fill upthe hiatus in Art. 144 of the Civil Code
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
79/117
Carandang vs. Heirs of Quirino De Guzman
(G.R. No. 160347, Nov. 29, 2006) Obligation entered into by the husband
and wife are chargeable against the
conjugal partnership. The spouses will
be solidarily liable.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
80/117
SBTC vs. Mar Tierra Corp.
(G.R. No. 143382, Nov. 29, 2006) When the husband acted as guarantor or
surety for the loan of another, he does not
act for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership as the benefit is clearly
intended for a third party. Thus, creditor
cannot attach the conjugal house and lot.
He has the burden of proving thatconjugal partnership is benefited from the
transaction.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
81/117
MBTC vs. Tan
(G.R. No. 163712, November 30, 2006) The bank foreclosed the 4 parcels of land
mortgaged by the (H) husband. One of the 4titles is registered in the name of H married toW. The wife questioned the foreclosure on that
land which she claimed to be conjugal. The court ruled that the words married to W is
merely descriptive of the civil status of H, and itis not proof that such property is conjugal. The
presumption under Article 116 of the Family
Code cannot apply without proof that theacquisition was during the marriage. Proof ofacquisition is a condition sine qua non for theoperation of the presumption in favor ofconjugal ownership.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
82/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
83/117
FAMILY HOME
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
84/117
Gomez vs. Sta. Ines
(G.R. No. 132537, Oct. 14, 2005) Family home is not exempted for debts
incurred prior to the constitution of the
family home.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
85/117
Versola vs. C.A.
(G.R. No. 164740, July 31, 2006) The right to exemption is a personal
privilege granted to debtor and should
be claimed and proven by him before the
public auction. The S.C. ruled in favor
of the respondents due to failure of the
petitioner to prove that the house and lot
was their family home.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
86/117
Patricio vs. Dario III
(G.R. No. 170829, Nov. 20, 2006) Grandchild living with his parents in the
house of his grandmother is not
considered a minor beneficiary of the
said grandmother under Art. 159 F.C. So,
partition of the house can be effected
even if the said minor is still living in
said house.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
87/117
SUPPORT
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
88/117
Lam vs. Chua (G.R. No. 131286, March 18,
2004) Judgment for support does not become
final. It is always subject to
modification, depending upon the need of
the child and the capabilities of the
parents to give support. RES
JUDICATA will not apply here.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
89/117
Zaguirre vs. Castillo (A.C. No. 4921, Aug.
3, 2005) Support should be claimed in court. It
should not be raised as an ancilliary issue
in a disbarment case against the lawyer
father.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
90/117
Mangonon vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 125041, June
30, 2006) An action for support filed by the
legitimate children (twins) against their
father and grandfather will prosper.
Since the father was found to have no
means to provide support, then, the
grandfather of the twins would be liable.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
91/117
Lacson vs. Lacson (G.R. No. 150644,
August 28, 2006) Husbands contention that he should not
be made to pay support in arrears, since
no previous extrajudicial nor judicial
demands have been made by respondents
wife and children is untenable because of
the note of commitment to support given
by him before he left them. That note ofcommitment renders the requisite
demand unnecessary
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
92/117
PATERNITY AND FILIATION
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
93/117
Potenciano vs. Reynoso
(G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003) Filiation may be established by a
holographic as well as notarial wills, but
there is no need for it to be probated for
purposes of establishing filiation.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
94/117
Arbolario vs. Court of Appeals (G.R.No.
129163, April 22, 2003) Paternity and Filiation, or the lack of it, is
a relationship that must be judicially
established. Mere cohabitation of the
husband with another woman will not
give rise to a presumption of legitimacy
in favor of the children born of the
second marriage.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
95/117
Rivero vs. Court of Appeals ( G.R. No.
141273, May 17, 2005) Civil status of a person cannot be a
subject of a compromise agreement.. As
such, paternity and filiation, or the lack
of the same, is a relationship that must be
judicially established, and it is for the
court to determine its existence or
absence.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
96/117
Arnel Agustin vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005) The alleged father of an illegitimate child
can be compelled to submit himself to
DNA testing in action for support. It does
not violate the right of a person against
self-incrimination as the kernel of the
right is not against all compulsion but
against testimonial confession.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
97/117
Rosendo Herrera vs. Alba (G.R. No.
