Valino vs. Adriano

G.R.No.182894. April22,2014.*

FE FLORO VALINO, petitioner, vs. ROSARIO D.ADRIANO, FLORANTE D. ADRIANO, RUBEN D.ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA ADRIANO ONGOCO,VICTORIA ADRIANO BAYONA, and LEAHANTONETTED.ADRIANO,respondents.

Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Funerals; It isundeniable that the law simply confines the right and duty to makefuneral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusionof one’s common law partner.—Itisundeniablethatthelawsimply

1

_______________

*ENBANC.

2

2 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Valino vs. Adriano

confines the right and duty tomake funeral arrangements to themembersofthefamilytotheexclusionofone’scommonlawpartner.InTomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Velez,185SCRA425(1990),apetitionforhabeas corpus was filed by the brothers and sisters of the lateVitaliana Vargas against her lover, Tomas Eugenio, Sr., allegingthatthelatterforciblytookherandconfinedherinhisresidence.Itappearing that shealreadydiedofheart failuredue to toxemiaofpregnancy,TomasEugenio,Sr.soughtthedismissalofthepetitionforlackofjurisdictionandclaimedtherighttoburythedeceased,asthecommonlawhusband.

Same; Same; Same; The right and duty to make funeralarrangements, like any other right, will not be considered as havingbeen waived or renounced, except upon clear and satisfactory proofof conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end.—Itis clear that the law gives the right and duty to make funeralarrangementstoRosario,shebeingthesurvivinglegalwifeofAtty.Adriano.Thefactthatshewaslivingseparatelyfromherhusbandand was in the United States when he died has no controllingsignificance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived orrenounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to makearrangements for the funeralofherdeceasedhusband isbaseless.Therightanddutytomakefuneralarrangements,likeanyotherright, will not be considered as having been waived orrenounced, except upon clear and satisfactory proof ofconduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to thatend. While there was disaffection between Atty. Adriano andRosario and their childrenwhen hewas still alive, theCourt also

recognizesthathumancompassion,moreoftenthannot,opensthedoor to mercy and forgiveness once a family member joins hisCreator. Notably, it is an undisputed fact that the respondentswasted no time in making frantic pleas to Valino for the delay ofthe interment for a few days so they could attend the service andview the remains of the deceased. As soon as they came to knowabout Atty. Adriano’s death in the morning of December 19, 1992(December 20, 1992 in the Philippines), the respondentsimmediately contacted Valino and the Arlington Memorial Chapelto express their request, but to no avail.

Same; Same; Same; Considering the ambiguity as to the truewishes of the deceased, it is the law that supplies the presumptionas to his intent. No presumption can be said to have been created in

3

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 3

Valino vs. Adriano

Valino’s favor, solely on account of a longtime relationship withAtty. Adriano.—Valino insists that the expressed wishes of thedeceasedshouldneverthelessprevailpursuanttoArticle307oftheCivilCode.Valino’sowntestimonythatitwasAtty.Adriano’swishto be buried in their family plot is being relied upon heavily. Itshouldbenoted,however,thatotherthanValino’sclaimthatAtty.AdrianowishedtobeburiedattheManilaMemorialPark,nootherevidencewaspresentedtocorroboratesuchclaim.ConsideringthatRosarioequallyclaimsthatAtty.AdrianowishedtobeburiedintheAdriano family plot in Novaliches, it becomes apparent that thesupposedburialwishofAtty.Adrianowasunclearandundefinite.Consideringthisambiguityastothetruewishesofthedeceased,itis the law that supplies the presumption as to his intent. Nopresumption can be said to have been created in Valino’s favor,solelyonaccountofalongtimerelationshipwithAtty.Adriano.

Same; Same; Same; Should there be any doubt as to the trueintent of the deceased, the law favors the legitimate family.—Itcannot be surmised that just because Rosario was unavailable tobury her husbandwhen she died, he had already renounced herright todo so.Verily, in the samevein that the rightandduty tomake funeralarrangementswillnotbeconsideredashavingbeenwaivedorrenounced,therighttodeprivealegitimatespouseofherlegalrighttoburytheremainsofherdeceasedhusbandshouldnotbereadilypresumedtohavebeenexercised,exceptuponclearandsatisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntaryintentofthedeceasedtothatend.Should there be any doubt asto the true intent of the deceased, the law favors thelegitimate family.Here,Rosario’skeenness toexercise therightsandobligationsaccordedtothelegalwifewasevenbolsteredbythefactthatshe was joined by the children in this case.

Same; Same; Same; It is generally recognized that anyinferences as to the wishes of the deceased should be established bysome form of testamentary disposition.—Even assuming, ex gratiaargumenti, that Atty. Adriano truly wished to be buried in theValinofamilyplotattheManilaMemorialPark,theresultremainsthe same. Article 307 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 307. Thefuneralshallbeinaccordancewiththeexpressed wishes of the

deceased.Intheabsenceofsuchexpression,hisreligiousbeliefsoraffiliationshalldeterminethe funeral rites.Incaseofdoubt,theformofthe

