0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
149 Ansichten4 Seiten
doctrines of cases on judicial declaration of presumptive death; family code of the philippines;
Armas vs Calisterio; Republic vs Nolasco; Valdez vs Republic, Republic vs Tango; Republic vs Bermudez-Lorino; Republic vs Granada; Republic vs Cantor
Originaltitel
Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death for Purposes of Remarriage.pdf
doctrines of cases on judicial declaration of presumptive death; family code of the philippines;
Armas vs Calisterio; Republic vs Nolasco; Valdez vs Republic, Republic vs Tango; Republic vs Bermudez-Lorino; Republic vs Granada; Republic vs Cantor
doctrines of cases on judicial declaration of presumptive death; family code of the philippines;
Armas vs Calisterio; Republic vs Nolasco; Valdez vs Republic, Republic vs Tango; Republic vs Bermudez-Lorino; Republic vs Granada; Republic vs Cantor
8.,-.$& 8+2&1 |sistei of 2 nu husbanuj vs. 9&+$*,,& :&'$1,*+$- ; <=>>>? - Responuent contiacteu 2 nu maiiiage with Teouoio Calisteiio, without secuiing a couit ueclaiation that hei 1 st husbanu, who hau been absent anu whose wheieabouts hau been unknown foi 11 yeais, was piesumptively ueau. When Teouoio uieu, his sistei Antonia claimeu that she was the sole heii, consiueiing that the maiiiage between Teouoio anu iesponuent is voiu foi being bigamous. - As to the valiuity of a subsequent maiiiage solemnizeu unuei the Civil Coue (baseu on Ait. 8S, CC) 1) v0IB unless 1 st maiiiage was annulleu oi uissolveu; 2) vALIB if 1 st spouse was absent foi 7 consecutive yeais at the time of the seconu maiiiage without the spouse piesent having news of the absentee being alive; if the absentee, though he has been absent foi less than 7 yeais, is geneially consiueieu as ueau anu believeu to be so by the spouse piesent at the time of contiacting such subsequent maiiiage; if the absentee is piesumeu ueau accoiuing to aiticles S9u anu S91. ("ueemeu valiu until ueclaieu null anu voiu by a competent couit") - Foi the subsequent maiiiage iefeiieu to in the thiee exceptional cases theiein pioviueu, to be helu valiu, the spouse piesent so contiacting the latei maiiiage must have uone so in goou faith. Bau faith impoits a uishonest puipose oi some moial obliquity anu conscious uoing of wiong it paitakes of the natuie of fiauu, a bieach of a known uuty thiough some motive of inteiest oi ill will. The Couit uoes not finu these ciicumstances to be heie extant. - A juuicial ueclaiation of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessaiy as long as the piesciibeu peiiou of absence (7 yeais) is met. Responuent's 2 nu maiiiage, having been contiacteu uuiing the iegime of the Civil Coue, shoulu thus be ueemeu valiu notwithstanuing the absence of a juuicial ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath of the 1 st
husbanu (}ames Bounus). 6*3"@'$% 41 A+*7-+$- B-'&1%- |the seaman with Biitish wifej ; <CDDE? - The iequiiement in Ait. 41 of the FC, that the piesent spouse has a well-founueu belief that the absent spouse is ueau, was not satisfieu. Nolasco's effoits (seaiching foi hei whenevei his ship uockeu in Englanu; senuing hei letteis which weie all ietuineu to him; anu inquiiing fiom theii fiienus iegaiuing hei wheieabouts, which all pioveu fiuitless) to locate his wife was insufficient anu too sketchy to foim a ieasonable oi well-founueu belief that she was alieauy ueau. They only pioveu that his wife chose not to communicate with theii common acquaintances.
8.7*'$,& F&'#*G 41 6*3"@'$% ; <=>>D? - The iequiiement of "well-founueu belief of absent spouse's ueath" pioviueu in Ait. 41 of the FC uoes not apply to maiiiages solemnizeu unuei the Civil Coue. Neithei is a juuicial ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath necessaiy befoie the piesent spouse can contiact a subsequent maiiiage; because the FC cannot be given ietioactive effect insofai as it will impaii vesteu iights. In the piesent case, if the FC will be applieu, it will ultimately iesult to the invaliuation of petitionei's subsequent maiiiage, which was valiu at the time it was celebiateu. What is only iequiieu unuei the CC is that (1) the foimei spouse hau been absent foi 7 consecutive yeais at the time of the seconu maiiiage, (2) that the spouse piesent uoes not know his oi hei foimei spouse to be living, (S) that such foimei spouse is geneially ieputeu to be ueau anu the spouse piesent so believes at the time of the celebiation of the maiiiage. - A juuicial piesumption of ueath, even if final anu executoiy, woulu still be a piima facie piesumption only. It is foi that ieason that it cannot be the subject of a juuicial pionouncement oi ueclaiation, if it is the only question oi mattei involveu in a case, oi upon which a competent couit has to pass. 0nuei the Civil Coue, the piesumption of ueath is establisheu by law anu no couit ueclaiation is neeueu foi the piesumption to aiise. In the piesent case, ueath of the foimei husbanu was piesumeu to have taken place on the 7 th
yeai of absence. 6*3"@'$% 41 H*+4*.,$.- I&.7- ; <=>>D? - Appeal fileu by the Republic is impiopei because unuei Ait. 2SS anu 247 of the FC, actions fileu unuei Ait. 41 (foi the ueclaiation piesumptive ueath) is a summaiy pioceeuing anu the juugment theiein shall be immeuiately final anu executoiy. Thus, no appeal can be hau. The iemeuy is a petition foi ceitioiaii. - Such petition shoulu be fileu in the Couit of Appeals in accoiuance with the Boctiine of Bieiaichy of Couits. To be suie, even if the SC's oiiginal juiisuiction to issue a wiit of ceitioiaii is concuiient with the RTCs anu the Couit of Appeals in ceitain cases, such concuiience uoes not sanction an uniestiicteu fieeuom of choice of couit foium.