148220, June 15, 2005) DNA test is now accepted as a valid probative
tool in this jurisdiction to determination. In
assessing its probative value, courts should
consider among others, the following date: 1.)how the samples were collected, 2.) how they
were handled, 3.) the possibility of
contamination of samples, 4.) the procedures
followed in analyzing the samples, 5.) whether
or not the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and 6.)
qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
98/117
Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005) The status and filiation of a child cannot
be compromised. Art. 164 of the Family
Code provides that a child who is
conceived or born during the marriage of
his parents is legitimate. Considering that
Jose is not the child of Gerardo, the latter
has no visitorial right to speak of.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
99/117
Angeles vs. Maglaya (G.R. No. 153798,
Sept. 2, 2005) A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore,
implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the
element of a lawful union and there is strictly no
legitimate filiation to speak of. In this case, thereis absolutely no proof of marriage between
Francisco and Genoveva, the alleged parents of
petitioner. No marriage certificate or marriage
contract was offered in evidence. No
solemnizing officer was called to the witness
stand.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
100/117
Estate of Ong vs. Diaz (G.R. No. 171713,
Dec. 17, 2007) In a case for recognition and support
where the alleged father denied his
filiation, the court may order DNA
testing even after the death of the alleged
father.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
101/117
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
ANDCUSTODY OF MINORS
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
102/117
Briones vs. Miguel
(G.R. No. 156343, Oct. 18, 2004) Parental authority of an illegitimate child
is vested with the mother. The
recognition of the child by the father
could be a ground for ordering the latter
to give support but not the custody of the
child
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
103/117
Tan vs. Adre (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, Jan.
31, 2005) The custody of the child below 7 yrs. of
age in the mother is provisional and does
not preclude the husband to prove
compelling reasons why the mother
should be deprived of such custody
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
104/117
Gualberto vs. Gualberto (G.R.No. 154994,
June 28, 2005) Under Article 213 of the Family Code no child
under seven years of age shall be separated from
the mother, unless there are compelling reasons
to provide otherwise. The fact that the mother ofthe child is a Lesbian is not a valid reason.
Not even the fact that the mother is a prostitute
or an unfaithful wife is sufficient. To deprive the
wife of custody, the husband must clearly
establish that her moral lapses have had an
adverse effect on the welfare of the child or
have distracted the offending spouse from
exercising proper parental care.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
105/117
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
106/117
Hirsch vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 174485, July 11, 2007) The grant of joint custody of the child by
the Court of Appeals is an abuse ofdiscretion. In all question regarding the
care and custody of the child, his/herwelfare is the paramount consideration.The so-called tender- age presumptionunder Art. 213 may be overcome only by
compelling reason or evidence of themothers unfitness. Here, the mother wasnot shown to be unfit, thus sole custodyis awarded to her.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
107/117
Madrinan vs. Madrinan (G.R. No. 159374,
July 12, 2007) The Court of Appeals have the
jurisdiction to entertain a Petition for
Habeas Corpus in relation to Custody of
Minors cases. R.A. 8369 did not divest
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court of their jurisdiction over habeas
corpus cases involving custody of
minors. The jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals was further affirmed by A.M.
03-03-04-SC.
il f l
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
108/117
Wilson Sy vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 124518, Dec. 27, 2007) In a case for Habeas Corpus in relation to
custody of minors, the grant of support
even if it was not prayed for in the
complaint was declared valid as the
petitioner did not object to it when it was
raised during the trial of the case. He is
now estopped to question it as he is
deemed to have impliedly consented to it.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
109/117
CHANGE OF NAME
In re Petition for Change of Name of Julian
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
110/117
Lin Carulasan Wong (G.R. No. 159966,
March 30, 2005) A petition to drop the middle name of a
person in his birth certificate for
convenience is not allowed. A state has
an interest in the name of a person and itcannot be changed except on grounds
provided for by law.
C il D l (G R N 140305 D
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
111/117
Cerila vs. Delantar (G.R. No. 140305, Dec.
9, 2005) Annulment and cancellation of birth
certificate. A person whose birth
certificate is sought to be cancelled must
be impleaded and notified as a party,otherwise, judgment is void. The
proceeding is adversarial and not
summary.
R bli C li Kh
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
112/117
Republic vs. Carlito Kho
(G.R. No.170340, June 29, 2007) Changes in the birth certificate that
pertains to citizenship and civil status are
substantial that warrants adversarial
proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rulesof Court. Respondent have complied with
the requirement under the law,thus, the
grant of the petition by the trial court is
proper.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
113/117
ADOPTION
In the Matter of Adoption of Stephanie
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
114/117
p p
Nathy Astorga Garcia (G.R. No. 148311,
March 31, 2005)
An illegitimate child adopted by his own
father may use the surname of her mother
as her middle name.
L di i R bli
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
115/117
Landigin vs. Republic
(G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006) Adoption must be with the consent of the
surviving parent even if she is already
living abroad. Furthermore, the adopter
must also have the financial capacity toadopt which is wanting in this case.
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
116/117
Alb C A (G R N 164041 J l 29
-
8/11/2019 2008 Updates in Family Law
117/117
Alba vs. C.A. (G.R. No. 164041, July 29,
2005) Illegitimate children must bear the
surname of the mother except when
recognized by the father (R.A. 9255)