4


Valino vs. Adriano

funeral shall be decided upon by the person obliged to makearrangements for the same,after consulting the othermembers ofthe family. From its terms, it is apparent that Article 307 simplyseekstoprescribethe“form of the funeral rites” thatshouldgovernin theburial of thedeceased.As thoroughlyexplainedearlier, therightanddutytomakefuneralarrangementsresideinthepersonsspecifiedinArticle305inrelationtoArticle199oftheFamilyCode.Even if Article 307 were to be interpreted to include the place ofburial among those onwhich the wishes of the deceased shall befollowed, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino (Dr. Tolentino), an eminentauthorityoncivillaw,commentedthatitisgenerally recognizedthat any inferences as to the wishes of the deceased shouldbe established by some form of testamentary disposition.AsArticle 307 itself provides, the wishes of the deceased must beexpressly provided. It cannot be inferred lightly, such as fromthe circumstance thatAtty.Adriano spenthis last remainingdayswithValino. It bears stressing oncemore that other thanValino’sclaim thatAtty.Adrianowished to be buried at theValino familyplot,nootherevidencewaspresentedtocorroborateit.

Same; Same; Same; It is generally recognized that the corpse ofan individual is outside the commerce of man.—It is generallyrecognizedthatthecorpseofanindividualisoutsidethecommerceof man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right ofpossessionoverthecorpseexists,forthepurposeofadecentburial,andfortheexclusionoftheintrusionbythirdpersonswhohavenolegitimateinterestinit.Thisquasipropertyright,arisingoutoftheduty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizesthem to takepossession of thedeadbody forpurposes of burial tohave it remain in its final restingplace,or toeventransfer it toaproperplacewherethememoryofthedeadmayreceivetherespectoftheliving.This is a family right.There canbenodoubt thatpersons having this right may recover the corpse from thirdpersons.

LEONEN, J.,Dissenting Opinion:

Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Funerals; View thatArticle 305 of the Civil Code should only be considered when, first,the deceased left no explicit instructions on how he wishes to beinterred, and second, when none among the deceased’s survivingrelations are willing to make the funeral arrangements and aconflict

5

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 5

Valino vs. Adriano

arises.—I am of the opinion that Article 305 should only beconsideredwhen, first, thedeceased leftnoexplicit instructionsonhowhewishes to be interred, and second, when none among thedeceased’s surviving relations are willing to make the funeralarrangementsandaconflictarises.Inthesesituations,theconflictmustbesettledaccordingtotheorderofpreferencestatedinArticle199. In any other case, it should be the express wishes of thedeceasedwhichshouldtakeprecedence.

Same; Same; Same; View that Article 307 of the Civil Codeshould be interpreted to mean that the right to determine one’sfuneral, including the right to determine how and where one wishesto be buried, remains with the deceased, and it is only in theabsence of his express wishes, or in the absence of his religiousbeliefs and affiliations, or if there is doubt as to his wishes, thatother persons may assume the right to decide the funeralarrangements.—It is theponencia’s opinion that thewishes of thedeceasedcontemplatedinArticle307onlygovernsthe“form of thefuneral”andthatthedutyand,morespecifically,theright tomakearrangementsforthefuneralremainswiththepersonsspecifiedinArticle305inrelationtoArticle199.Itismysubmission,however,that Article 307 should be interpreted to mean that the right todetermineone’s funeral, includingtheright todeterminehow andwhere onewishestobeburied,remainswiththedeceased,anditisonly in theabsenceofhis expresswishes, or in theabsenceofhisreligiousbeliefsandaffiliations,orifthereisdoubtastohiswishes,that other persons may assume the right to decide the funeralarrangements. This right, like other rights pointed out by theponencia,mustnotbeconsideredwaivedorrenouncedexceptuponclear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free andvoluntary intent to that end.There is neither indicationnorhavethere been any allegations that Atty. Adriano did not freely andvoluntarilyrelayhislastwishestohiscommonlawwife,petitionerFe. Atty. Adriano, therefore, did not waivehis right to determinewhere he should be buried, in favor of the persons indicated inArticle305inrelationtoArticle199.

Same; Same; Same; View that part of life is the ability tocontrol how one wishes to be memorialized, and such right shouldremain with the deceased. It is only when the deceased has not leftany express instructions that the right is given to the personsspecified under the law.—Itisunfortunatethattheponenciawouldratherupholdthe

6


Valino vs. Adriano

wishes of his estranged family rather than give the deceased hisfinalrequest.Partoflifeistheabilitytocontrolhowonewishestobememorialized,andsuchrightshouldremainwith thedeceased.It is onlywhen thedeceasedhasnot left any express instructionsthattherightisgiventothepersonsspecifiedunderthelaw.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

Pizarras & Associates Law Officeforpetitioner.

Ching, Mendoza, Quilas and Associates Law Firm forrespondents.

MENDOZA, J.:

Challenged in this petition is the October 2, 2006Decision[1]andtheMay9,2008Resolution[2]oftheCourtofAppeals(CA) inC.A.G.R.CVNo.61613,whichreversedtheOctober 1, 1998 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court,Branch77,QuezonCity(RTC) whichruledthatpetitionerFeFloroValino(Valino)wasentitledtotheremainsofthedecedent.The Facts

Atty.AdrianoAdriano (Atty. Adriano), apartner in thePelaez Adriano and Gregorio Law Office, marriedrespondent Rosario Adriano (Rosario) on November 15,1955. The couple had two (2) sons, Florante and RubenAdriano; three (3) daughters, Rosario, Victoria andMariaTeresa;andone(1)adopteddaughter,LeahAntonette.