6*3"@'$% 41 A'-+$& J*+2"#*GKL-+$.- ; <=>>M? - An appellate couit acquiies no juiisuiction to ieview a juugment which, by expiess piovision of law, is immeuiately final anu executoiy. The iight to appeal is not a natuial iight noi is it a pait of uue piocess, foi it is meiely a statutoiy piivilege. Since, by expiess manuate of Aiticle 247 of the Family Coue, all juugments ienueieu in summaiy juuicial pioceeuings in Family Law (which incluues the piesent action foi ueclaiation foi piesumptive ueath) aie "immeuiately final anu executoiy", the iight to appeal was not gianteu to any of the paities theiein. - Biffeience between having the supposeu appeal uismisseu foi lack of juiisuiction by viitue of the fact that the RTC #*%$1$-. 1-"75, ,- @* &33*&'*# $1 $22*#$&,*'N /$.&' &.# *O*%",-+N, anu the uenial of the appeal foi lack of meiit: In the foimei, the supposeu &33*''** %&. $22*#$&,*'N &1P /-+ ,5* $11"&.%* -/ &. Q.,+N -/ !"#72*., in the RTC, wheieas, in the lattei, the appellant can still iaise the mattei to the SC on petition foi ieview anu the RTC juugment cannot be executeu until the SC makes the final pionouncement. 6*3"@'$% 41 R-'&.#& A+&.&#& ; <=>C=? - A petition foi ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath of an absent spouse foi the puipose of contiacting a subsequent maiiiage unuei Aiticle 41 of the Family Coue is a summaiy pioceeuing as expiessly pioviueu by Ait. 2SS of the FC. Taken togethei, Aiticles 41, 2S8, 247 anu 2SS of the FC pioviue that since a petition foi ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath is a summaiy pioceeuing, the juugment of the couit theiein shall be immeuiately final anu executoiy. It is unappeallable anu thus, the iemeuy is a petition foi ceitioiaii. - Ait. 41 of the Family Coue imposes moie stiingent iequiiements than uoes Aiticle 8S of the Civil Coue. The Civil Coue piovision meiely iequiies eithei that theie be no news that the absentee is still alive; oi that the absentee is geneially consiueieu to be ueau anu is believeu to be so by the spouse piesent, oi is piesumeu ueau unuei Aiticles S9u anu S91 of the Civil Coue. In compaiison, the Family Coue piovision piesciibes a "well-founueu belief" that the absentee is alieauy ueau befoie a petition foi ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath can be gianteu. - The law uoes not uefine what is meant by a well-giounueu belief. Belief is a state of the minu oi conuition piompting the uoing of an oveit act. Neveitheless, the belief of the piesent spouse must be the iesult of piopei anu honest to goouness inquiiies anu effoits to asceitain the wheieabouts of the absent spouse anu whethei the absent spouse is still alive oi is alieauy ueau. Whethei oi not the spouse piesent acteu on a well-founueu belief of ueath of the absent spouse uepenus upon the inquiiies to be uiawn fiom a gieat many ciicumstances occuiiing befoie anu aftei the uisappeaiance of the absent spouse anu the natuie anu extent of the inquiiies maue by piesent spouse. 6*3"@'$% 41 9&+$& H* :&.,-+ ; <=>CE? - Ceitioiaii lies to challenge the uecisions, juugments oi final oiueis of tiial couits in a summaiy pioceeuing foi the ueclaiation of piesumptive ueath unuei the FC. - Beclaiation of piesumptive ueath unuei Ait. 41 of the FC imposes a stiictei stanuaiu than that of Ait. 8S of the Civil Coue. Thus, meie absence of the spouse (even foi such peiiou iequiieu by the law), lack of any news that such absentee is still alive, failuie to communicate oi geneial piesumption of absence unuei the Civil Coue woulu not suffice. This conclusion pioceeus fiom the piemise that Aiticle 41 of the Family Coue places upon the piesent spouse the buiuen of pioving the auuitional anu moie stiingent iequiiement of "well-founueu belief" - The Stiict Stanuaiu Appioach is consistent with the State's policy to piotect anu stiengthen maiiiage. It is also foi the benefit of the piesent spouse, to piotect himhei fiom a ciiminal piosecution of bigamy. 0pon the issuance of the uecision ueclaiing hishei absent spouse piesumptively ueau, the piesent spouse's goou faith in contiacting a seconu maiiiage is effectively establisheu. The uecision of the competent couit constitutes sufficient pioof of hishei goou faith anu hishei ciiminal intent in case of iemaiiiage is effectively negateu.
John Jay Whalen v. Larry Alvey, Detective/st. Matthews Police Department Officer Compton, (First Name Unknown), Jefferson County Jail Corrections Officer John Doe, an Agent of Corrections, Officer-In-Charge of the 7 A.M. To 3 P.M. Shift at Jefferson County Jail St. Matthews Police Department Jefferson County Jail, 47 F.3d 1172, 1st Cir. (1995)