_______________

[1]Rollo, pp. 3646; Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas

with Associate Justices Josefina GuevaraSalonga and Apolinario D.Bruselas,Jr.,concurring.

[2]Id.,atp.65.

[3]Id.,atpp.127131.

7

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 7

Valino vs. Adriano

The marriage of Atty. Adriano and Rosario, however,turned sour and they were eventually separatedinfact.Yearslater,Atty.AdrianocourtedValino,oneofhisclients,until they decided to live together as husband and wife.Despite such arrangement, he continued to providefinancial support to Rosario and their children(respondents).

In1992,Atty.Adrianodiedofacuteemphysema.Atthattime,RosariowasintheUnitedStatesspendingChristmaswith her children. As none of the family members wasaround,Valinotookituponherselftoshoulderthefuneraland burial expenses for Atty. Adriano. When Rosariolearned about the death of her husband, she immediatelycalled Valino and requested that she delay the interment fora few days butherrequestwasnotheeded.TheremainsofAtty.AdrianoweretheninterredatthemausoleumofthefamilyofValinoattheManilaMemorialPark.Respondentswerenotabletoattendtheinterment.

ClaimingthattheyweredeprivedofthechancetoviewtheremainsofAtty.AdrianobeforehewasburiedandthathisburialattheManilaMemorialParkwascontrarytohiswishes,respondentscommencedsuitagainstValinopraying

that they be indemnified for actual,moral and exemplarydamagesandattorney’s feesandthattheremainsofAtty.Adrianobeexhumedand transferred to the familyplotattheHolyCrossMemorialCemetery inNovaliches,QuezonCity.

Inherdefense,ValinocounteredthatRosarioandAtty.Adrianohadbeenseparatedformorethantwenty(20)yearsbeforehecourtedher.Valinoclaimedthatthroughoutthetime they were together, he had introduced her to hisfriendsandassociatesashiswife.Althoughtheywerelivingtogether,Valino admitted that he never forgot his obligationto support the respondents. She contended that, unlikeRosario,shetookgoodcareofAtty.Adrianoandpaidforallhis medical expenses when he got seriously ill. She alsoclaimed thatdespiteknowing thatAtty.Adrianowas inacoma and dying, Rosario still left for the United States.AccordingtoValino,it

8


Valino vs. Adriano

wasAtty.Adriano’slastwishthathisremainsbeinterredintheValinofamilymausoleumattheManilaMemorialPark.

Valinofurtherclaimedthatshehadsuffereddamagesasresultofthesuitbroughtbyrespondents.Thus,sheprayedthat she be awarded moral and exemplary damages andattorney’sfees.Decision of the RTC

TheRTCdismissedthecomplaintofrespondentsforlackofmeritaswellasthecounterclaimofValinoafteritfoundthemtohavenotbeensufficientlyproven.

The RTC opined that because Valino lived with Atty.Adrianoforaverylongtime,sheknewverywellthatitwashiswishtobeburiedattheManilaMemorialPark.Takingintoconsiderationthe fact thatRosario left for theUnitedStatesatthetimethathewasfightinghisillness,thetrialcourtconcludedthatRosariodidnotshowloveandcareforhim.ConsideringalsothatitwasValinowhoperformedallthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofawife,theRTCwrotethatitcouldbereasonablypresumedthathewishedtobeburiedintheValinofamilymausoleum.[4]

In disposing of the case, the RTC noted that theexhumationandthetransferofthebodyofAtty.Adrianotothe Adriano family plot at the Holy Cross MemorialCemeteryinNovaliches,QuezonCity,wouldnotserveanyusefulpurposeandsoheshouldbesparedandrespected.[5]Decision of the CA

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTCdecision and directedValino to have the remains of Atty.Adrianoexhumedattheexpenseofrespondents.Itlikewisedirected

_______________

[4]Id.,atpp.129130.

[5]Id.,atp.131.

9

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 9

Valino vs. Adriano

respondents, at their expense, to transfer, transport andintertheremainsofthedecedentinthefamilyplotattheHolyCrossMemorialParkinNovaliches,QuezonCity.

In reaching said determination, theCA explained thatRosario,beingthelegalwife,wasentitledtothecustodyoftheremainsofherdeceasedhusband.CitingArticle305oftheNewCivilCodeinrelationtoArticle199oftheFamilyCode,itwastheconsideredviewoftheappellatecourtthatthelawgavethesurvivingspousenotonlythedutybutalsothe right to make arrangements for the funeral of herhusband.FortheCA,RosariowasstillentitledtosuchrightonthegroundofhersubsistingmarriagewithAtty.Adrianoatthetimeofthelatter’sdeath,notwithstandingtheir30yearseparationinfact.

LiketheRTC,however,theCAdidnotawarddamagesinfavorofrespondentsduetothegoodintentionsshownbyValinoingivingthedeceasedadecentburialwhenthewifeandthefamilywereintheUnitedStates.Allotherclaimsfordamagesweresimilarlydismissed.

The Sole IssueThe lone legal issue in this petition is who between

Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty.Adriano.

The Court’s RulingArticle305oftheCivilCode,inrelationtowhatisnow

Article199[6]oftheFamilyCode,specifiesthepersonswhohavetherightanddutytomakefuneralarrangementsforthedeceased.Thus:

Art. 305. Theduty and theright tomake arrangements forthefuneralofarelativeshallbeinaccor

_______________

[6]FormerlyArticle294(a)oftheNewCivilCode.

10


Valino vs. Adriano

dancewiththeorderestablishedforsupport,underArticle294.Incaseofdescendantsof the samedegree, or ofbrothersandsisters,the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternalshallhaveabetterright.[Emphasessupplied]

Art. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to givesupport,theliabilityshalldevolveuponthefollowingpersonsintheorderhereinprovided:

(1)The spouse;

(2)Thedescendantsinthenearestdegree;

(3)Theascendantsinthenearestdegree;and

(4)Thebrothersandsisters.(294a)[Emphasissupplied]

Further,Article308oftheCivilCodeprovides:

Art. 308. No human remains shall be retained, interred,disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the personsmentionedinArticles294and305.[Emphasessupplied]

In this connection, Section 1103 of the Revised AdministrativeCodeprovides:

Section 1103. Persons charged with the duty of burial.—Theimmediate duty of burying the body of a deceased person,regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shalldevolveuponthepersonshereinbelowspecified:

(a) If the deceased was a marriedman or woman, the duty of the burialshall devolve upon the surviving spouseif he or she possesses sufficient means topay the necessary expenses;

xxxx.[Emphasessupplied]

11

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 11

Valino vs. Adriano

Fromtheaforecitedprovisions,itisundeniablethatthelaw simply confines the right and duty to make funeralarrangementstothemembersofthefamilytotheexclusionof one’s common law partner. In Tomas Eugenio, Sr. v.Velez,[7] a petition for habeas corpus was filed by thebrothersandsistersofthelateVitalianaVargasagainstherlover,TomasEugenio,Sr.,allegingthatthe latter forciblytookherandconfinedherinhisresidence.Itappearingthatshe already died of heart failure due to toxemia ofpregnancy,TomasEugenio,Sr.soughtthedismissalofthepetitionforlackofjurisdictionandclaimedtherighttoburythedeceased,asthecommonlawhusband.

In its decision, the Court resolved that the trial courtcontinued to have jurisdiction over the casenotwithstanding the death of VitalianaVargas. As to theclaimofTomasEugenio,Sr.thatheshouldbeconsidereda“spouse” having the right and duty to make funeralarrangementsforhiscommonlawwife,theCourtruled:

x x x Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize commonlaw marriages. A man and woman not legally married whocohabit for many years as husband and wife, who representthemselvestothepublicashusbandandwife,andwhoarereputedtobehusbandandwife inthecommunitywherethey livemaybeconsidered legallymarried in common law jurisdictions but not inthePhilippines.

Whileitistruethatourlawsdonotjustbrushasidethefactthatsuchrelationshipsarepresentinoursociety,andthattheyproduceacommunityofpropertiesandinterestswhich isgovernedby law,authority exists in case law to the effect that such form of coownershiprequires that themanandwoman living togethermustnotinanywaybeincapacitatedtocontractmarriage.Inanycase,hereinpetitionerhasasubsistingmarriagewithanotherwoman,alegalimpedimentwhichdisquali

_______________

[7]263Phil.1149;185SCRA425(1990).

12


Valino vs. Adriano

fiedhimfromevenlegallymarryingVitaliana.InSantero vs. CFI ofCavite, theCourt, thruMr. JusticeParas, interpretingArt. 188 oftheCivilCode (SupportofSurvivingSpouseandChildrenDuringLiquidationof InventoriedProperty) stated: “Be itnoted,however,thatwith respect to ‘spouse,’ the same must be the legitimate‘spouse’(notcommonlawspouses).”There isaview thatunderArticle332of theRevisedPenalCode,the term “spouse” embraces common law relation for purposes ofexemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling andmaliciousmischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. ThePenalCodearticle,itissaid,makesnodistinctionbetweenacouplewhose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie andanotherwhoarehusbandandwifede facto. But this view cannoteven apply to the facts of the case at bar. We hold that theprovisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to thecontrary as in Article 144, when referring to a “spouse”contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Petitioner visàvisVitalianawasnotalawfullyweddedspousetoher; infact,hewasnot legally capacitated tomarry her in her lifetime.[8] [Emphasessupplied]

Asappliedtothiscase,itisclearthatthelawgivestheright and duty tomake funeral arrangements to Rosario,shebeingthesurvivinglegalwifeofAtty.Adriano.Thefactthatshewaslivingseparatelyfromherhusbandandwasinthe United States when he died has no controllingsignificance. To say thatRosario had, in effect,waived orrenounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty tomakearrangementsforthefuneralofherdeceasedhusbandis baseless. The right and duty to make funeralarrangements, like any other right, will not beconsidered as having been waived or renounced,except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conductindicative of a free and voluntary

_______________

[8]Id.,atpp.11581159;p.435.

13

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 13

Valino vs. Adriano

intent to that end.[9] While there was disaffectionbetweenAtty.AdrianoandRosarioandtheirchildrenwhenhe was still alive, the Court also recognizes that humancompassion,more often thannot, opens thedoor tomercyand forgiveness once a family member joins his Creator.Notably, it is an undisputed fact that the respondentswasted no time in making frantic pleas to Valino for the

delay of the interment for a few days so they could attend theservice and view the remains of the deceased. As soon as theycame to know about Atty. Adriano’s death in the morning ofDecember 19, 1992 (December 20, 1992 in the Philippines),the respondents immediately contacted Valino and theArlington Memorial Chapel to express their request, but tono avail.

Valinoinsiststhattheexpressedwishesofthedeceasedshouldneverthelessprevailpursuant toArticle307of theCivil Code. Valino’s own testimony that it was Atty.Adriano’s wish to be buried in their family plot is beingrelieduponheavily.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatotherthanValino’sclaimthatAtty.Adrianowishedtobeburiedat the Manila Memorial Park, no other evidence waspresented to corroborate such claim. Considering thatRosario equally claims that Atty. Adriano wished to beburiedintheAdrianofamilyplotinNovaliches,itbecomesapparentthatthesupposedburialwishofAtty.Adrianowasunclear and undefinite. Considering this ambiguity as tothetruewishesof thedeceased, it is the lawthatsuppliesthe presumption as to his intent. No presumption can besaidtohavebeencreatedinValino’s

_______________

[9]SeeMarawi Marantao General Hospital, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

402Phil.356,369;349SCRA321,330331(2001).SeealsoThomson v.

Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 761, 778; 298 SCRA 280, 294 (1998);

Gatchalian v. Delim,G.R.No.56487,October21,1991,203SCRA126,

132;Yepes v. Samar Express Transit,123Phil.948,949;17SCRA91,93

(1966); Andres v. The Crown Life Insurance Co., 102 Phil. 919, 924

(1958);Lang v. Acting Provincial Sheriff of Surigao, 93 Phil. 661, 669

(1953);andFernandez v. Sebido,70Phil.151,159(1940).

14


Valino vs. Adriano

favor, solely on account of a longtime relationship withAtty.Adriano.

Moreover, it cannot be surmised that just becauseRosariowasunavailabletoburyherhusbandwhenhedied,shehadalreadyrenouncedherrighttodoso.Verily,inthesame vein that the right and duty to make funeralarrangementswillnotbeconsideredashavingbeenwaivedorrenounced,therighttodeprivealegitimatespouseofherlegal right to bury the remains of her deceased husbandshould not be readily presumed to have been exercised,except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conductindicativeofafreeandvoluntaryintentofthedeceasedtothat end.Should there be any doubt as to the trueintent of the deceased, the law favors the legitimatefamily.Here,Rosario’skeennesstoexercisetherightsandobligationsaccordedtothelegalwifewasevenbolsteredbythe fact that she was joined by the children in thiscase.

Evenassuming,ex gratia argumenti,thatAtty.Adriano

trulywished tobeburied in theValino familyplot at theManilaMemorialPark,theresultremainsthesame.Article307oftheCivilCodeprovides:

Art. 307. The funeral shall be in accordance with theexpressed wishes of the deceased. In the absence of suchexpression, his religious beliefs or affiliation shall determine thefuneral rites. In case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall bedecideduponby thepersonobliged tomakearrangements for thesame,afterconsultingtheothermembersofthefamily.

From its terms, it is apparent that Article 307 simply

seekstoprescribethe“form of the funeral rites” thatshouldgovern in the burial of the deceased. As thoroughlyexplained earlier, the right and duty to make funeralarrangementsresideinthepersonsspecifiedinArticle305inrelationtoArticle199oftheFamilyCode.EvenifArticle307 were to be interpreted to include the place of burialamongthoseonwhichthe

15

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 15

Valino vs. Adriano

wishes of the deceased shall be followed, Dr. Arturo M.Tolentino(Dr. Tolentino),aneminentauthorityoncivillaw,commented that it is generally recognized that anyinferences as to the wishes of the deceased shouldbe established by some form of testamentarydisposition.[10]AsArticle307itselfprovides,thewishesofthe deceased must be expressly provided. It cannot beinferred lightly,suchasfromthecircumstancethatAtty.AdrianospenthislastremainingdayswithValino.Itbearsstressing once more that other than Valino’s claim thatAtty.AdrianowishedtobeburiedattheValinofamilyplot,nootherevidencewaspresentedtocorroborateit.

Atanyrate,itshouldberememberedthatthewishes ofthe decedent with respect to his funeral are notabsolute.AsDr.Tolentinofurtherwrote:

The dispositions or wishes of the deceased in relation to hisfuneral,must not be contrary to law. Theymust not violatethe legal and reglamentary provisions concerning funeralsandthe disposition of the remains,whetherasregardsthetimeandmannerofdisposition,orthe place of burial,ortheceremonytobeobserved.[11][Emphasessupplied]

Inthiscase,thewishesofthedeceasedwithrespecttohisfuneralarelimited by Article 305oftheCivilCodeinrelation to Article 199 of theFamilyCode, and subjectthesametothosechargedwiththerightanddutytomaketheproper

_______________[10] TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, p. 657,

citingSheeban v. Commercial Travelers, 283Mass. 543, 186N.E.627;Lindh v. Great Northern,99Minn.408,109N.W.823;Kyles v.

Southern Ry Co.,147N.C.394,61S.E.278.[11] TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, p. 657,

citingSacred Heart of Jesus v. Soklowski,159Minn.331,199N.W.81;Wilson v. Read,74N.H.322,68Atl.37;Pettigrew v. Pettigrew,20Pa.313,56Atl.878.

16


Valino vs. Adriano

arrangements to bury the remains of their lovedone. Asaptlyexplainedbytheappellatecourtinitsdisquisition:

ThetestimonyofdefendantappelleeFeFloroValinothatitwasthe oralwish of Atty. AdrianoAdriano that he be interred at theFlorofamily’smausoleumattheManilaMemorialPark,mustbendto theprovisions of the law.Evenassumingarguendo that itwasthe express wish of the deceased to be interred at the ManilaMemorialPark,still,thelawgrantsthedutyandtherighttodecidewhat to do with the remains to the wife, in this case, plaintiffappellantRosarioD.Adriano, as the surviving spouse, andnot todefendantappellee Fe Floro Valino, who is not even in the list ofthose legally preferred, despite the fact that her intentions mayhavebeenverycommendable.The lawdoesnotevenconsider theemotional fact that husband andwife had, in this case at bench,beenseparatedinfactandhadbeenlivingapartformorethan30years.[12]

As for Valino’s contention that there is no point inexhumingandtransferringtheremainsofAtty.Adriano,itshouldbesaidthattheburialofhisremainsinaplaceotherthantheAdrianofamilyplotinNovalichesrunscountertothewishesofhisfamily.Itdoesnotonlyviolatetheirrightprovidedby law,but italsodisrespectsthe familybecausetheremainsofthepatriarchareburiedinthefamilyplotofhisliveinpartner.

Itisgenerallyrecognizedthatthecorpseofanindividualis outside the commerce of man. However, the lawrecognizesthatacertainrightofpossessionoverthecorpseexists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for theexclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have nolegitimate interest in it.Thisquasiproperty right, arisingoutofthedutyofthoseobligatedbylawtoburytheirdead,alsoauthorizesthemtotakepossessionofthedeadbodyforpurposesofburialtohave

_______________

[12]Rollo,p.43.

17

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 17

Valino vs. Adriano

itremaininitsfinalrestingplace,ortoeventransferittoaproperplacewherethememoryofthedeadmayreceivethe

respectoftheliving.This is a family right.Therecanbeno doubt that persons having this right may recover thecorpsefromthirdpersons.[13]

All this notwithstanding, the Court finds laudable theacts of Valino in taking care of Atty. Adriano during hisfinal moments and giving him a proper burial. For hersacrifices, it would indeed be unkind to assess actual ormoraldamagesagainsther.AsaptlyexplainedbytheCA:

The trial court found that there was good faith on the part ofdefendantappellee Fe Floro Valino, who, having lived with Atty.Adrianoafterhewasseparated in fact fromhiswife, lovinglyandcaringlytookcareofthewellbeingofAtty.AdrianoAdrianowhilehewasaliveandeventookcareofhisremainswhenhehaddied.

Ontheissueofdamages,plaintiffsappellantsarenotentitledtoactual damages. Defendantappellee Fe Floro Valino had all thegood intentions in giving the remains of Atty. Adriano a decentburialwhenthewifeandfamilywereall intheUnitedStatesandcouldnotattendtohisburial.Actualdamagesarethoseawardedinsatisfactionof,orinrecompensefor,lossorinjurysustained.Toberecoverable, they must not only be capable of proof but mustactually be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. In thiscase at bench, there was no iota of evidence presented to justifyawardofactualdamages.

Plaintiffsappellantsarenotalsoentitledtomoralandexemplarydamages.Moral damagesmay be recovered only if the plaintiff isabletosatisfactorilyprovetheexistenceofthefactualbasisforthedamages and its causal connection with the acts complained ofbecausemoraldamagesalthoughincapableofpecuniaryestimationaredesignednottoimposeapenaltybuttocompen

_______________

13 TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, p. 654, citing 1I

Enneccerus,Kipp&Wolff548fn;1Valverde239240fn.

18


Valino vs. Adriano

sate for injury sustained and actual damages suffered. No injurywas caused to plaintiffsappellants, nor was any intended byanyone in this case.Exemplarydamages, on theotherhand,mayonlybeawarded if claimant isable toestablishhis right tomoral,temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Unfortunately,neitheroftherequirementstosustainanawardforeitherofthesedamages would appear to have been adequately established byplaintiffsappellants.

Asregardstheawardofattorney’sfees,itisanaccepteddoctrinethat the award thereof as an item of damages is the exceptionratherthantherule,andcounsel’sfeesarenottobeawardedeverytimeapartywinsasuit.Thepowerofthecourttoawardattorney’sfees under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code demands factual,legal and equitable justification, without which the award is aconclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left tospeculation and conjecture. In this case, we have searched butfoundnothing inplaintiffsappellants’suit that justifies theawardofattorney’sfees.[14]

Finally, it should be said that controversies as to whoshould make arrangements for the funeral of a deceasedhave oftenaggravated thebereavement of the familyanddisturbed the proper solemnity which should prevail atevery funeral. It is for the purpose of preventing suchcontroversies that the Code Commission saw it best toincludetheprovisionson“Funerals.”[15]

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro,Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez,Reyes and PerlasBernabe, JJ.,concur.

_______________

[14]Id.,atpp.4345.

[15]ReportoftheCodeCommission,p.49.

19

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 19

Valino vs. Adriano

Abad, J.,IjoinJusticeLeonen’sDissent.Leonen, J.,Idissent.SeeSeparateOpinion.

DISSENTINGOPINION

LEONEN, J.:Wewill all die.Butwhatmaymatter tomany ofus is

howweliveandhowourlifeiskeptinthememoriesofthoseweleavebehind.Thiscaseisnotaboutwhetheracommonlaw wife has more rights over the corpse of the husbandthanthelatter’sestrangedlegalspouse.Thiscaseisaboutwhichbetweenthemknowshiswishes.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the ponencia indenyingthispetition.

I vote to set aside the decision of theCourt ofAppealsdated October 2, 2006 in C.A.G.R. CV No. 61613, whichdirects petitioner Fe to have the remains of Atty. LopeAdriano exhumed, and orders respondents to transfer,transport, and inter, at their expense, the remains of thedecedentfromManilaMemorialParktothefamilyplot inHoly CrossMemorial Park in Novaliches, Quezon City. Ivote to sustain the decision datedOctober 1, 1998, of theRegional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 in CivilCaseNo.Q9315288,dismissingrespondents’complaintfordamages.

IdisagreewiththepositionthatinthedeterminationofhowAtty.Adrianoshouldbeburied,“thelawgivestherightand duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, shebeing the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano,”[1] inaccordancewithArticle305[2]oftheCivilCodeinrelationtoArticle199[3]oftheFamilyCode.

[1]Ponencia,p.12.[2] Article 305. The duty and the right to make

arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in

accordancewiththeorder

_______________

[1]Ponencia,p.12.

[2] Article 305. The duty and the right tomake arrangements for

thefuneralofarelativeshallbeinaccordancewiththeorder

20


Valino vs. Adriano

I am of the opinion that Article 305 should only beconsidered when, first, the deceased left no explicitinstructions on howhewishes to be interred, and second,when none among the deceased’s surviving relations arewilling to make the funeral arrangements and a conflictarises. In these situations, the conflict must be settledaccordingtotheorderofpreferencestatedinArticle199.Inany other case, it should be the express wishes of thedeceasedwhichshouldtakeprecedence.

Thisview,infact,isembodiedinArticle307oftheCivilCode,whichstates:

Article 307. The funeral shall be in accordance with theexpressed wishes of the deceased. In the absence of suchexpression, his religious beliefs or affiliation shall determine thefuneral rites. In case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall bedecided upon by the person obliged to make arrangements for thesame, after consulting the other members of the family. (Emphasissupplied)

It is the ponencia’s opinion that the wishes of thedeceasedcontemplatedinArticle307onlygovernsthe“formof the funeral”andthatthedutyand,morespecifically,theright tomake arrangements for the funeral remainswiththe persons specified in Article 305 in relation to Article199.It ismysubmission,however,thatArticle307shouldbeinterpreted

_______________

establishedforsupport,underArticle294.Incaseofdescendantsof

the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be

preferred.Incaseofascendants,thepaternalshallhaveabetterright.

[3]Article 199. Whenever twoormorepersonsareobliged togive

support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the

orderhereinprovided:

(1) Thespouse;

(2) Thedescendantsinthenearestdegree;

(3) Theascendantsinthenearestdegree;and

(4) Thebrothersandsisters.(294a)

21

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 21

Valino vs. Adriano

tomeanthattherighttodetermineone’sfuneral,includingthe right to determine how and where one wishes to beburied, remains with the deceased, and it is only in theabsence of his express wishes, or in the absence of hisreligiousbeliefsandaffiliations,orifthereisdoubtastohiswishes,thatotherpersonsmayassumetherighttodecidethefuneralarrangements.

This right, like other rights pointed out by theponencia,[4] must not be considered waived or renouncedexcept upon clear and satisfactory proof of conductindicativeofafreeandvoluntaryintenttothatend.Thereis neither indication nor have there been any allegationsthatAtty.Adrianodidnotfreelyandvoluntarilyrelayhislast wishes to his commonlaw wife, petitioner Fe. Atty.Adriano, therefore, did not waive his right to determinewhereheshouldbeburied,infavorofthepersonsindicatedinArticle305inrelationtoArticle199.

Accordingly, it was improper to cite in the ponenciaTomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Judge Velez.[5] InEugenio, TomasEugenio,Sr.claimedtherighttoburyhiscommonlawwife,arguing that he should be considered a “spouse” underArticle305inrelationtoArticle199.Theassertionledthiscourt to expound on the interpretation of Article 305 inrelationtoArticle199andconcludethat:

x x x. Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common lawmarriages.Amanandwomannot legallymarriedwhocohabit formanyyearsashusbandandwife,whorepresentthemselvestothepublic as husband andwife, andwho are reputed to be husbandand wife in the community where they live may be consideredlegally “married” in common law jurisdictions but not in thePhilippines.

Whileitistruethatourlawsdonotjustbrushasidethefactthatsuchrelationshipsarepresentinour

_______________

[4]Ponencia,pp.1213.

[5]263Phil.1149;185SCRA425(1990)[PerJ.Padilla,EnBanc].

22


Valino vs. Adriano

society, and that they produce a community of properties andinterestswhich isgovernedby law,authority exists in case law totheeffectthatsuchformofcoownershiprequiresthatthemanandwoman living together must not in any way be incapacitated tocontractmarriage. In any case, herein petitioner has a subsistingmarriage with another woman, a legal impediment whichdisqualified him from even legallymarryingVitaliana. InSanterovs. CFI of Cavite, the Court, thruMr. Justice Paras, interpretingArt. 188 of the Civil Code (Support of Surviving Spouse andChildrenDuringLiquidationofInventoriedProperty)stated:“Beitnotedhowever thatwith respect to ‘spouse’, the samemustbe thelegitimate‘spouse’(notcommonlawspouses…).”

ThereisaviewthatunderArticle332oftheRevisedPenalCode,the term “spouse” embraces common law relation for purposes ofexemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and

malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses. ThePenalCodearticle,itissaid,makesnodistinctionbetweenacouplewhose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie andanotherwhoarehusbandandwifede facto. But this view cannoteven apply to the facts of the case at bar. We hold that theprovisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to thecontraryasinArticle144,whenreferringtoa“spouse”contemplatea lawfullywedded spouse. Petitionervisavis Vitalianawasnot alawfullywedded spouse to her; in fact, he was not legallycapacitatedtomarryherinherlifetime.[6]

In thepresentcase,petitionerFehasnotassertedthat

shebeconsidereda“spouse”underArticle305inrelationtoArticle 199 with the right and the duty to make funeralarrangements for Atty. Adriano.What she asserts is thatshewasAtty.Adriano’sconstantcompanionforalongtimewhowasconstantlybyhisside,showinghimthe loveanddevotionasawifewouldhave,whotookcareofhiminhisfinalmoments

_______________

[6]Id.,atpp.11591160;p.435.Seealso ponencia,pp.1112.

23

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 23

Valino vs. Adriano

and gave him a proper burial. As such, there is apresumptionthatshewouldbeinthebestpositiontorelayhisfinalwishes.

The trial court in its decision dated October 1, 1998reachedthesameconclusion,thus:

Atty. Lope Adriano’s wish was established at the trialandshown in the following testimonyof thedefendant, towit:

“ATTY.PIZARRAS:Madamwitness,what was the wish of Atty.Lope Adriano regarding his burial?

WITNESS:He wanted to be buried at ManilaMemorial.

Q:Whydoyousaythat?A:Wehavediscusseditlongbefore.Q:Whendidyoufirstdiscussthis?A: The first time we went toManila

Memorial.Hewantedthathislawntypelotbeupgradedtoestatetype.Hedoesn’twantthatpeoplewillsteponhisgrave.

Q:Whathappenedtothisrequestifhislawntypelottobeupgradedtoestatetype?

A: It did not take long. I had itupgraded.” (TSN, May 7, 1997, pp. 45;underscoringsupplied)

Thiscrucialfactremainedunrefuted.Moreover,consideringthevery,verylongtimethatthe

defendant and the deceased lived like husband and wifeprior tohisdeath, it canbe reasonablyassumed that it isthedefendantwhoreallyknowsthewishesofthedeceased.AnditappearsthatitwastheexpresswishofthedeceasedthathebeinterredattheManilaMemorialPark.[7]

_______________

[7]Rollo,p.129.

24


Valino vs. Adriano

Theponenciaalsonotedtherewas “animosity”betweenAtty.Adrianoandrespondentswhenhewasstillalive.Heand his legal spouse, respondent Rosario, have beenseparatedinfactformorethanthirty(30)years,andhehasnotbeenincontactwithhischildren,theotherrespondents,forabout thesameperiodof time.Theydidnotevenvisithimwhenhe fell ill andwasonhisdeathbed; itwasonlyafter he died that they came, asserting their rights to hisremains.

Itisunfortunatethattheponenciawouldratherupholdthe wishes of his estranged family rather than give thedeceasedhisfinalrequest.Partoflifeistheabilitytocontrolhowonewishestobememorialized,andsuchrightshouldremainwiththedeceased.Itisonlywhenthedeceasedhasnot leftanyexpress instructions that theright isgiven tothepersonsspecifiedunderthelaw.

Given the circumstances, the remains of Atty. AdrianoshouldremainintheFlorofamilymausoleumattheManilaMemorialPark.

Thelawreachesintomuchofourliveswhilewelive.Itconstitutesandframesmostofouractions.Butatthesametime, the lawalsograntsus theautonomyor thespace todefinewhoweare.Uponourdeath,thelawdoesnotceasetorespectourearnedautonomy.Rather,itgivesspaceforustospeakthroughtheagencyofshewhomayhavesatatourbedsideaswesufferedthroughalingeringillness.

I am of the view that it is that love and caringwhichshould be rewarded with the honor of putting us in thatplacewherewemarkourphysicalpresenceforthelasttimeandwherewewillbeeternallyremembered.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition should be GRANTED.The decision of theCourt ofAppeals inC.A.G.R.CVNo.61613, reversing the October 1, 1998 decision of theRegional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, must beSET ASIDE.

Petition denied.

25

VOL.723,APRIL22,2014 25

Valino vs. Adriano

Note.—InBuena Obra v. SSS (401 SCRA 206 [2003]),theSupremeCourt,speakingthroughthenAssociate,nowChiefJusticePuno,heldthattheclaimforfuneralbenefitsunderP.D.No.626,asamended,whichwasfiledafterthelapseof10yearsbythethereinpetitionerwhohadearlierfiledaclaimfordeathbenefits,hadnot prescribed.(Mesa vs.Social Security System, 584SCRA 183[2009])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Valino vs. Adriano

Documents

Transcript of Valino vs. Adriano